Proposed changes to the planning system
Discussion
This seems to be attracting opposition from all the usual suspects, but the case for reform was strong.
House building has fallen to below replacement levels, at a time when population has risen, and will keep on rising, due to Labour's immigration legacy. Major infrastructure projects are held up by years, adding cost and delay.
The case for simplification and increasing levels of building seem proven, but opponents seem determined to force another reversal on the government.
One argument against seems to be the scrapping of the presumption that development should take place on 'brownfield' land. Often in this argument they cite the total of such land available in the entire country, as if that is relevant. In many areas of Britain it is not only brownfield land that lies unused, but entire streets of houses, because people do not want to live there. Development on 'brownfield land' often came to mean building in surburban gardens and I am not clear why building in a garden is more environmentally friendly than building in a field.
IMO it is a vital measure to help kickstart the economy, opposed by NIMBY's who often deliberatly misrepresent the facts.
House building has fallen to below replacement levels, at a time when population has risen, and will keep on rising, due to Labour's immigration legacy. Major infrastructure projects are held up by years, adding cost and delay.
The case for simplification and increasing levels of building seem proven, but opponents seem determined to force another reversal on the government.
One argument against seems to be the scrapping of the presumption that development should take place on 'brownfield' land. Often in this argument they cite the total of such land available in the entire country, as if that is relevant. In many areas of Britain it is not only brownfield land that lies unused, but entire streets of houses, because people do not want to live there. Development on 'brownfield land' often came to mean building in surburban gardens and I am not clear why building in a garden is more environmentally friendly than building in a field.
IMO it is a vital measure to help kickstart the economy, opposed by NIMBY's who often deliberatly misrepresent the facts.
turbobloke said:
Proposed changes? Is the new approach not already in place?
No, though it is fairly old news (keep up at the back, JagLover!)However, there has been guidance issued by the Planning Inspectorate just recently (revised yesterday, in fact) to say that:
'Whilst [the National Planning Policy Framework] is a consultation document and, therefore, subject to potential amendment, never the less it gives a clear indication of the Government's 'direction of travel'... [and] is capable of being a material consideration, though the weight given to it will be a matter for the decision maker's planning judgement in each particular case.
Edited by Sam_68 on Friday 9th September 12:36
Sam_68 said:
No, though it is fairly old news (keep up at the back, JagLover!)
However, there has been guidance issued by the Planning Inspectorate just recently (revised yesterday, in fact) to say that:
'Whilst [the National Planning Policy Framework] is a consultation document and, therefore, subject to potential amendment, never the less it gives a clear indication of the Government's 'direction of travel'... [and] is capable of being a material consideration, though the weight given to it will be a matter for the decision maker's planning judgement in each particular case.
It has been long heralded, but it is only now, as it is close to becoming law, that opposition is gathering to it. However, there has been guidance issued by the Planning Inspectorate just recently (revised yesterday, in fact) to say that:
'Whilst [the National Planning Policy Framework] is a consultation document and, therefore, subject to potential amendment, never the less it gives a clear indication of the Government's 'direction of travel'... [and] is capable of being a material consideration, though the weight given to it will be a matter for the decision maker's planning judgement in each particular case.
Given previous U-Turns perhaps opponents think they can force the government to back down, which would be a shame if it happens.
JagLover said:
It has been long heralded, but it is only now, as it is close to becoming law, that opposition is gathering to it.
There was pretty much instant reaction from the National Trust et al when it was published in July. They are certainly making efforts to maintain the profile of their objections, but I don't think anything particualrly new has been raised.As suggested by the Inspectorate guidance, the Government (via the Planning Inspectorate) seem confident enough with the basic thrust of the draft document that they are willing for it to be judged as a material consideration right now.
Opposition is one thing - we're used NIMBY's in the Planning system - reasoned and justifiable opposition (in terms of Planning law) is quite another, and I'm not seeing much of that yet, just the usual wailing and ranting.
We shall see...
Edited by Sam_68 on Friday 9th September 17:19
The new approach is arguably in place already. We have an appeal for 450 homes starting in a few weeks and a top QC involved which should be very interesting. 'direction of travel' of policy is the phrase being used.
There aren't that many changes in the new document. Most is existing ideas but the need for growth is elevated against these policies and councils have to maintain a larger supply of land for housing.
In reality visible changes may be small. House builders will want to control supply even if permissions are granted.
There aren't that many changes in the new document. Most is existing ideas but the need for growth is elevated against these policies and councils have to maintain a larger supply of land for housing.
In reality visible changes may be small. House builders will want to control supply even if permissions are granted.
Edited by covmutley on Friday 9th September 22:19
Guidance and measures on flooding and drainage have been weakened from what was a fairly clear and good piece of policy (pps25). The ea's role has also been weakened in this respect. I guess we've gone back maybe 10years.; its all very daft really.I don't know how they are going to get it to work with the fwm act.
As often happens there's more emotion than reason in the loudest objections.
There's a parallel with road building, where uninformed people think the country is being covered in tarmac and no doubt there are some who think the rest is concrete, bricks and tiles with very little greenery remaining. On one BBC radio programme discussing the roads situation, one of the presenters was commenting on the proportion by area of the country that's covered by tarmac, after huffing and puffing about how big it was they opted for between 40% and 60% ffs if this is the level of knowledge and understanding on such issues is it any wonder we're fooked.
Besides the highly informed and unbiased beeb there are many ignorant bigmouths such as Janet Hotel Porter spouting off in blissful ignorance. Little chance of a sane debate with those types.
There's a parallel with road building, where uninformed people think the country is being covered in tarmac and no doubt there are some who think the rest is concrete, bricks and tiles with very little greenery remaining. On one BBC radio programme discussing the roads situation, one of the presenters was commenting on the proportion by area of the country that's covered by tarmac, after huffing and puffing about how big it was they opted for between 40% and 60% ffs if this is the level of knowledge and understanding on such issues is it any wonder we're fooked.
Besides the highly informed and unbiased beeb there are many ignorant bigmouths such as Janet Hotel Porter spouting off in blissful ignorance. Little chance of a sane debate with those types.
Ozzie Osmond said:
There seems to be a lot of hot air on this subject and very little in the way of solid information.
Can anyone post a link to some facts about the "changes"?
Here's one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-lan...Can anyone post a link to some facts about the "changes"?
Derek Smith said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
There seems to be a lot of hot air on this subject and very little in the way of solid information.
Can anyone post a link to some facts about the "changes"?
Here's one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-lan...Can anyone post a link to some facts about the "changes"?
Ozzie Osmond said:
Can anyone post a link to some facts about the "changes"?
Here is the link to the actual consultation document.HTH
covmutley said:
...'direction of travel' of policy is the phrase being used.
That's because of guidance issued by the Planning Inspectorate to its Appeals Inspectors.'Direction of travel' are the very words used in the guidance.
eta... now that's interesting: the wording of the above link has changed again (I know because I'd printed a copy of the previous guidance off for another matter I'm dealing with).
It previously said 'Whilst it is a consultation document and subject to potential amendment, never the less it gives a clear indication of the Government's 'direction of travel' in planning policy.'
Now the equivalent sentence simply says 'It is a consultation document and, therefore, subject to potential amendment'
Maybe the Planning Inspectorate (and the Government behind them) are getting nervous after all?
They're still suggesting that it can be given weight in the appeals process, though.
Edited by Sam_68 on Saturday 10th September 13:51
Another mammoth contribution to the 'facts' 
this one from Presclot:
"The Green Belt is a Labour policy and we intend to build on it."
Which they did
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1506430/Bui...
Clearly no Labour supporter would be so hypocritical as to froth at the gills over more of the same, would they?
this one from Presclot:"The Green Belt is a Labour policy and we intend to build on it."
Which they did
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1506430/Bui...
Clearly no Labour supporter would be so hypocritical as to froth at the gills over more of the same, would they?
Sam_68 said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
Can anyone post a link to some facts about the "changes"?
Here is the link to the actual consultation document."Local planning authorities should plan positively for new development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible. Local planning authorities should:
• prepare Local Plans on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, and with sufficient flexibility to respond to rapid shifts in demand or other economic changes
• approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay; and
• grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date.
All of these policies should apply unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole."
It is absolutely clear that the Green Belt is protected - para 133 etc.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Main point seems to be...
If you're trying to distil it down to a single point, I'd suggest that its intention is to change the emphasis from 'guilty until proven innocent', in planning terms, to an assumption that sustainable development should be deemed acceptable and approved unless it can be proven that there are overbearing reasons to refuse it.Whether it comes out that way in the long term is highly questionable, however.
Edited by Sam_68 on Saturday 10th September 16:00
Sam_68 said:
If you're trying to distil it down to a single point, I'd suggest that its intention is to change the emphasis from 'guilty until proven innocent', in planning terms, to an assumption that sustainable development should be deemed acceptable and approved unless it can be proven that there are overbearing reasons to refuse it.
Yes, that's my reading of the extract set out above.IMO the weakest element of the whole thing is dressing it up with the word "sustainable" which I consider to be a meaningless buzz-word. The only truly sustainable development would involve use of brownfield sites, and round we go again.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff