When the ConDem Government was elected it said it
would put a ban on backlands development; to its credit it did. But it is now
set out to scrap planning controls in favour of presumed development. The
current debate about this concentrates on the growing opposition from
organisations about the potential damaging effect on the Green Belt and the
countryside. Yet the effects will be potentially catastrophic in urban areas.
If the plans go through it will be the end of influence of residents on
development proposals and open the flood gates for unsympathetic and unwanted developments.
It is pandering to the profits that developers can make regardless of the needs
of local communities of all types. So much for ConDem ‘Localism’ giving power
back to the people. This is an issue that should unite both rural and urban
communities and lobby organisations.
Because of the corrupting nature of Section 106
monies and the weak position objectors to developments have under the existing
planning rules, developers are able to run rings round local authorities. Far
from further weakening the controls over development, much tighter rules are
needed and a lot more safeguards.
National Planning Policy Framework
The proposals
were published in July in a draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
designed to replace all planning policy statements (PPSs) and planning policy
guidance (PPGs) and ministerial planning circulars that currently shape local
planning. The Urban Forum Briefing says that some of the key proposals are
being taken forward by the Localism Bill and that the final version of the NPPF
will be a statutory document.
The briefing
summarises the main features of the NPPF as:
1. Fewer rules about what can be built,
where, and how
2. A presumption in favour of
sustainable development
3. The local plan becomes (even) more
important
4. Supports a growth agenda
5. Introduces a duty to cooperate
6. Replaces targets for development
with incentives
7. Supports neighbourhood planning and
sets out expectations on consultation with
communities by local authorities and
developers.
Key and Alarming Elements
Some key and alarming elements in the Framework include:
The "policy
burden‟ is to be minimised to help ensure landowners and
developers get a "reasonable return‟.
The presumption
should be in favour of development, which it describes as a "golden
thread running through both plan making and decision making".
"Decision-takers
at every level should assume that the default answer to development proposals
is "yes", except where this would compromise the key sustainable
development principles set out in this Framework."
Councils will
generally be required to give planning permission to all developments where "the
plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of
date."
A New Homes Bonus
will be a national incentive to house building for home ownerhsip, where the
Government will match fund increases in Council Tax revenue raised through new
homes being built.
Proposals of
developers who demonstrate good engagement with affected communities in designing
developments should be looked on more favourably.
Sops To The Critics
As a sop to their
critics the ConDem Localism Bill:
· proposes that a "meaningful proportion" of money raised through
the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which is to replace Section 106 charges
levied on developers to pay for infrastructure, local services and
environmental enhancements, must be put back into the neighbourhood, and placed
in the control of neighbourhoods.
·
will enable parish and town councils and neighbourhood forums to write a
Neighbourhood Development Plan (NPD) for their area, providing the framework
for development for the next ten years. In some circumstances they can also
identify ‘Local Green Space’ to protect green areas of particular importance to
the community.
· will establish a system of Development Orders (NDOs) granting planning permission for specific
types of development in a particular area, without needing a standard planning
application, with the NDOs having to have the approval of the community through
a local referendum, and being assessed by an independent examiner to check it is
in line with national and local planning policies.
The achilles heel
of these superfically welcome proposals is that Councils will be expected to pay
the costs of independent examinations and referenda, at a time when the ConDem
Government requires them to make massive cuts in their spending. It will also
be very expensive for communities to develop Neighbourhood Plans.
While the Framework suggests that local authorities need to encourage more
public engagement by developers before they submit a planning application and
support them in this, there is to be no requirement on them to do so, unless
they are required to by law.
The National
Planning Policy Framework is being consulted on until 17 October.
The full Urban
Forum briefing can be seen on:
www.urbanforum.org.uk/briefings/draft-national-planning-policy-framework-briefing
The
Fight for Control Over Development
There has been a long struggle over trying to gain
community control over what land is used for. It includes the fight against
enclosures from the 16th C, the Diggers in the English Revolution, the
development of the ideas of Thomas Spence in Newcastle for parishes to own all
the land, the land nationalisation campaigns in the second half of the 19thC,
the garden city movement, the introduction of the first Town & Country
Planning Act in 1910 under John Burns, Battersea’s MP in his capacity of Local
Government Minister, and the anti-developer fights in the 1970s in places like
Coin Street.
A common thread in all these campaigns has been the
value people place on green environments. All over the country ten of thousands
of people are engaged in green environment projects. It is not in developers
interests to have to provide open spaces; that is why the width of the Thames
Walk planning requirement is so narrow.
‘In the 19th and 20th
centuries many of London's natural habitats were lost to housing,
industrialisation, transport infrastructure and neglect. More recently efforts are being made to
restore what has been lost.’ So says the British Library announcing its sixth
Shared Learning Project on the restoration of green London. Beginning in
January 2012 it will be looking into the restoration and creation of green
spaces and the effects on both wildlife and people. The work will be undertaken with a team of
members from U3As in the Greater London
Region.
‘A book was published recently suggesting that
urban children are suffering from 'nature deficit disorder' and that this lack
of engagement with the natural world should be of concern to all of us. The
restoration and creation of natural habitats benefits not only the wildlife of
our city but also the human population.’
Given the emphasis on growth, the presumption in
favour of development and home ownership in the Framework, can local
communities use the powers in the Localism Bill to ensure their opportunities
to prevent the development of land which could be greened will be allowed? I
think the conclusion has to be with great difficulty and possibly only in well
organised well-off communities.
Looking Back 10 Years
Back in 2001 when I was Policy Development Officer
for bassac, the national association of Settlements and Social Action Centres,
now merged with the Development Trusts Association as Locality, the Labour
Government started a Planning Review. I worked on bassac’s submission.
We
argued that the planning system needs to be radically reformed into a tool for
developing sustainable communities. If community participation in planning
decisions was not strengthened then confidence in getting involved in urban and
rural and neighbourhood renewal will be undermined.
Government's Positive Views
At the beginning of the Review the then Secretary
of State considered that:
·
the
planning system of the future must engage communities, and contribute to people
feeling connected with the process of government
· the
system is a key lever to help create a decent society and quality of life
· past
planning mistakes contributed to the break-up and decay of communities
· there
‘can be no question of allowing commercial interests to run rough shod over
legitimate environmental concerns.’
· he
had ‘no doubts about the right of the community to express their views about
decisions which affect them.’
These were very welcome but as
the Review proceeded these positions were water down and the necessary strengthening
was not including in Labour’s subsequent planning reforms.
Key Points Still Pertinent Today
A decade on the key points made
by bassac seem even more pertinent a decade on include:
·
Many communities are fed up with the
way developers and property owners continually reshape the built environment in
their neighbourhoods adversely affecting the quality of life of residents, and
with large regeneration schemes that provide no benefit to neighbouring
communities.
· Communities often feel their wishes
and interests are ignored in the planning system. This is why planning issues
are often a catalyst for community action.
· The community is, however, the weakest
player in the current planning system. This is partly due to the limited rights
to make representations, and the lack of a right to put in a community appeal
against a planning approval. It is also due to the lack of a system of
neighbourhood governance structures that would enable the different interest
groups within the community to have a strong voice in deciding planning
applications.
Victory for Developers
The ConDem proposals are a
victory for the development and business lobbies. Back in 2001 business
lobbying, as articulated by the Confederation of British Industries, was calling
for planning officers and councillors on planning committees to have a better
understanding of business, including economics and finance of developments. It
suggested compulsory training in planning and business development for
newly-elected councillors. In other words they should be ‘taught’ top be more
sympathetic to developers.
The
CBI’s views then did not reflect the fact that business is no more homogeneous
than ‘the community’. The thrust of most of its then proposals would have benefitted
developers and large businesses rather than local based businesses, especially
the needs of local shopkeepers whose economic viability can often be undermined
by the developments of large developers and businesses. In the last decade we
have seen how their ability to manipulate the planning system has enabled the
onward march of the supermarkets at the expense of small businesses in town
centres and on high streets.
Bassac pointed out that often developers and
businesses from outside a local authority area are seen to parachute in with
proposals that have not been thought through in terms of their impact on the
local area and community.
· Some
developers may have been slowly working over a number of years building up
their land bank in the area, forcing out local businesses, creating boarded up
buildings, and contributing to the cycle of dereliction, and then bring forward
a development proposal which has not been worked on with the local community.
Bitter planning disputes have resulted.
· The
imbalance in rights means that a lot of communities feel that proposals they
are opposed to are forced upon them, and that their areas is changed bit by bit
in a direction that they do not agree with.
And what did
we propose?
· There
should be a requirement on applicants of all planning proposals of a certain
size to use community participation methods to enable local people to influence
the outcome.
· Neighbourhood
governance structures should be established with the right to use the Citizens
Jury approach to questioning local residents, community, voluntary and business
organisations, the applicants, the planning officials and other involved
agencies about the scheme.
· Local
planning authorities should be required to take into account the findings that
emerge and the recommendations of the neighbourhood governance structure.
Pre-Planning Discussions
Developers
already have a major advantage in the current system, namely the secrecy of
pre-application discussion undertaken behind closed doors, with planning
officers becoming involved in shaping an application, so that often it is a
foregone conclusion that they will recommend its acceptance to the Planning
Committee. This leaves them open to accusations of personal compromise, and of
compromising public consultation. Ten years ago bassac proposed that if pre-application discussion is sought by an
applicant it should be subject to public announcement, the availability of the
ideas to public scrutiny and the opportunity for the public to discuss the
ideas with the developer and Planning Officers. Absence of such a requirement
will act against confidence in the Government's commitment on the role of
community involvement.
Planning Aid
The
Planning Aid system has been an important resource for communities concerned
about planning. However, it is dependent on the volunteer capacities of
planners. There are few organisations like Waterloo Community Development Group
whose sole function is planning. There
are a range of multi-purpose service and project organisations which already
work in the field of community involvement which could take on a specialist
planning role as well. Many advice service organisations could also take on a
planning brief, alongside their existing specialist areas such as welfare
benefits, employment, and education. This would enable volunteer planners to
concentrate on helping in those areas where no specialist organisations exist.
There should be funding specifically to ensure that every community has access
to a planning aid service.
Community Right of Appeal
Finally
we argued that as a last safeguard to community interests, community
organisations should have the right of appeal against planning applications
that they have opposed.
Neighbours Right of Appeal
Ten
years on I would add a further safeguard, especially given my own personal
experience with the inadequacies of planning decision making in respect of the
effect of development proposals next door to my previous home in Mitcham.
Neighbours
whose views have been rejected when a Council approves a planning application
should have an automatic right of appeal, and that the Inspectorate should be
required to positively approach neighbours when an applicant appeals against
rejection of an application.
See
also my blog on Neighbourhood Planning 6 March 2011.