Developer free-for-all: you ain’t seen nothing yet!

Hook Norton, Oxfordshire, Cotswolds, 4.5 miles from PMs Chipping Norton home. population around 2,000.

Local plan – tick
Five year land supply – tick
Neighbourhood plan – tick

Local council gets a planning application for 54 houses over and above local plan and neighbourhood plan, next to a dairy. Council says NO – it’s not in our approved Local Plan, not in our approved Neighbourhood Plan and too close to the cows: smelly and insects.

End of development – right?

WRONG!

Developer goes to appeal – planning inspector finds in their favour. Sent to Secretary of State – he agrees.

“In the secretary of state’s view, development of the whole appeal site would not necessarily conflict with [the neighbourhood plan], providing construction were to proceed incrementally in the form of three or more separate phases, each of no more than 20 dwellings built at say five year intervals. In view of this, the secretary of state considers that the degree of conflict between the proposal and [the neighbourhood plan] is limited and he finds no evidence that any significant material harm would ensue if this”, the letter said.

Overall, the letter said that Clark considered that the benefits of the development “would clearly outweigh the harm in terms of the limited conflict with the [neighbourhood plan] and the slight adverse effect on future occupiers as a result of odours generated by the adjacent Redlands Dairy Farm. He therefore concludes that the material circumstances in this case indicate that the appeal should be allowed and outline planning permission granted.”

RESULT: forget your Local Plan, forget your Neighbourhood Plan, forget your 5 year land supply – if a developer wants to build 54 houses next to pong and insects, that’s fine.

So, NPPF, Local Plans, Neighbourhood Plans, five year land supply can ALL be over-ridden by a developer, planning inspector and the Secretary of State.

It is to be hoped that there will be a judicial review – otherwise we might as well all rip up all three documents and leave the developers to it – we will have no planning rights at all.

More changes to planning policies: will they ever get it right?

10 things you need to know about this week’s consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), including proposals to amend the planning policy definition of affordable housing, plans to require higher density development around commuter hubs, and a new presumption in favour of brownfield housing development.

1. Sanctions for under-delivering on housing targets mooted
Local planning authorities that fail to deliver the homes set out in their local plans could be required to identify ‘additional sustainable sites’, which could include new settlements, according to the consultation. It sets out further details on the operation of the housing delivery test announced in last month’s Spending Review. It says that the government proposes to amend planning policy to make clear that where significant under-delivery is identified over a sustained period, action needs to be taken to address this. “One approach could be to identify additional sustainable sites if the existing approach is demonstrably not delivering the housing required,” the consultation says. MORE.

2. Affordable housing definition broadened
The government proposes to amend the national planning policy definition of affordable housing “so that it encompasses a fuller range of products that can support people to access home ownership. We propose that the definition will continue to include a range of affordable products for rent and for ownership for households whose needs are not met by the market, but without being unnecessarily constrained by the parameters of products that have been used in the past which risk stifling innovation”. MORE.

3. Councils told to plan for needs of those who aspire to home ownership
The consultation says that the government proposes to make clearer in policy the requirement to plan for the housing needs of “those who aspire to home ownership alongside those whose needs are best met through rented homes, subject as now to the overall viability of individual sites”.

4. Push for higher densities around commuter hubs
The consultation proposes a change to national planning policy “that would expect local planning authorities, in both plan-making and in taking planning decisions, to require higher density development around commuter hubs wherever feasible”.

5. Fresh policy backing for new settlements
The government proposes to strengthen national planning policy to “provide a more supportive approach for new settlements, within locally-led plans. We consider that local planning authorities should take a proactive approach to planning for new settlements where they can meet the sustainable development objectives of national policy, including taking account of the need to provide an adequate supply of new homes”.

6. A presumption in favour of brownfield housing development
The consultation says that the government will “make clearer in national policy that substantial weight should be given to the benefits of using brownfield land for housing (in effective, a form of ‘presumption’ in favour of brownfield land). We propose to make it clear that development proposals for housing on brownfield sites should be supported, unless overriding conflicts with the local plan or the National Planning Policy Framework can be demonstrated and cannot be mitigated”. MORE.

7. Call for release of unviable employment land
The government intends to amend paragraph 22 of the NPPF “to make clear that unviable or underused employment land should be released unless there is significant and compelling evidence to justify why such land should be retained for employment use”.

8. Scope of Starter Homes initiative widened further
The scope of the current exception site policy for Starter Homes could be widened to incorporate other forms of unviable or underused brownfield land, “such as land which was previously in use for retail, leisure and non-residential institutional uses (such as former health and educational sites)”, according to the consultation document.

9. Neighbourhood planners to identify green belt Starter Home sites
The government proposes to amend national planning policy so that neighbourhood plans can allocate appropriate small-scale sites in the green belt specifically for Starter Homes, with neighbourhood areas having the discretion to determine the scope of a small-scale site.

10. Green belt brownfield policy test faces revision
The consultation says that the government proposes to amend the current policy test in paragraph 89 of the NPPF that prevents development of brownfield land where there is any additional impact on the openness of the green belt to “give more flexibility and enable suitable, sensitively designed redevelopment to come forward”

The consultation closes on 25 January 2016.

Consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy is available here.

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1376060/nppf-consultation-10-things-need-know

“Government planning reforms threaten to ‘destroy’ urban/rural boundaries”


“Boundaries preventing the spread of development across the South West countryside could be “destroyed” by proposed changes to national planning policy, campaigners have warned.

Members of the Campaign to protect Rural England (CPRE) claim the Government’s reforms would open up land around towns and villages to a “flood” of new planning applications.

They also argue they would make it harder for rural communities to push for the prioritisation of brownfield sites, while undermining local control over the wider planing process.

The criticisms from the campaign group come in response to a new Government consultation on plans to reform to the National Planning Policy Framework. The aim of the changes is to boost house building – thereby addressing the UK’s growing housing crisis – by simplifying and speeding up the planning process.

Policies outlined in the document include increasing development around so-called “commuter hubs”, creating up-to-date registers of brownfield sites for new housing, and freeing up “unviable” commercial land for discount starter homes. Ministers say these proposals will encourage the delivery of high quality new homes “that the country needs”.

However, some measures, including plans to loosen restrictions for development on Green Belt sites, have come under fire from conservation groups. And the CPRE has warned that even areas like Devon and Cornwall, which do not have Green Belts, will still be affected by reforms.

One policy in particular suggests that more consideration could be given to applications for small developments “adjacent” to settlement boundaries, which act as a dividing line between urban and non-urban areas. Matt Thomson, CPRE head of planning, said this could signal the end of clear cut barriers to the development of greenfield sites.

“Those boundaries have been drawn up with good intention, usually with the support of local people, to give them certainty about how development will or will not take place in their areas,” he said.

“While we recognise that there needs to be some development, this changes the established direction of planning policy…It would destroy those boundaries.

“It opens the floodgates to speculative developments because it’s raising the hope for people that they might be able to get a development on the edge of a village.

“We expect small towns and villages will be flooded with applications for these kinds of developments as a result.”

He added that while the charity supports the overall aim to tackle the lack of new housing in the UK, a focus on planning rather than the construction industry “never has the desired impact”. He also suggested that the Government should look to achieve some of its goals by empowering local communities, including through the use of neighbourhood plans.

This is a view shared by some councillors, who have expressed concern about the impact on local control of the planning process. North Devon District Council member Brian Greenslade said the reforms could see ministers “tighten the screws on local democratic decision taking”. This would be with a “very clear drive” to “open goalposts for developers” and render local planning authorities “impotent”, he added.

“With the economic recovery not making the progress the Government wants they will resort to the blunt instrument of housing development at any price to fuel growth,” he said. “They give no consideration whatever to the impact on established communities and the infrastructure provision needed to support large housing developments.

“There are unintended consequences for housing arising from what the Government seem to be proposing.”

Responding to some of the criticisms, a Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said changes would give communities a bigger say in deciding where developments go.

He said: “No settlement will be imposed on local communities.

“These proposals are about delivering the homes local people have already agreed and have been tested through consultation and public examination.

“Local people now have a bigger say in deciding where developments should and shouldn’t go and what is needed in their area thanks to our planning reforms.”

Councils say the proposals still need “careful consideration” to fully understand their implications. East Devon District Council said it would seek members’ views before drawing up a response to the consultation, which closes on January 25.

The implications for affordable and starter homes

Government proposals to reclassify discount starter homes as affordable housing have been a growing source of concern in recent week, particularly among rural residents.

There are fears that the prioritisation of these properties over rented accommodation could see even more low income families priced out of the countryside.

These have been re-enforced by the Government’s new planning consultation, which suggests rural sites set aside for affordable housing should be used to deliver its home ownership strategy.

Critics have been quick to point out that with caps for starter homes set at £250,000, these properties will remain out of reach for many residents of rural Devon and Cornwall.

“The proposal for starter homes with a 20% discount is fool’s gold and will not assist many young local people to buy a home,” says North Devon councillor Brian Greenslade. “The very real need is for homes for rent because of the large gap between average incomes and average house prices.

“As a survey in the Western Morning News recently shows, people on average incomes in our area would need a pay increase of some 130% to get them to the point where they may get a mortgage.

“The Government’s ideas of selling off social housing just simply will make a difficult situation worse … Local young people are facing an appalling outlook for their housing needs.”

The consultation indicates that some councils could be granted powers to introduce a local connection test when allocating affordable homes in rural areas. This would allow local authorities to prioritise the needs of local residents in “exceptional” circumstances.

Matt Thomson of the Campaign to Protect Rural England is sceptical about whether this policy will make a significant difference.

“It’s a good idea in principle but they can be difficult to manage in practice,” he said. “These local connection tests are already used in other areas with patchy result – it is often difficult to prove local connection.

“Starter homes have a role where there is a large amount of young people who would like to own a home but can’t quite afford it,” he added. “But the problem is, once they’re bought and occupied, they’re no longer a starter home – there’s no affordability in perpetuity.”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Government-planning-reforms-threaten-destroy/story-28348092-detail/story.html

Housing myths

Following on from the post below, here is an article from Simon Jenkins challenging myths about housing that appeared in the Guardian earlier this month:

“Here are the most damaging myths about the policy issue that’s on everyone’s lips – and a few brutal realities
Housing is Britain’s top policy issue. It is the “crisis” of our day. London’s mayoral elections, says Labour’s Sadiq Khan, should be a “referendum on the housing crisis”. The migration crisis, the NHS crisis and the poverty crisis all pale before its awesome might. So what is the “solution”?
There is no solution. As in all political crises, there are tribal myths and economic realities. When the myths win, policy degenerates into chaos and counterproductivity. First, let’s deal with the myths.

1 That there is a housing “crisis”. There is none. Too many people cannot find the house they want in London and the south-east, which is where most politicians and commentators live. This is inevitable where an economy is booming. Average prices in London may be £500,000, but in the north-west and north-east of England they are £150,000. You can get a decent home in Salford for £65,000.

2 That an average is a minimum. It is not. Housing hysteria is based on averages. When someone asks “How can I possibly afford £500,000?”, the answer is: you cannot, but somebody presumably can. But go on Zoopla and there are houses in parts of London for £180,000. Even the poorest newcomers seem to find somewhere (usually private) to rent.

3 That there is a national “need” for 250,000 new houses a year. For decades this has been Whitehall’s meaningless concept of “household formation”, taking no account of regional preference, propensity to move home, house prices or cost of finance. Housing need implies homelessness. It should refer to the 60,000 people currently in temporary accommodation, who ought to be the chief focus of policy attention. All else is “demand”.

4 That the solution to house prices lies in building more new houses. New houses are always worth building, where the infrastructure is in place. But new houses account for a mere 10th of housing transactions. The chief determinant of house prices is the state of the market in existing property and the cost of finance. During the sub-prime period, prices soared in America and Australia despite unrestricted new building. It was cheap money that did the damage. The house-builders lobby equates housing to “new build” because that is where their interest lies.

5 That the solution lies in the green belt. This is an anti-ruralist’s version of myth four. Even were the green belt obsolete, which few accept, or partly so (which I accept), it will not dent the pressure of overall demand. Nor is sprawl remotely “sustainable” development. It requires new infrastructure and puts more pressure on roads and commuting. It is bad planning.

6 That high buildings are the answer. They are inefficient as the higher you build the more is spent on servicing. London’s most popular and economic housing is “high density/low rise”. Towers have supplied mostly empty pads for the rich, housing no one.

7 That the answer lies in new social housing. Security of tenure and low turnover – not to mention right to buy – renders the fixed stock of public housing inflexible and immobile. Increasingly it has become a generous donation by the taxpayer to a fortunate few, for life. It is largely irrelevant to acute homelessness.

8 That people have a “right” to live where they or their parents lived before. Localities benefit from stable populations, but conferring and bequeathing such a right to discriminatory subsidy is in no book of rights.

9 That there is also a “right” to home ownership. The state has a housing obligation for those who need help. Home ownership is capital accumulation, developed out of the Tories’ mortgage tax relief as a form of saving for old age and to endow offspring. It promotes inequality and cannot be termed a right.

10 That renting is stupid. Renting is buying a service. About 60% of Germans rent. They do not think of buying until their 40s. Booming Berlin has 90% of its population renting. Renting aids labour mobility and channels savings into productive investment. As a result, Germany has little house price inflation and no “ladder” advantage to owning not renting.

11 That buy to let is evil. The poorest people rent from the private sector. The more houses are available to rent, the more flexible is the housing stock and the lower are rents for those who do not buy. Whether buyers-to-let should enjoy tax breaks and whether rents should be regulated are quite different matters.

Facing these myths stand a few realities.

1 There is no “need” to build on rural land outside cities. Jobs, leisure and infrastructure are available in cities. We should not aid hypermobility with sprawl. Every city, in de-industrialising, leaves empty sites stuck in planning arguments or delayed decontamination. The London agents Stirling Ackroyd have identified sites for 500,000 houses in London without touching the green belt. People may like houses in the countryside, but that is preference not need.

2 The one massive reservoir of vacant residential property in Britain is under-occupied property and underdeveloped city land. London is awash with small houses and empty rooms, its residential density the lowest of any big city in Europe. Detached houses, spare rooms and gardens are the nation’s luxury. Britons had 1.5 rooms per person in 1981 and have 2.5 today, even as new housebuilding is declining. Freeing up this capacity should be the overwhelming goal of policy.

3 Tax makes it worse, not better. VAT discriminates in favour of new building and against the conversion of existing properties. Stamp duty is a tax on transactions, and thus on downsizing and more efficient use of space. Council tax is wildly regressive, promoting wasted space. Inheritance tax relief rewards hoarding.

4 Planning control is too strict. Permitting an extra storey, apartment or back extension on every existing property would drastically increase density and capacity. London can grow higher without growing high.

5 The most effective way to relieve housing poverty is through housing benefit, at present chaotically administered. Cash payments are more flexible and fit for purpose. They should extend to a new “public sector Airbnb”, geared to bringing vacancies to market.

6 The only way to force down rents and house prices in the south is to strain every policy sinew to make London poorer and the regions richer. That seems too radical for anyone.”

Simon Jenkins
The Guardian, Thursday 1st October 2015

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/30/housing-crisis-policy-myth-realities

Offices-into-homes conversion concerns

“London Councils has raised fears that the rules which mean developers can turn office space into new homes without planning permission could put economic centres at serious risk. Local authorities in central London, including Westminster, Camden, the City and Southwark, have secured opt-outs for parts of their areas but are concerned that the Government may create a “planning free-for-all” by removing the exemptions next year. England lost more than 6m sq ft of office space last year, according to the research, by CBRE for the British Council for Offices.”

All singing from the same hymn sheet?

A correspondent writes:

The Talaton appeal decision summarised on “the Watch” recently, intrigued me. It brought to mind another recent appeal, Down Close, Newton Poppleford, dated 29 May 2015, in which the Inspector similarly upheld EDDC’s decision to reject the application but also threw doubt on whether EDDC can demonstrate a 5 year land supply. Something crucial to adoption of the Local Plan.

Two different Inspectors are involved and they are clearly singing from the same hymn sheet. Inspector Thickett is due to produce his report on the Examination in Public of EDDC’s Local Plan fairly soon. If he comes from the same broad church as the Appeal Inspectors then we might expect EDDC to get a rough ride on its housing needs and numbers. Could they be so unconvincing as to return us to a developers’ free for all?

Here is an extract of what Inspector Ball wrote about Newton Poppleford at the end of March:

“Just before my site visit the Council submitted a housing monitoring update purporting to show that it can now demonstrate a 5.45 year supply, including a 20% buffer due to previous under-supply.

I have reservations about this. Following significant objections by the Local Plan Inspector, proposed modifications to the NEDLP are currently out to consultation; the new objective assessment of housing need has not been fully tested; and the appellants raise serious concerns about the development timescales of several major sites relied on by the Council, throwing doubt on their deliverability within the 5 year period. These are matters to be tested and resolved by the Local Plan Inspector. For this appeal, as things stand, I do not consider that it is possible to conclude with any confidence that the Council can demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”

And here is an extract of what Inspector Preston said at on 24 August:

From the information in front of me, the Council has not demonstrated that previous under delivery has been accounted for within its five-year supply calculations. Even if the previous under-delivery has been accounted for within the estimated need of 17,100 identified within the SHMA, which is not certain, the way in which the Council have addressed the previous under-supply is not consistent with the aim of addressing it within the first five years, where possible. In the Council’s projection the 17,100 has been split evenly over the plan period, ‘the ‘Liverpool’ method. Whilst the PPG is not prescriptive in stating that any under-deliver must be recovered within the first five years it sets a clear preference for this approach, ‘where possible’. No evidence was presented by the Council to suggest that it would not be possible to recover any previous under-supply over the next five years and the Local Plan Inspector has previously written to the Council to advocate the ‘Sedgefield’ approach with the aim of boosting housing supply.

“Moreover, I have concerns that the projected delivery rates for the new settlement at Cranbrook are not supported by clear evidence. The predicted completion rate for the two phases of the development over each of the following five years is 467 dwellings per annum. However, the March 2015 HMU identifies that there had been 757 completions between ‘summer’ 2012 and August 2014. It is not clear when development commenced but the published completion rate suggests a figure in the region of 350 to 375 dwellings per year over the two year period.

The Council suggested orally at the Hearing that there is evidence to suggest that delivery rates are likely to increase but no firm evidence was submitted to show how the predicted delivery rates had been derived. In effect, those predictions show an increase of approximately 100 dwellings a year at the site, over and above the published rate of completion to date. That rate of delivery is not supported by the evidence presented to me.”

“Victory for affordable housing as court throws out ‘insane’ government policy”

Well, it was insane for councils but very, very nice for developers!

http://gu.com/p/4bbh9?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

NPPF “insane loophole” closed

Further to an earlier post, it seems that London house prices closed this loophole, not common sense. Predictably, the Department of Communities and Local Government is appealing the decision.

http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/governments-insane-affordable-housing-loophole-quashed-by-high-court-10436984.html

Planning – what planning? Localism – what localism

So here it is, page 48 onwards (page 43 on the document). Localism? What was that? This was obviously decided well in advance of the election but not publicised then.

Click to access Productivity_Plan_print.pdf

EDDC Tories, pro-development to their core, will LOVE it!

Daily Telegraph says planning rules may be further simplified to aid developers

Article by Christopher Hope has no web link. But the headline says it all.

If the NPPF slims down any further it will disappear completely. Aaah, we see!

NPPF and Neighbourhood Plans: new Government report

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN03741

NPPF allows “practitioners of the dark arts” to cut new social housing

And this comes from the professionals, not the public!

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/architects-call-for-nppf-reform-over-viability-concerns/5076195.article

Who shapes our future?

Anyone who’s been to the new town of Cranbrook lately, will be interested in this link: http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/where-we-live-now-new-town-home-town.html

Was it Churchill who once said, we shape our buildings and our buildings shape us…

Protest meeting tomorrow at Knowle 3 pm Community Voice on Planning

Many speakers including local prospective parliamentary candidates – see links in Dates for Your Diary for more information.

A Good Day Out! And the more placards the better!

“We’re treating soil like dirt”

… The government’s deregulation bill, which has now almost completed its passage through parliament, will force regulators – including those charged with protecting the fabric of the land – to “have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth”. But short-term growth at the expense of public protection compromises long-term survival. This “unambiguously pro-business agenda” is deregulating us to death.

There’s no longer even an appetite for studying the problem. Just one university – Aberdeen – now offers a degree in soil science. All the rest have been closed down.

This is what topples civilisations. War and pestilence might kill large numbers of people, but in most cases the population recovers. But lose the soil and everything goes with it.”

Bad day for EDDC’s Local Plan officers. Good day for Clyst St Mary.

A barrage of questions from the public (no less than 17 people had pre-registered to speak) were fired at the DMC who were today considering the revised Local Plan. Several councillors firmly added their own particular concerns.

Seven speakers were from the Save Clyst St Mary Group. Campaign leader Gaeron Kayley has just circulated the news copied below:

As you will be aware, today was the day the Development Management Committee met at EDDC to discuss the Local Plan.

This had great significance for Clyst St Mary, given that it had been proposed that both the Winslade Park area and the green field owned by the Plymouth Brethren would be used for the village’s allocation of an additional 200 houses.

22 members of our group met last Monday and discussed our key arguments against this which were to be delivered at today’s meeting.

We are thrilled to announce that, following today’s Committee meeting, it was unanimously agreed by the 15 councillors present to reject the green field proposal and reduce the housing allocation for Winslade Park to 150 in total.

A massive thank you to everyone who attended last Monday’s meeting, including the seven brave souls who spoke so passionately and articulately today, as well as all those local residents who turned up simply to offer moral support. It really was greatly appreciated.

Whilst this was only a hearing for the Local Plan – not a hearing for the specific applications to which we have all objected – it does give us hope for the future. Things certainly appear now to be less bleak than they did ten days ago!

Rest assured, with your support, we will continue to fight in a dignified, professional and open manner to unite and preserve our village community.

Home ownership: a huge pyramid scheme

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/19/britain-obsession-ownership-housing-pyramid-scheme

Good quality agricultural land CAN be protected where there is no 5 year land supply

Pickles Introduces Pre-Election Presumption Against Loss of Countryside Policy in Osborne’s LPA

Community Voice on Planning National Day of Action 12 April 2015, 3 pm details of Sidmouth event

CoVoP invite you to a meeting in the park at Knowle, Sidmouth on 12 April at 3pm
to hear speeches on the National Planning Set-up from parliamentary candidates and others.
Free parking at Knowle (at least for now)

 

CoVoP Poster

listen to the voice

April 12 programme

Claire Wright: press releases on local meetings, MP buddying, National Planning Policy Statement

Meetings:
COME AND MEET CLAIRE osm 16.3.15

MP buddying:
Claire Wright Buddy press release 16.3.15

National Planning Policy Framework
Claire Wright NPPF press release 16.3.15