News & Blog

Blog: Tagged #PLANNING

[27/03/12]Is the NPPF the "Holy Grail" developers have been seeking?
[08/12/10]RTPI's 12 Questions on Localism
[03/11/10]Chinese ask for Alliance advice
View older posts >>
<< All recent posts

Posts by Date:

Posts by Category:

Posts by Tag:
Adequacy of Reasons, Affordable Housing, Appeal Costs, Appeals, Audit Scotland, Awards, Brownfield, CALA, CIL, CIL Regulations, CLG, CPRE, Cala Homes, Cannes, Chief Planner, Community Empowerment, Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill, Community Infrastructure Levy, Compulsory Purchase Order, Conservation Areas, Consultancy, DCLG, Decentralisation and Localism Bill, Demolition, Department for Planning and Environmental Appeals, Director, Draft London Plan, EIA, East of England Regional Strategy, Economy, Electricity Generation Policy Plan, Environmental Impact, Eric Pickles, Examination in Public, Feed-in Tariff, First time buyers, GLA, Greater London, Green Belt, Growth, HBF, Heads of Planning Scotland, Housebuilders, Housing Need, Housing Strategy, Jeremy Pyatt, Judicial Review, Keith Fenwick, LDF Monitor, Labour, Localism, Localism Act, Localism Bill, London, London Borough Councils, London Plan, MIPIM, Mayor of London, Microgeneration, Milton Keynes, Ministers, NPPF, National Planning Policy, National Planning Policy Framework, National Trust, New Homes , Occupancy Control, Outline Planning Applications, PLANNING, Pickles, Planning, Planning Aid , Planning Application Fees, Planning Fees, Planning Obligations, Planning Performance Framework, Planning Policy, Planning Policy Guidance, Planning Reform, Presumption in Favour, RSS, RSS Abolition, RTPI, RTPI Young Planners Conference, Regional Spatial Strategies, Renewable Technologies, Revolution, Right to Buy, S106, Scotland, Scotland Planning, Scottish Conservative Party, Scottish Election, Scottish Government, Scottish Law, Scottish Law Commission, Scottish Liberal Democrats, Scottish Parliament, Scottish Planning, Scottish Planning System, Section 75, Select Committee, Shelter, Solar Energy, Spatial Development Strategy, Spending Review, Summer Ball, Sustainable Development, Validation, Village Greens, West Midlands, Wind turbines, Young Planners, cala, chinese, community engagement, cpo, high court, housing, housing targets, housing; affordable housing;public consultation, incremental growth, localism, localism bill, localism; regeneration, major development , major planning applications, planning, planning fees, policy, post, presumption in favour, regional spatial strategies, renewables, retail, sassanachs, solar panels, urban regeneration

Is the NPPF the "Holy Grail" developers have been seeking?

The Government has today published a National Planning Policy Framework, which replaces over 1,300 pages of guidance with just 59. Jim Bailey, Director at Alliance’s Guildford office, has given the Framework an initial overview.

From a developer’s perspective, there is much to be encouraged by in the NPPF with the positive attitude adopted to economic and housing development. However, it will be interesting to see how the Localism aspects evolve, as local communities engage in producing Neighbourhood Plans and seeking to shape development according to local agendas.

The main headlines include:

· Presumption in favour of sustainable development is a “golden thread “ running through plan-making and decision-taking

· When writing plans LPA’s should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area

· When making decisions LPA’s should approve proposals which accord with the development plan without delay

· Permission should be granted where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date

· The planning system must be plan-led and plans must be kept up-to-date

· LPA’s with plans adopted since 2004 will be given 12 months to get them up-to-date

· Emerging plans will be given due weight according to their stage of preparation

· Definition of sustainable development refers to the 1987 Bruntland definition

· Economic growth in both urban and rural areas is a priority

· Brownfield sites must be developed ahead of greenfield sites

· Town centre uses should be sequentially selected

· Sustainable transport solutions should be supported

· High quality communications infrastructure should not be blocked by Article 4 directions

· LPA’s housing targets must include a 5% additional buffer, rising to 20% in locations with a poor record of delivery

· LPA’s can include windfall sites in their 5-year supply figures if fully justified

· Proposals to convert B use buildings to residential should be approved if there is a need for housing, unless there is an economic case against loss of employment land and buildings

· Good design is encouraged as a key element of sustainable development

· Existing open spaces, sports fields and recreational land and buildings should not be built upon unless surplus to requirements and it can be replaced elsewhere

· Local communities can designate Local Green Spaces

· Green Belt policies remain

Plan-making:

· Local plans are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities.

· Planning decisions must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

· Local plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.

· They must be consistent with the principles and policies of the NPPF, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

· LPA’s have a duty to co-operate and produce strategic policies that cross administrative boundaries.

· Local plans will be examined by an inspector so see if it is “sound”, namely that it is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

· Neighbourhood plans can be produced by local people to deliver the sustainable development they need.

Decision-taking:

· Pre-application engagement with LPA’s and the public is encouraged in the interest of good planning.

· LPA’s should consider using Local Development Orders to relax planning controls in particular areas or for categories of development.

· The use of Article 4 directions to remove permitted development rights should only be used to protect local amenity or well being of an area

· Communities can use Neighbourhood Development Orders to grant permission for certain types of development in an area.

· Neighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right to Build Orders require the support of the local community through a referendum.

· LPA’s should use conditions to allow otherwise unacceptable development.

· Planning obligations should only be used where they meet the following tests: necessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related to the development.

The NPPF is also informative in considering those documents it has not replaced. For example; whilst all the principle PPS’s and circular 05/2005 have been replaced, it is silent on the issue of the status of the ‘Practice Guidance on Planning for Town Centres’ that accompanied PPS 4, the ‘Companion Guide to PPG17’, the Dear Chief Planning Officer letter, that followed the 2011 budget entitled Planning for Growth 31^st March 2011 and all of the Regional Plans, which must surely be revoked soon. All of these continue to exist as material considerations it would appear.

Overall, it would appear that the NPPF has been watered down slightly, for example, the 20% housing land supply additional buffer reduced to 5% and the 12 month period allowed for local plans to be up-dated, it is clear that this document is a direct descendant of ‘Planning for Growth’ and the presumption in favour of sustainable development is at the heart of the planning system for the foreseeable future.

NPPF.pdf

Be the first to comment share this article tagged: NPPF, PLANNING, DCLG

RTPI's 12 Questions on Localism

The RTPI has announced today that it will use the following twelve questions to examine and subsequently judge the effectiveness of the forthcoming Localism Bill. I wonder which questions do people feel are likely to gain greatest weight when local people come to assess the Bill’s potential for success?

I feel the way this has been presented to date would suggest that this is a social network Bill, know enough of your neighbours and you may achieve anything, be that pro or anti development. What I struggle to see is how the delegation of local planning to an individual will always be in the public good. My concern is that we currently are losing a significant core of professional planners from within local authorities and Planning Aid that will no longer be available to interest groups, possibly leaving proposed changes and additions without a sound footing in planning. I think very interesting times lie ahead for lawyers and barristers but not necessarily for planners.

RTPI’s twelve questions:

1. It allows for a clearly stated and democratically agreed vision of national spatial priorities, including meeting needs for housing and infrastructure, and addressing the challenges of climate change;
2. It takes a broad view of sustainable development that requires all those exercising a presumption in favour of it to place economic, social and environmental sustainability on an equal footing;
3. It does not assume that the Government’s agendas for economic growth, for meeting targets for reducing emissions and increasing renewable energy, for social inclusion and housing delivery will be achieved simply because there is the freedom of choice to do so;
4. Any duties placed on local government and others – including a duty to co-operate – are clearly defined, are resourced and are enforceable where necessary;
5. Any rights given to communities, such as the right to plan or to build, are not token rights unsupported by resources, expertise or democratic challenge;
6. The understandable desire among communities for immediate investment in local facilities does not prejudice longer term investments to meet larger-scale needs such as hospitals, waste facilities and transport infrastructure;
7. The systems of incentives, funds, levies and agreements work together to fund a rigorously analysed and democratically agreed list of infrastructure priorities, and that such incentives are open and transparent and are not perceived as, or act as, development bribes;
8. Neighbourhood planning not only serves to provide what local communities desire, but also allows for what wider communities need;
9. In exercising powers over the future of their areas, communities accept and fulfil the responsibilities attached to doing so;
10. It makes it clear that it is equally important for a neighbourhood group to consult as to be consulted;
11. It gives an equal opportunity for all communities to be involved in shaping their own futures, including those communities and groups whose engagement has often been neglected and have been served by Planning Aid in the past and we hope will continue to do so in the future;
12. It does not hamper the ability of RTPI members to continue to provide a professional, independent, un-biased, evidence-based service to all those involved in, and affected by, planning.

Be the first to comment share this article tagged: localism, planning, RTPI, Planning Aid

Chinese ask for Alliance advice

Mark Walton, Alliance Planning Associate Director, has just returned from presenting at a two day conference in Beijing. The conference reviewed and debated the Chinese Government’s draft amendments to the ‘Demolition and Eviction in Urban Areas – Planning Management Rules’. The draft proposals have been published by the Chinese Government to amend the current system of compulsory acquisition of land by the State following high profile displays of public resistance, including home owners shooting at construction workers and committing suicide rather than being evicted.

The conference was hosted by Peking University and the Chinese Constitutional Research Institute (CRI), who asked Mark Walton to provide a presentation on the use of Compulsory Purchase Powers and Compensation under the UK planning system. Two matters inherent in the UK system, namely the clear identification of the ‘public interest’ and the role of the Land Tribunal were suggested as being potentially adaptable under the Chinese Planning and Legal system.

The findings of the conference will be collated and used to support a formal response to the Chinese Government on behalf of Peking University and the Constitutional Research Institute. The response will be considered by the Government, and changes will potentially be incorporated into the revised planning rules that will be agreed by the National People’s Congress in the New Year.

“The Chinese Government rarely undertakes ‘consultation’ on proposed amendments to the planning rules, and so Alliance Planning’s involvement in this process represents openness to better understanding of how Chartered Planners can influence spatial issues anywhere in the world,” Mark Walton comments. “We will have to wait and see how the Chinese Government takes advantage of the UK model in drafting the amended planning rules”.

Be the first to comment share this article tagged: chinese, planning, cpo