New planning reforms today

[anonymous-user]

I couldn’t find a thread already so thought I’d get the ball rolling.

Today the government releases a new document reducing 1000 pages of planning down to 50 pages. Simplifying the planning system can only be a good thing as it is an overcomplicated system. However, what worries me is "presumption in favour of sustainable development". This to me sounds like a get out clause to build whatever you like wherever you like. I may be wrong, so will be looking forward to having a read through the new docs later.

What does anyone else think?

[Fittster]

Building firms in favour, those with an interest in protecting the countyside apposed.

Which group have had dinner with Dave?

[shed driver]

I wonder how many "sustainable developments" will be sited in cabinet members' constituencies?

SD

[V88Dicky]

'Green' <sic> campaigners moaning about the countryside being damaged, yet they seem happy to carpet the land with 300ft high disturbines?

Does not compute.

[12gauge]

Yep, terrible. People might have proper housing instead of overpriced cramped crud. How awful.

[twosocks]

I think we will all be moaning if developers are allowed to build whatever & wherever they see fit to. If your council doesn't have a local plan (and many dont due to resourcing issues) showing areas where new developments are appropriate then any non designated / specially protected site could be built on. There will be localised choice about the use of previously developed land, something that involves removing nationally imposed targets while retaining existing controls on greenbelt land - a real tightrope to walk.

[JagLover]

The houses need to be built because of the mass migration of the Labour years.

Some can be built on genuine brownfield land in areas pople actually want to live I grant you, but the bulk will need to be on greenfield sites. The planning system stands in the way so it needs to be reformed.

Those protesting most vehemently against such building are often those who favoured unrestricted mass migration. But the one led inevitable to the other.

[twosocks]

I agree that new housing is required (lets keep this to planning rather than immigration) but the areas where they happen need to be considered wrt to local infrastructure especially traffic and water. Big developers who may have benefitted from cash for access to get these planning reforms through will put up en masse cr&ppy boxes on top of each other, that all look the same and nobody really wants to live in.

What you need is 1) brownfield development in city areas (countrywide) to provide low cost housing (for locals not investors to avoid over inflation of values) that takes advantage of existing infrastructure and 2) small scale development on the fringes of existing towns & villages by independent builders (and hopefully individual design)ie organic growth.

The reforms will also come in immediately - so no chance for planning departments to get their houses in order and head round them

[JagLover]

twosocks said:

What you need is 1) brownfield development in city areas (countrywide) to provide low cost housing (for locals not investors to avoid over inflation of values) that takes advantage of existing infrastructure and 2) small scale development on the fringes of existing towns & villages by independent builders (and hopefully individual design)ie organic growth.

The reforms will also come in immediately - so no chance for planning departments to get their houses in order and head round them

Countrywide development is pointless as there is existing empty housing in many Northern cities because not enough people want to live there.

Genuine Brownfield land, I.E. not excluding surburban gardens, is limited in the areas people want to live.

Small scale developments are not going to cut it really. Areas with good transport links need to be targeted for developments of 1,000 homes plus.

[Fittster]

JagLover said:

Countrywide development is pointless as there is existing empty housing in many Northern cities because not enough people want to live there.

You want to change behaviour you change the tax system.

[twosocks]

The areas with existing infrastructure ideal for signifcant development are identifed. These 'eco towns' are a good idea if they focus on more signifcant issues than CO2 but I don't think that Bicester is a great example or very popular. If jobs can be created to encourage people from the SE to less populated area ie get people into building trades & service industry and these actual deliver on the purpose of these reforms ie promote econmical growth all well and good....but I can see the greed winning and the more popular areas having more houses crammed in for short term gain.

I agree that there isnt much brownfield in the SE (and much that is from garden grabbing) but CPRE stated that 1/4 of BF isnt used in the SE http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8884269/Hands-Off-Our-Land-Enough-brownfield-land-to-build-1.5million-new-homes-CPRE-claims.html. That really should be utilised first?

[vonuber]

What worries me is how stripped back the guidance is on a lot of issues, particularly flood risk. Really not thought out at all; especially when what we have at the moment is fairly straight forward and works very well; and everyone understands what they have to do and what the constraints are.
Oh well, should've had a whip round for a proper bribe.

[MidlandDan84]

Well, being a Transport Planning Consultant I have being waiting to see what would emerge......as far as I can tell there are a lot of ambiguous statements and comments without much accurate determination to provide a 'black and white' answer.

I do think the Press have as usual jumped on the bandwagon with plenty of scaremongering. I really don't see a massive up-surge in new developments on land previously undeveloped. Also, the LPA's are entrenched in their ways and values and cant imagine their being a huge shift in attitude and approach very quickly at all.

[Ozzie Osmond]

MidlandDan84 said:

I do think the Press have as usual jumped on the bandwagon with plenty of scaremongering. I really don't see a massive up-surge in new developments on land previously undeveloped. Also, the LPA's are entrenched in their ways and values and cant imagine their being a huge shift in attitude and approach very quickly at all.

Exactly. Unless the local authority has completely failed to come up with a planning policy it's very much business as usual.

[MidlandDan84]

Ozzie Osmond said:

MidlandDan84 said:

I do think the Press have as usual jumped on the bandwagon with plenty of scaremongering. I really don't see a massive up-surge in new developments on land previously undeveloped. Also, the LPA's are entrenched in their ways and values and cant imagine their being a huge shift in attitude and approach very quickly at all.

Exactly. Unless the local authority has completely failed to come up with a planning policy it's very much business as usual.

I think there will also be further confusion at the LPA's with where their LDF's stand in the process... bearing in mind some LPA's have completed bugger all.

Extract from the NPPF

●improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

Nowhere in the document is there a definition of 'severe'.....severe will be determined by the LPA's....as per usual.

Dont get me started on 'The Localism Act'...giving local 'experts' another voice

[scenario8]

MidlandDan84 said:

I think there will also be further confusion at the LPA's with where their LDF's stand in the process... bearing in mind some LPA's have completed bugger all.

Extract from the NPPF

●improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

Nowhere in the document is there a definition of 'severe'.....severe will be determined by the LPA's....as per usual.

I would imagine "removing thousands of pages of red tape" as the Minister would love the Press to splash it in reality leads to as much work for the lawyers as it ever did. No doubt most of these pages will reappear as appendices anyway.

MidlandDan84 said:

Dont get me started on 'The Localism Act'...giving local 'experts' another voice

<shudder> Much as I appreciate locals are stakeholders and have a role in the process there's a hell of a balancing act keeping their often entrenched self interested biases in check (as much as other stakeholders' often entrenched self interested biases that is).

When the dust settles and the small print reveals itself it will be interesting to see what emerges. The Localism Act was presented to the traditional conservative and Conservative voting middle class Middle England masses as A Good Thing. We shall see if this means next to nothing gets developed as local voices are raised - or if development increases as the assumption to yes prevents nimbyism.

I wonder if Localism will be quite so popular then? Where do locals expect their children and grandchildren to live?

[MidlandDan84]

The issue is by 'removing red-tape' it will actually make things worse, now LPA's will actually have to think for themselves rather than sitting behind their pearly public sector gates covering each other in a raft of 'caveats'.

IMO of course....from the private sector.

[Sticks.]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Exactly. Unless the local authority has completely failed to come up with a planning policy it's very much business as usual.

They don't have a strategic plan, that's for sure. And anything they turn down goes to appeal and is overturned.

Perhaps as you say, business as usual, but more so.

Btw, public meeting about the two new developments planned for your village (250 and 50 homes) last night.

[vonuber]

scenario8 said:

I would imagine "removing thousands of pages of red tape" as the Minister would love the Press to splash it in reality leads to as much work for the lawyers as it ever did. No doubt most of these pages will reappear as appendices anyway.

In the case of flooding, definitely. They will basically have to reinvent PPS25 again, it's so pointless. Especially when you look at the fact the FWMA 2010 has gone through, which basically enforces and builds on PPS25.
Bunch of tards.

[hedgefinder]

its all balls, if they built on all the existing sites where we have derelict or uninhabited council housing this would take up a considerable ammount of the supposed "housing shortage"