Latest Additions

Planning for a Missed Opportunity?

Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Can't help feeling that now the dust has settled on the NPPF, what a missed opportunity it is. Having set out with bold intentions, in the usual process of politics and lobbying, seen many times before, Ministers have so watered down the document and its key message of growth, that it is difficult to see the original vision of a dynamic economy shining through. Of course, it is right for the usual list of constraints and provisos to be reflected in the guidance, we would expect nothing less, but almost every section bears the mark of opposing camps such that on each occasion, every point can be argued both ways. We will all have views and insights into what we feel are key parts of the Framework, what takes precedence, where is the right balance, but ultimately I fear the Framework lacks that decisive step change so many had hoped for.

Steve Fidgett – Managing Director, London

Rose Tinted Spectacles

Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

"But isn't everything here green?" asked Dorothy.

"No more than in any other city," replied Oz; "but when you wear green spectacles, why of course everything you see looks green to you.

In the good old days when we all actually had rose tinted specs, Planning Policy Guidance was just that, a strange but often helpful mix of policy, procedure and explanation that gave real guidance as to policy, its rationale and how it should be applied. Often it was hard to unpick which was which and we would be given lessons from time to time by our friends at the planning bar on where we might have erred in winding our way through the reams of such guidance that had evolved. Then there came Planning Policy Statements, valiantly trying to clear our minds and separate policy from explanation. They did this, to a large degree but kept a balance which aided understanding. Now we move forward to a Framework, eliminating much of the fluff and focussing on the key policies themselves. I can understand the wish of CLG not to give detailed answers on the NPPF, as this smacks of reinventing that earlier explanation, but it does suppose that all of us take time to think and understand why it says what it does and that we must apply these policies with fairness, common sense and balance. If policy is unthinking and insensitive to the world we are in, the public interest is not served and the aim of sustainable growth will be frustrated.

Steve Fidgett – Managing Director, London

West Midlands LDF Monitor Published

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Alliance Planning’s Birmingham Office have produced an LDF Monitor identifying the Policy Document Stages reached by all West Midlands Councils. In a rapidly changing policy environment, Core Strategies, CIL Charging Schedules, and Development Management Policies are being produced in ever increasing numbers. To keep up to date with who is producing what, and when consultation periods are running, please use our guide. To ensure that your interests are properly represented contact either Gerald Sweeney, Keith Fenwick or Paul Ellingham on 0121 456 7444.

West Midlands LDF Monitor

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

http://www.alliance-plan.co.uk/cmsUploads/blogPost/files/West%20Midlands%20LDF%20Monitor.pdf

So Just What Does Positive Planning Actually Mean?

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

I received an email from a project team member recently in respect of a development proposal which appears to have got caught up in a miasma of post-committee resolution inaction. It was late on a Friday, and they wrote;

“...its all very well the Government championing their pro growth planning policies and how this is going to kick start development but it all falls to pieces when you come to come to deal with it at a local level because;

(a) there aren't sufficient qualified LPA staff to deal with matters (because of the cuts ), and

(b) those that are there seem to lack the motivation to get things done”

It’s a common refrain from the development sector. It’s one thing Government saying they are pro-growth, but what does that mean in respect of individual applications on the ground?

Well it looks like my erstwhile colleague has had their voice heard (in part), because the Government, through the Planning Inspectorate, has now issued a ‘model policy’ which it expects Local Plans to adopt to explain what positive planning is, and how the ‘presumption in favour’ will work in practice. The policy (which is a bit cumbersome, but worth stating in full) says;

"When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. It will always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area

Planning applications that accord with the policies in this Local Plan (and, where relevant, with polices in neighbourhood plans) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision then the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise – taking into account whether:

· Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or

· Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should be restricted.”

So, now we know what it means, although as with most guidance it may mean all things to all men, and quite how this addresses the resourcing issue, and the motivation issue, is to be resolved. But at least we all now understand what the Government’s intention is, and hopefully, with all this proactive working – we can speed up decision making and inject some much needed vigour into the economy.

Keith Fenwick – Director, Birmingham

Mayor's Community Infrastructure Levy

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

The Mayor of London’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) came into effect on 1^st April 2012. The Mayor’s CIL will be applied to new development and extensions across Greater London and the levy will be collected by the Boroughs once development commences. The Levy will also apply to planning applications submitted but not determined before 1^st April 2012.

The introduction of the new CIL charging regime is likely to be viewed as an unwelcome but seemingly necessary additional cost burden to the development industry, just at a time when it is struggling to recover and emerge from recession. It is likely to be applied rigidly as a ‘tax’ on most forms of development across London, with only limited exceptions.

A charging regime based on a simple and clear methodology and which is straightforward to operate are laudable aims for the new CIL and the Examination Inspector concluded that the proposed Levy strikes a reasonable balance between “complexity and fairness”. However, there is understandable concern that the broad brush approach used to devise the Charging Schedule (which is based only on residential values) fails to recognise the wide variations in development viability by type of use and by geographical location within Boroughs and across London. For example, the CIL charge to be applied to a residential scheme in a high value area is likely to be more easily absorbed than the CIL payable for a large scale warehousing scheme in a low value area, to the extent that it may render some of these schemes marginal or unviable. The impact of the CIL will vary considerably and this is likely to become evident as the new charging regime is applied over the coming months.

For more information regarding the Mayor's CIL, please refer to the attached file: