As readers of the EDA website will know, campaign groups throughout the country have created a united Community Voice on Planning organisation (CoVoP). Our Formby branch will take part in in a discussion on Greenbelt and housing, in this weekend’s BBC Politics Show on Sunday morning. Details here: http://www.fragoff.co.uk/
Information on CoVoP at this link: http://www.covop.org/
Recent debate in Westminster Hall on town centres and supermarkets differing views of a constituency MP and the Planning Minister:
John Pugh Lib Dem Southport (where Sainsbury’s wants to build an out of town supermarket by demolishing one of their Homebase stores but is refusing to consider an in-town site formerly occupied by a Morrisons store):
… When applying for … permission, supermarkets go armed with persuasive, expert consultants, planners and researchers and can offer a view of the whole retail environment that the council hearing the application cannot really judge for itself, because planning departments are, by and large, severely under resourced. The lack of resources is due to local authority cuts, but planning departments have never been particularly well resourced and are often short of independent data, which costs money. They are also unable to face up to the costs of refusal, leading to an expensive appeal process. Planning departments across the land are hurrying to get housing figures in place, but they are not doing much work, number-crunching or thinking about the retail environments that they often strive to protect.
… Ultimately, planning departments are also vulnerable to what I was going to call “bribery”, although I do not want to use that word because individual bribery is not involved. However, a supermarket wanting to get its way, whatever the effect on the town centre, will normally present its case by suggesting that, due to some attractive agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, something that the council wants, such as a traffic development, can be delivered as part and parcel of a new development. On one side is the threat of an expensive appeal and on the other is the bribe that granting permission may lead to some benefit that the council may not be able to accommodate through its own resources. That is generally what the monitoring of such developments shows..
… The onus is on local town planners and councils to have a positive view of where their town is going, which aligns with what is commercially viable. … To some extent, the problem for councils at the moment is that they are concerned—and the Minister is pleased about this—about finding forward-looking plans apropos housing, but are sometimes leaving retail and the commercial community to sort themselves out. They will not do so to everybody’s satisfaction.
Response by Nick Boles, Planning Minister
… I am firmly of the view that supermarkets have been a powerful force for social and economic good in this country for the past 50 years. I am firmly of the view that people on modest incomes around the country, in his constituency of Southport and in mine of Grantham and Stamford, have the opportunity to buy a range of quality food and other items that were unaffordable or unavailable to all but the very rich when I was growing up, and probably when my hon. Friend was growing up.
Full debate here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140624/halltext/140624h0002.htm#14062434000002
Sir Andrew Motion points out the irreparable damage resulting from the current National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), in an article published today: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/26/fields-england-postwar-countryside-englishness
Many will recall rhe furore when the National Planning Policy Framework was initially drawn up by a group of builders and developers, the majority of them 3 out of 4) large donors to the Tory Party. Now the Institute for Government has issued a report on the background to this project, and what a sleazy business it apoears to uncover.
Here are a few snippets from their report:
… But there is increasing interest in different approaches to policy making from both ministers and from the leadership of the Civil Service. The Civil Service Reform Plan published in mid-June states that “open policy making will become the default. Whitehall does not have a monopoly on policy-making expertise. We will establish a clear model of open policy making…” …
… DCLG had been planning before the election how to address the manifesto commitment to produce a new planning framework. They had set up a programme board, and had produced a 500-page draft before the election. …
In parallel to establishing the practitioners’ advisory group, but without mentioning it, Greg Clark announced the review of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 20 December 2010. He asked for views and set a deadline for the end of February:
The group was only acknowledged in March 2011. Its ad hoc establishment meant it could not be given official status. However people in the know in Whitehall and beyond were aware that there was an exercise in train which added to the awkwardness. The lack of official status meant that DCLG emphasised to external bodies that the department was drafting the new NPPF.
They were not given a formal terms of reference by the minister – indeed they were asked to produce their own.
PAG members told us that the process was much more time-consuming than they expected. None of them were paid for their work, so there was a clear bias in favour of those for whom this could be part of their day job.
One outsider told us that he was unclear whether the PAG thought their remit was simply to précis existing guidance or to make new policy. And indeed there seemed to be continuing confusion over whether the NPPF was simply a restatement of existing guidance in more usable form or a real change in policy. The PAG themselves report heated debates over:
the presumption in favour of sustainable development
issues such as flood protection – a big issue in Gary Porter’s home county of Lincolnshire,
but where the environmental view held sway
the viability of building
whether there should be local or national standards for sustainability
And there is MUCH more …
To read the full report – on which we will report further:
Click to access opening_up%20policy%20making_final.pdf
…
The selection of the four (on the NPPF Panel) was very ad hoc. The participants appeared to be very surprised to be asked and did not really understand the reasons for their selection. They were each invited for a chat about planning with Greg Clark at which they were invited to take part. There was no hint of using Nolan processes for public appointments and no formal announcement of the establishment of the PAG. The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) pointed out that the informality and secrecy of the process meant that none of the normal sounding-out of interested parties happened.
Probably even less in East Devon where most developers recently appear to have been let off their affordable obligations.
Just in case you haven’t seen it, officers and councillors here is the latest government paper on how to calculate 5 year land supply. We wouldn’t want to get it wrong again would we?
http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=sn03741
In a seven page decision paper dated 11 June, the Planning Inspector dismissed the Badger Close appeal against planning refusal for an indicative 46 houses in Newton Poppleford. This is welcome news coming hard on the heels of our report that Newton Poppleford faces yet another new planning application.
The Inspector’s decision paper presents important, and in places complicated, arguments which EDA experts have tried to simplify.
The main issues were: (a) whether the appeal site represented a sustainable location for the proposed development; and (b) the effect of the proposal on the area’s character and appearance, bearing in mind the site’s location in the East Devon AONB and, more specifically, have the exceptional circumstances for granting permission for major developments in AONBs been demonstrated?
Does the appeal site represent a sustainable location?
The Inspector concluded that the appeal site did not represent a sustainable location for the proposed development. The crunch argument turned on access to the village centre. The Inspector noted that the poor quality of the pedestrian linkages between the appeal site and the village’s main services and facilities represented a serious failing.
Character and Appearance – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
Since the proposed development would be approximately 5% of the size of the existing settlement, the Inspector concluded that in the context of the village, and in the light of the scheme’s visibility from a main approach road, it would be a significant addition. Under these circumstances (NPPF para 116) major development should only be granted in AONBs in exceptional circumstances.
The Inspector considered that the appeal scheme would result in a substantial adverse impact in the short, medium and long term in respect of a number of viewpoints. The first of these viewpoints is of particular significance, as it relates to an important approach into the village. As such, he concluded that the area’s character and appearance would be unacceptably harmed, to the detriment of the natural beauty of the AONB.
Nature Conservation
The appeal site lies within 700m of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths. EDA has already drawn attention to the fact that these sites are so special that EDDC has a legal duty to ensure no adverse effects occur from increased recreational demand as a result of new developments.
http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/05/08/the-pebblebed-heath-who-cares/
Natural England continued to object to the proposal on the grounds of uncertainty about the likely delivery of a mechanism to avoid adverse effects on the integrity of these sites.
EDDC, however, claimed that progress had been made in one important mitigation strategy: the identification of suitable alternative natural greenspaces for public access. EDDC claimed that specific sites had now been identified and a delivery officer would be appointed. Provision for a contribution to the estimated £20M total cost of mitigation [something akin to a 106 agreement] had also been agreed by the developer. [In EDA’s report referenced above we pointed out that in 2013 EDDC had granted planning permission on a site previously identified as a suitable alternative greenspace – so when are we going to be told where these sites are?].
Overall Conclusion
The appeal scheme represents a major development in an AONB and within the NPPF planning permission should therefore be refused except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that the scheme is in the public interest. The Inspector noted the development’s contributions to meeting general and affordable housing needs would represent positive benefits. However, the AONB does not extend over the whole of East Devon District and, as such, there are likely to be opportunities to meet District-wide needs in locations that do not adversely affect the AONB.
A strategy broadly along these lines is proposed in the replacement Local Plan (the New East Devon Local Plan), which has recently been subject to examination. However, given the interim findings of the [Local Plan] Inspector, little weight can be attached to the housing targets contained in that document. Furthermore, concerns were raised by the [Local Plan] Inspector regarding the Council’s assessment of the ability of small towns and villages to accommodate growth.
Nevertheless, bearing in mind, first, that it is an underlying principle of the NPPF that patterns of growth should be actively managed to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable and, second, that the NPPF attaches great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, the Inspector considered that his conclusions on the two main issues in this appeal were sufficient to overcome the advantages that would result in respect of the provision of general and affordable housing. The exceptional circumstances that are required by the NPPF for granting permission within an AONB have not therefore been demonstrated.
This is an all too rare example of AONB protection being upheld.
Footnote
Along the line EDDC, in defending its decision to refuse permission for Badger Close, had argued that Newton Poppleford lacks employment opportunities, giving rise to the necessity to commute to work. It considered that the village should only accommodate a limited scale of development, as defined by its built-up area boundary, on economic sustainability grounds.
Previously, in recommending granting outline planning permission to Clinton Devon Estates for the King Alfred Way development, which involves a similar number of houses, EDDC had argued differently. In this case EDDC noted the potential for new jobs to be created, both through construction work and through the increased numbers of residents in Newton Poppleford supporting local businesses! [At this point EDA feel it appropriate to point out that this argument could be used to claim all developments of this scale were economically sustainable].
Eric Pickles has said that large solar farms and wind farms are not to his liking but has said nothing about the “small” ones referred to below:
Threat looms over everyone’s back yard – a cri de coeur fromCrediton.
Letter to the Editor, The Independent, 16 June:
We live under the shadow of a massive wind turbine application, overlooking rural hamlets that have been there for 1,000 years, with more than 50 listed buildings.
I can understand why some people would consider these things unimportant; that is a matter of opinion. However, when one looks at how the Government has established the planning rules for these constructions, the principle is very clear. These turbines can be put up anywhere unless “there is a very good reason not to”. Usually local people object, and in some cases the local councils refuse permission. The turbine developer then appeals to the Government, which usually agrees that there is no very good reason not to and permission is granted.
My belief is that when the question of forcing through wind turbine applications was first suggested, some bright politician said: “If we force this through, how many people will it really upset?” The answer came back “Well, they are all out in the country, spread out, probably throughout the UK about 50,000 very unhappy people”. So the bright politician responded: “Oh is that all? Well, if they all vote against us in a general election, it will make no difference to the result. Those people do not matter.”
Julian Pratt Crediton, Devon
Our reader responds:
The problem, Julian, is that most of us live in a safe constituency (Crediton is in the Central Devon constituency with a Conservative majority of 9230 or 52% of the vote). In safe constituencies, of whatever political colour, the voters are taken for granted. If the majority stay blindly loyal (as they tend to), their views on “minor” things such as building wind turbines in sensitive places, or development in AONB’s etc., can be safely ignored. (Other voters’ views can be disregarded anyway). The only way to be heard is to turn safe constituencies into unsafe ones or find a candidate who will put the interests of his or her electorate above those of career advancement within the party.As you say: “Those people do not matter”.
http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/more-pain-for-struggling-planning.html
If this well-respected planning lawyer thinks we are in a mess, we probably are!
And the post gives a definitive answer to how long the maximum time is to process planning applucations and it isn’t eight weeks – the reason the EDDC DMC has used several times recently (including some for former EDBF members with big developments).
Development in Sustainable Locations?
The NPPF has emphasised the need for meeting a five-year housing supply. However the RTPI considers that a single-minded focus on one short-term criterion may be at risk of placing the country in difficulty over the long-term horizon and in the context of the sustainable planning for places the NPPF aspires to. To give one example the district of East Devon has promoted, along with government support (both past and present) the construction of a new town at Cranbrook east of Exeter. This settlement attracted thousands of objections but nevertheless the council pushed ahead in the knowledge that a planned new town close to road and rail communications and with its own infrastructure is a preferable planning outcome to the proliferation of small scale village extensions. Nevertheless any housing built after 5 years cannot count towards the 5-year supply despite the fact that the settlement will take longer than that to be completed. By contrast our housing policy paper [6]argues that in cases where large-scale housing is being promoted demonstrably and effectively, exceptions to the 5-year land supply rule should be allowed.
315 WORKING people a day being forced into housing benefit by soaring rents,
more info from this link:
Hurrah! Guess he doesn’t come across them much …..
Er, couldn’t he just use the law. Why offer carrots when what may be needed is big stick?
Developer: should I build on a brownfield site and sell my houses for £250,000 each and take 3 months per home to sell them or should I build on greenfield or AONB and sell them for £500,000 each and sell them immediately?
If the “incentive ” is less than £250,000 per house in those circumstances, why bother?
Oral evidence began yesterday. The summary is HERE.
An interesting submission is from the District Councils Network HERE which gives a flavour of the difficulties local authorities are finding themselves in. The same applies to town and parish councils with the submission of the National Association of Local Councils HERE.
What is saddening is that DCN and NALC seem to have a much better grasp of the situation than EDDC.
East Devon Watch 