Reform the planning system and reinstate local targets to help build 1.5 million new homes over five years

[Alan Ambrose]

@SteamyTea >>> Maybe a big tombola with geo coordinates as the prises. £10 per ticket and a daily draw. If you win, you can do what you like with the bit of land.

 

 Most of the buildings we love now, listed and otherwise were built before the planning system began in 1947. We admire them for their idiosyncratic styles, over-the-top designs and budgets, quality and innovations in materials and building methods, prominent positions in the countryside, generous proportions etc etc etc. That is, 'they did what they liked with their bit of land'.

 

And that's exactly what we prevent with our current system.

[Alan Ambrose]

@garrymartin >>> The balance is whether the harms "significantly and demonstrably" outweigh the benefits.

 

So, you're happy with the system? Could this trade-off between (as I understand it) sustainable travel vs. a new unit of housing have been decided in a quicker, simpler, lower cost way? Is this the best outcome for society?

[garrymartin]

38 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

Most of the buildings we love now, listed and otherwise were built before the planning system began in 1947

Agreed, but we don't live in that same world. The number of dwellings required has increased significantly, as has our understanding of the environmental impact of them being built and being used. We need control.

 

Despite my disagreements with the opinions of my Planning Officer and the Inspector, I'm very supportive of the planning system as a whole. The problem is that much of it is still unclear and remains inherently open to interpretation. What is needed, IMHO, is unequivocal tests against policy items that seek to remove interpretation and opinion.

 

Take my favourite paragraph as an example;

 

"Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions and improve air quality and public health. However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making.” 

 

I think the principle of that paragraph is sound - don't build large developments in areas that aren't or cannot be made "sustainable".

 

The problem is that although "Major development" is well-defined as 10 or more dwellings, "Significant development" has no such definition. Can a single dwelling really be classed as significant development? If not, then in language terms, the remainder of that paragraph should not be applicable, but it is routinely used to refuse permission on very small (less than "major") developments. Even "sustainable" - the golden thread that runs throughout the whole of the NPPF *isn't actually defined* within the document itself!

 

[garrymartin]

2 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

@garrymartin >>> The balance is whether the harms "significantly and demonstrably" outweigh the benefits.

 

So, you're happy with the system? Could this trade-off between (as I understand it) sustainable travel vs. a new unit of housing have been decided in a quicker, simpler, lower cost way? Is this the best outcome for society?

I inadvertently answered your question while you were writing it! See my post above 😉 

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, Alan Ambrose said:

And that's exactly what we prevent with our current system.

Not sure it is, you can have many varieties of building and designs. Big builder build small boxes because they are easy and they people willing to pay high prices for them.

 

1 hour ago, Alan Ambrose said:

built before the planning system began in 1947. We admire them for their idiosyncratic styles, over-the-top designs and budgets, quality and innovations in materials and building methods, prominent positions in the countryside, generous proportions etc etc etc.

And most were built by the landed elite, that also sat and made the rules for the rest of us to follow. Labour was cheap and they lived in squalor, health and safety - didn't matter they were cheap labour. Materials taken out the ground by more cheap labour. Still is but we now import it so it costs more. But we pretend it's not.

[SteamyTea]

3 hours ago, garrymartin said:

Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.

St. Agnes on the north coast of Cornwall is protesting about the proposed new Co-op.  The locals can walk, cycle, drive, take the community mini bus, or the local busses, use a taxi, skateboard, and for some cartwheel there.

But the locals claim that it will make their high street unsustainable for local traders.

The proposal is for 235 m² for shop and 115 m² of storage.  so about the same as 3 houses.

Now let us look at bit closer at this 'high street'.

Takeaway Pizza at the top, then a Spar, news agent, chemist.  Opposite is a solicitors and pub, bit further down a bakers, veg shop and estate agent.

Opposite again is a zero waste shop, whatever that is.  Then an empty shop.

On the corner to the carpark, a cafe.

Miner's and Mechanics, which does a bit of everything as a community hub, diagonally opposite is some sort of consultancy in the old Barclays Bank house.

There was a Chinese takeaway, but that closed down years ago.

An Indian restaurant has recently opened, and the Cornwall Cafe is still there.

A couple of hairdressers.

Then a Costcutter store, but called something else now since taken over, another veg shop, financial services, chip shop, deli, butcher and the art shop.

A pub and hotel, the bakery, before dropping down the hill to another pub, a bar, a cafe, surf shop, a Chinese restaurant and some sort of faith healing place.

Now I suspect that most of these places only employ no more that 3 people on full time hours equivalent, with most jobs being part time, limited hours on minimum pay.

 

The parish has a population of 7.5k and the village itself has 2.2k (2011 census).

Every time I pass though in the evenings I see Sainsbury, Tesco, Waitrose, Ocado and Morrisons delivery vans, with the usual Amazon ones.

 

So after that rambling description of a place I am not too fond of (it is just an isolated small place on the windy north coast, but not actually on the coast).  My point is that locals should not be allowed to decide what is allowed in their places of residence.  I am sure that the same people that are complaining about a new store, are the same ones that complained about the latest housing development (39 houses and the Co-op would be next to them, and the development before that.

 

So if you want a 'sustainable' community, support all development, especially if you live in a rural area.

 

Not as if St. Agnes is a concrete jungle, it is surrounded by farms (an industrial process).

 

Edited July 6 by SteamyTea

[Alan Ambrose]

>>> And most were built by the landed elite, that also sat and made the rules for the rest of us to follow.

 

Let me see, who benefits most from planning application approvals? The landowners. The system is still rigged to extract the maximum amount of wealth from the lower & middle classes and hand it to the landed elite. Keep planning approvals down by inventing an ever increasing number of hoops to jump through thus restricting supply and keeping profit from planning approvals (which goes into the landowners pockets) at a maximum. Plus ca change.

[joe90]

7 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

Let me see, who benefits most from planning application approvals? The landowners.

Not necessarily, long term the council benefit from council tax which in turn benefits the locals. Near to where I built, a small village refused any development, no incoming families, mostly older people but they all complained when the very popular village school had to close because of falling numbers 🤷‍♂️

[SteamyTea]

17 minutes ago, joe90 said:

long term the council benefit from council tax

I wonder by how much, really.

My council tax is £1200 a year, that don't pay for much.

 

LA funding info is here, but can't be bothered to unpack it all.

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/local-government-finances-impact-on-communities/#heading-2

[IanR]

Rachael Reeves' speech today (08.07.2024) hasn't added much to what was already known, but I guess it's moved it on to more than a manifesto promise.

 

1.5M homes over 5 years
Mandatory targets for LPAs
More intervention from Deputy PM for large housing estates and Infrastructure projects that are being held up at LPAs

NPPF reform "by the end of the month" (draft changes published by end of July)

Ban on on-shore wind removed.

300 additional Planning Officers

Green belt boundaries to be re-assessed

Edited July 8 by IanR

[garrymartin]

27 minutes ago, IanR said:

NPPF reform "by the end of the month" (draft changes published by end of July)

Given my personal circumstances, I'm very much looking forward to that one!

[garrymartin]

On 06/07/2024 at 17:33, SteamyTea said:

My council tax is £1200 a year, that don't pay for much.

There's also the New Homes Bonus. My LA picked up a £620,123 bonus for the last year.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-homes-bonus-final-allocations-2023-to-2024

[Dave Jones]

privatise the planning system. Take the admin of the planning process out of the councils and into the private sector.

 

Once the private companies have processed the application is 4 or 5 days they are presented to the weekly planning committee for approval. Councillors stay there until they have all been processed that day.

[saveasteading]

2 minutes ago, Dave Jones said:

and into the private sector.

Brief given to the cheapest tenderer. Housing developer gets final decision / casting vote.

Developer can hold onto the land as long as they like.

No problems there.

[Dave Jones]

are you suggesting land be stolen from its owners by the gov ?

 

oh yes they did that already with the HS2 con.

[SteamyTea]

As I parked up just now (17:02 8/7/24), the news mentioned that the planning laws are to be reformed.

 

3 hours ago, Dave Jones said:

privatise the planning system

How would that work then?

You can privatise the admin easily enough, but there has to be accountability and transparency on the decision making.

If not, you end up with a system like car parking, with the only right to appeal is after you have paid the fine, and no compensation for wrong desions.

[jack]

On 06/07/2024 at 00:28, joe90 said:

I have always thought councils should buy land for building and sell as plots with planning so “the people” make the profit not big businesses.

 

Quite a few councils have gotten themselves in serious financial trouble by getting involved in housing.

The big issue with a lot of the ideas (most of which I like!) in this thread is that they rely on some form of competence in local government.

[garrymartin]

1 minute ago, jack said:

 

Quite a few councils have gotten themselves in serious financial trouble by getting involved in housing.

The big issue with a lot of the ideas (most of which I like!) in this thread is that they rely on some form of competence in local government.

There are some notable of examples of where Local Authorities have got this *so* right though, so there are models for success (although that doesn't necessarily direct address the competence question...)

 

https://www.mikhailriches.com/project/goldsmith-street/

 

Of course, there are issues related to Right to Buy that will inevitably mean not all will remain as social housing, so that's potentially another area that needs some sort of reform.

[joe90]

1 hour ago, Dave Jones said:

are you suggesting land be stolen from its owners by the gov ?

 

oh yes they did that already with the HS2 con.

Is that not compulsory purchase ?

[joe90]

8 minutes ago, jack said:

competence

 

10 minutes ago, jack said:

government

Call me cynical if you want 🙄

[ToughButterCup]

3 hours ago, Dave Jones said:

privatise the planning system. Take the admin of the planning process out of the councils and into the private sector.

....

 

It already is. Ours was outsourced to a private company.

 

On the more general point, if you consistently take money out of Local Government, then you get what you deserve. Poor service.

 

And the entirely specious argument that the process should be taken into the private sector. Because LPA planners are failing. Of course they are. There used to be a name for it

 

Austerity 

[joe90]

2 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

Ours was outsourced to a private company.

And is it any better?

[SteamyTea]

I seem to remember, that the Cameron cabinet said the there would be a presumption that planning applications would be approved, rather than refused.

And local people would have more say in the matter.

That was just before they put a moratorium on onshore wind turbines.

 

Really is a (expletive deleted)ing nonsense our planning system and all the petty rules.

An example being that planning has nothing much to say about energy efficiency (that is building regs), but has things to say about sustainability, which in reality means nothing.

 

[ToughButterCup]

3 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

..., but has things to say about sustainability, which in reality means nothing.

 

For my neighbour it (sustainability) meant Refusal.

 

How do I know?

Because the Decision Notice said so. And the only difference in our planning applications was the date. His was about a year or more later than mine. 

 

You point to a key issue @SteamyTea. Sustainability will have to be defined more carefully.

 

Angels will be dancing on pin heads soon. 

[ProDave]

Scrap the stupid CIL system.  That has to be a major deterrent to builders and of course pushes up house prices as it effectively makes building land more expensive.

 

The sustainability nonsense is just plain stupid.  Up here the planning guidelines are more sensible, they want development in existing settlements not isolated individual houses.  That is the guideline that allowed our present and previous self build.  But we are 3 miles from the town and public transport.  Yes you could cycle that, but it is uphill all the way back.  Few do.  But such development is still allowed.  If the planners won't allow provision for an EV car (charge point and possibly PV) as "sustainable" then that is plain stupid.