The lack of a plan for Brexit and for foreign wars (see Chilcot Report) brings the need for planning and a 'plan' to the fore. I have been busy doing the rounds and listening to debates about housing (Search for The House of the Commons), intergenerational justice, decentralised energy and local food and have had my sense that the land use planning system is a necessary evil reinforced.
On the question of 'justice', it seems to me that people are more likely to accept apparently unpleasant regulations and policies if it is clear that the impacts are equally shared or at least any unequal distribution is genuinely in the common interest. This can only be demonstrated through a plan.
On the question of energy, there were two strong messages about the need for a plan. One proposal was for a county wide 'master plan' and there was another proposal to use neighbourhood planning. Given that land use planning is accustomed to dealing with roads, waste and drains (and all sorts of other social infrastructure) it would be a small step to incorporate energy. Of course there are some plans dealing with where wind and solar generators might be acceptable. However there are no strategic plans to show how a county (say) could become energy (and carbon?) neutral by 2050 including demand management measures. Maybe county councils could produce mineral, waste and energy plans? Gavin Barwell is saying that county councils might have to supervise (plan?) for the housing supply if districts can't agree (Mr Pickles the destroyer of strategic planning eat your heart out) so why not give counties power over electricity supply and distribution. Some coordination seems to be necessary. In fact county wide planning for mobile phone signals and broadband might also be a good idea.
On the food front, there is some dispute over the factors to be taken into account, but the carbon emissions attributable to the food supply chain are very substantial (13% Committee on Climate Change and 50% UNCTAD), and will need to be reduced. There is potential in 'local food' to reduce the emissions from growing, processing and distribution (see many previous blogs) and this will need a new approach to planning.
So coming to housing, the first tranche of custom builders both as individuals or associations of individuals on council registers will nearly have been sealed (ie 31 October). The discussion of housing as a 'commons' ranging from Calais through rough sleeping, squatting, social/affordable housing to coops and co-housing ended with a call to engage with those preparing neighbourhood and local plans.
All in all this was an exceptional couple of weeks for DanthePlan, providing many good reasons to support the planning system. However, this support is for the system as it could or should be and not as it is. Those involved in intergenerational justice (not only the young) should get involved. Those involved in energy (mainly electricity) and food should be engaging with the planners (from the Minister downwards) to get their needs understood. Those involved in housing have to get beyond the absolute shortage and get into fair distribution (of the commons) and assisting the planners in appreciating the special advantages of coops and co-housing so that they can be privileged through the development plans.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Public speaking at committee
To 'have one's day in court' or just the chance 'to have one's say' seems to have some popular appeal even if the result is a disappointment. Public speaking at planning committees seems to be based on this rather superficial and limited purpose. If a three or five minute presentation to a planning committee actually affected the way in which a planing application was decided it would probably amount to an unlawful influence over the decision-making process. In court evidence can be thoroughly examined but committee procedures are much more 'linear'.
When a committee meets to decide an application it should have available access to all the 'background papers' which are referred to in the officer report which should include the professional analysis or assessment of the application and a recommendation based on s38(6) that the determination be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise; the report having identified and weighed the relevant policies and other material considerations. The background papers should include all representations received while the application was being processed up to the publication of the committee agenda. One potential anomaly are written comments received in response to representations appearing for the first time on the agenda and/or to the officer recommendation itself. However, these late written comments should also be made available at the committee and, in theory, could be addressed by public speakers.
Public speakers are advised not to raise new matters (as this would disadvantage speakers who might already have spoken or have a pre-prepared speech). This is the correct approach but raises the question of why speak at all if the points have already been made in writing? Thinking that simple repetition would be pointless, speakers change or embellish their comments. For individuals this is just a single error. For those representing parish councils or residents' groups or NGOs changes to the written representations without specific and minuted authority are compounding the error. For these comments to be taken into account by committee (and why else provide the platform?) could invalidate the decision of committee.
Some councils allow for the speaker to be questioned (supposedly for purposes of 'clarification'). This will extend the period afforded to one side of the argument and the response to a question could only be an opportunity to emphasise a previous point or to make a new point (without authority in the case of representatives) - both potentially prejudicial to the other parties. So public speaking at committee seems to be based on a false premise; what is said must strictly repeat previous written representations or be ignored. Taking late representations into account could invalidate the decision. But who is to tell what the committee members actually took into account in casting their vote?
On a separate matter, I am reminded that those who want to keep up to date on housing (as opposed to the mainly planning side of these issues) should register to receive the posts from
https://redbrickblog.wordpress.com/
When a committee meets to decide an application it should have available access to all the 'background papers' which are referred to in the officer report which should include the professional analysis or assessment of the application and a recommendation based on s38(6) that the determination be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise; the report having identified and weighed the relevant policies and other material considerations. The background papers should include all representations received while the application was being processed up to the publication of the committee agenda. One potential anomaly are written comments received in response to representations appearing for the first time on the agenda and/or to the officer recommendation itself. However, these late written comments should also be made available at the committee and, in theory, could be addressed by public speakers.
Public speakers are advised not to raise new matters (as this would disadvantage speakers who might already have spoken or have a pre-prepared speech). This is the correct approach but raises the question of why speak at all if the points have already been made in writing? Thinking that simple repetition would be pointless, speakers change or embellish their comments. For individuals this is just a single error. For those representing parish councils or residents' groups or NGOs changes to the written representations without specific and minuted authority are compounding the error. For these comments to be taken into account by committee (and why else provide the platform?) could invalidate the decision of committee.
Some councils allow for the speaker to be questioned (supposedly for purposes of 'clarification'). This will extend the period afforded to one side of the argument and the response to a question could only be an opportunity to emphasise a previous point or to make a new point (without authority in the case of representatives) - both potentially prejudicial to the other parties. So public speaking at committee seems to be based on a false premise; what is said must strictly repeat previous written representations or be ignored. Taking late representations into account could invalidate the decision. But who is to tell what the committee members actually took into account in casting their vote?
On a separate matter, I am reminded that those who want to keep up to date on housing (as opposed to the mainly planning side of these issues) should register to receive the posts from
https://redbrickblog.wordpress.com/
Monday, September 26, 2016
Reclaiming the language of planning
It is a cliche that the professions use language or jargon to retain the mystique around their practices and form a barrier to involvement by non-professionals or lay people. Land use planning has developed its own language including acronyms and abbreviations that enable experts to talk to experts and intimidate those wanting to engage. When teaching planning I recommend that the subject be treated as a foreign language which would be best learned through regular repetition and also a need to know. Those flirting with the subject matter on a single or irregular basis will find it difficult to master the lingo.
A much more serious matter is the corruption of the English language. Those who have recent experience of the planning system will have noticed the extent to which the English language is being misused. The normal meaning of words such as “affordable” (meaning unaffordable), “sustainable” (meaning sustaining economic growth) and “viable” (meaning profitable) are in common usage. It is simply not good enough for those engaging in these discussions to have to use the prefix "genuine" before affordable, viable, and sustainable.
This abuse of language might represent a rare opportunity to effect a significant change to planning practice. The Courts have declared themselves the arbiters when the meaning of planning policy is called into question. The weight to be given to policies is clearly for the decision-maker, but the meaning of a policy is for the Courts. Crucially, policies must be taken to mean what they say. This would prevent LPAs, developers or interested parties praying in aid of any policy by using some definition not clear in the wording which is commonly available and part of the plan adoption process.
There is an opportunity for an individual or organisation with the resources and the determination to use the Courts to return the planning system to a place where normal English usage applies. Such a challenge would be so that contributing to the achievement of sustainable development means carbon neutral or negative, the provision of affordable housing will mean that sale prices and rents are closely related to local wage levels, and viability includes a land price when the costs of necessary infrastructure and affordable housing have been taken into account. Reduce should also mean less than before and not just less than business as usual. The Courts need to apply a definition of these terms that would be familiar to the compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary and its users or the position they have declared as final arbiters of the meaning of policy would itself be meaningless.
A much more serious matter is the corruption of the English language. Those who have recent experience of the planning system will have noticed the extent to which the English language is being misused. The normal meaning of words such as “affordable” (meaning unaffordable), “sustainable” (meaning sustaining economic growth) and “viable” (meaning profitable) are in common usage. It is simply not good enough for those engaging in these discussions to have to use the prefix "genuine" before affordable, viable, and sustainable.
This abuse of language might represent a rare opportunity to effect a significant change to planning practice. The Courts have declared themselves the arbiters when the meaning of planning policy is called into question. The weight to be given to policies is clearly for the decision-maker, but the meaning of a policy is for the Courts. Crucially, policies must be taken to mean what they say. This would prevent LPAs, developers or interested parties praying in aid of any policy by using some definition not clear in the wording which is commonly available and part of the plan adoption process.
There is an opportunity for an individual or organisation with the resources and the determination to use the Courts to return the planning system to a place where normal English usage applies. Such a challenge would be so that contributing to the achievement of sustainable development means carbon neutral or negative, the provision of affordable housing will mean that sale prices and rents are closely related to local wage levels, and viability includes a land price when the costs of necessary infrastructure and affordable housing have been taken into account. Reduce should also mean less than before and not just less than business as usual. The Courts need to apply a definition of these terms that would be familiar to the compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary and its users or the position they have declared as final arbiters of the meaning of policy would itself be meaningless.
Thursday, September 8, 2016
custom building and more
Gavin Barwell, the new planning and housing minister has said that he wants the rate of self/custom building to double. Council's are expected to provide the necessary land (the Housing and Planning Act requires the actual demand to be taken from registers of individuals and associations of individuals to whom serviced plots must be provided.
So I have had conversations with three national housebuilders active in my area; Cala Homes (linked to Legal and General), Miller Homes and Taylor Wimpey (as well as a niche builder called Blue Cedar in the course of a planning appeal). My first question was whether they would be building any two bedroomed houses, with all facilities on the ground floor (the upstairs fitted out), with big gardens and very low carbon/running costs? I didn't even mention the installation of PV. None were shown on their draft or permitted plans.
The next question was whether they would sell me a plot and build a house to my design? "We are national builders and build our own house types", is where they are still at, whilst denying any knowledge of the Housing and Planning Act, let alone any responsibility for helping LPAs to provide the serviced plots for people on the registers.
I see this as a teaching/learning exercise for them, me and in the case of Blue Cedar, the planning inspector. If 8 million people are really keen to downsize (see the All Party Parliamentary Group on Housing fro the Elderly and HAPPI), then the national housebuilders should be investigating how to meet this need - much of it from people with equity to be released from more valuable properties.
An important- no very important - point to make is that there is provision for non-material amendments to be accepted by LPAs without the need for fresh applications. The judgement of what is non-material one for the LPA but has to be made in the context of the permission as a whole. In the case of say development of 50 dwellings it would be entirely reasonable for the LPA to agree that a change to a house type (or two or three) would not require a fresh application. This would remove one of the objections from the housebuilder.
On larger sites the builder might only be expecting to build 30 to 40 units per year so the sale of plots in a discrete part of the site should not interfere with progress over the rest, From Gavin Barwell's point of view there would be greater certainty that self-build dwelling would be complete than those being built and sold into a precarious housing market. Win-win.
Jobs for the weekend: ask these questions at your local sales office. Suggest that the LPA or neighbourhood planners support custom building in this way, and write to DCLG/Gavin Barwell making these points. If you have not already done so he also needs reminding that DCLG reasearch shows that subsidising the demand for home ownership through Help to Buy actually reduces the number of people able to afford to buy through inflating prices - as per schoolboy/girl economics.
So I have had conversations with three national housebuilders active in my area; Cala Homes (linked to Legal and General), Miller Homes and Taylor Wimpey (as well as a niche builder called Blue Cedar in the course of a planning appeal). My first question was whether they would be building any two bedroomed houses, with all facilities on the ground floor (the upstairs fitted out), with big gardens and very low carbon/running costs? I didn't even mention the installation of PV. None were shown on their draft or permitted plans.
The next question was whether they would sell me a plot and build a house to my design? "We are national builders and build our own house types", is where they are still at, whilst denying any knowledge of the Housing and Planning Act, let alone any responsibility for helping LPAs to provide the serviced plots for people on the registers.
I see this as a teaching/learning exercise for them, me and in the case of Blue Cedar, the planning inspector. If 8 million people are really keen to downsize (see the All Party Parliamentary Group on Housing fro the Elderly and HAPPI), then the national housebuilders should be investigating how to meet this need - much of it from people with equity to be released from more valuable properties.
An important- no very important - point to make is that there is provision for non-material amendments to be accepted by LPAs without the need for fresh applications. The judgement of what is non-material one for the LPA but has to be made in the context of the permission as a whole. In the case of say development of 50 dwellings it would be entirely reasonable for the LPA to agree that a change to a house type (or two or three) would not require a fresh application. This would remove one of the objections from the housebuilder.
On larger sites the builder might only be expecting to build 30 to 40 units per year so the sale of plots in a discrete part of the site should not interfere with progress over the rest, From Gavin Barwell's point of view there would be greater certainty that self-build dwelling would be complete than those being built and sold into a precarious housing market. Win-win.
Jobs for the weekend: ask these questions at your local sales office. Suggest that the LPA or neighbourhood planners support custom building in this way, and write to DCLG/Gavin Barwell making these points. If you have not already done so he also needs reminding that DCLG reasearch shows that subsidising the demand for home ownership through Help to Buy actually reduces the number of people able to afford to buy through inflating prices - as per schoolboy/girl economics.
Friday, August 26, 2016
Planning for food
Some blogs are too long, as are some of the gaps between blogs. So here is the second blog of the day and it is very short. However, this is a blog to listen to while you shell the peas or do the washing up.
https://archive.org/details/LocalFoodPoliciesDanielScharfPlanner
Please forgive the stumbles as this was an unscripted presentation given in the Palace of Westminster to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Agro-Ecology (the reference to the unsustainable realm that the planners had helped to create was made as I looked out across the Thames at South London) and that it is a little out of date. However, most of the points are still valid and I would just say that para 161 of the NPPF could have added weight to the argument, and the requirement to prove essential need is at NPPF 55 (not 105).
The importance of including the talk given in 2014 in a Blog in 2016 is that nothing has happened.
https://archive.org/details/LocalFoodPoliciesDanielScharfPlanner
Please forgive the stumbles as this was an unscripted presentation given in the Palace of Westminster to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Agro-Ecology (the reference to the unsustainable realm that the planners had helped to create was made as I looked out across the Thames at South London) and that it is a little out of date. However, most of the points are still valid and I would just say that para 161 of the NPPF could have added weight to the argument, and the requirement to prove essential need is at NPPF 55 (not 105).
The importance of including the talk given in 2014 in a Blog in 2016 is that nothing has happened.
Planning to reduce carbon emissions correction
On the assumption that readers of Dantheplan would also have read Planning to reduce carbon emissions or at http://bit.ly/2asiQML
it may have come to your notice that there was nothing about opposing road building. This was an unfortunate omission as under Action for Roads the current Government demonstrates its belief that road building is still a road to prosperity. The Guide has been amended (new edition when more feedback received on original) to state that when the demand management measures have been put in palce it should become self evident (and even show up on the financial analyses that there would be no business case for building new roads, bridges or tunnels.
The preferred demand management measure was the reduction in the national speed limits to 50mph and 20mph that can be done tomorrow at little or no public expense and would be completely as well has having important knock on and cumulative effects (that is what happens with systemic change). However, speed limits are also on the edge of planning controls whereas new road building is very much open to public engagement.
On the question of demand management the new Guide will have to deal with road pricing and congestion charging. These measures might have a place when the impact of lower speed limits has been assessed. However, they are not cheap and have a number of rebound effects and potential problems with privacy and how they fit into the system. They should not be discarded as, like controls at the workplace and town centres, both could be used to discriminate in favour of Ultra Low Emission Vehicles; only ULEVs could enter urban areas without restriction and on roads between towns any charging would be heavily weighted to advantage ULEVs. Although it will be likely some owners of the larger and faster vehicles might be prepared to pay (seeing it as a fee rather than a tax) costs could be increased to raise revenue until the penny drops. These would also be the vehicles most likely to disappear if the national speed limits were at 50mph and 20mph.
it may have come to your notice that there was nothing about opposing road building. This was an unfortunate omission as under Action for Roads the current Government demonstrates its belief that road building is still a road to prosperity. The Guide has been amended (new edition when more feedback received on original) to state that when the demand management measures have been put in palce it should become self evident (and even show up on the financial analyses that there would be no business case for building new roads, bridges or tunnels.
The preferred demand management measure was the reduction in the national speed limits to 50mph and 20mph that can be done tomorrow at little or no public expense and would be completely as well has having important knock on and cumulative effects (that is what happens with systemic change). However, speed limits are also on the edge of planning controls whereas new road building is very much open to public engagement.
On the question of demand management the new Guide will have to deal with road pricing and congestion charging. These measures might have a place when the impact of lower speed limits has been assessed. However, they are not cheap and have a number of rebound effects and potential problems with privacy and how they fit into the system. They should not be discarded as, like controls at the workplace and town centres, both could be used to discriminate in favour of Ultra Low Emission Vehicles; only ULEVs could enter urban areas without restriction and on roads between towns any charging would be heavily weighted to advantage ULEVs. Although it will be likely some owners of the larger and faster vehicles might be prepared to pay (seeing it as a fee rather than a tax) costs could be increased to raise revenue until the penny drops. These would also be the vehicles most likely to disappear if the national speed limits were at 50mph and 20mph.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
A tax windfall that will harm housing provision
In a previous blog I suggested that all the claims being made for the Help to Buy scheme in attracting new entrants to the housing market were bogus, as putting money into the demand side (effectively to be shared between the landowner/seller and the developer) simply served to maintain if not inflate house prices (actually seen as an advantage by those appointed to assess the scheme!) thereby pricing even more people out than it helped people in.
That is by way of an introduction to another inspired intervention by the previous Chancellor George Osborne. Having torpedoed Gordon Brown before the election of 2010 by hinting at inheritance tax reductions, possibly hampered by his LibDem colleagues, he waited until the Autumn Statement of 2015 to announce that the first £1 million of the primary residence could be exempt from inheritance tax if the house was passed on to a family member. All such measures should have an 'impact assessment' and I would like to know what effect this tax relief is expected to have on the very serious issue of under-occupation? Passing large houses down the family line might not seem to be fair to those just looking for ways to own a small house and without the prospect of benefiting from such an inheritance?
My guess is that the prospect of shielding £1 million from the tax man will be a perverse incentive for a substantial number of people not to downsize. As the tax relief is on second death the incentive seems to be for the surviving spouse to stay in any house worth more than £1 million until they die. If Theresa May is really keen on being seen as an egalitarian and keen to see a fairer distribution of our limited housing resource, then this relief (due to take effect in April 2017) should be repealed by the new Chancellor Philip Hammond.
If not repealed, then regulations should allow the properties to be sub-divided, as will be necessary if the size of the housing stock is to better match the size of households (average 2.3 people and falling) or the owner occupier should be allowed to let out the property while they move to a smaller one, either owned or rented.
The impact of one move within a systems is usually hard to predict even when most of the relevant components of the system and their interrelationships are known. However, it is doubtful that the Chancellor gave a thought to what effect this tax break might have for the distribution of housing. Many people might believe that a Government should have more concern about the provision of housing than about handing out a windfall tax for the rich.
That is by way of an introduction to another inspired intervention by the previous Chancellor George Osborne. Having torpedoed Gordon Brown before the election of 2010 by hinting at inheritance tax reductions, possibly hampered by his LibDem colleagues, he waited until the Autumn Statement of 2015 to announce that the first £1 million of the primary residence could be exempt from inheritance tax if the house was passed on to a family member. All such measures should have an 'impact assessment' and I would like to know what effect this tax relief is expected to have on the very serious issue of under-occupation? Passing large houses down the family line might not seem to be fair to those just looking for ways to own a small house and without the prospect of benefiting from such an inheritance?
My guess is that the prospect of shielding £1 million from the tax man will be a perverse incentive for a substantial number of people not to downsize. As the tax relief is on second death the incentive seems to be for the surviving spouse to stay in any house worth more than £1 million until they die. If Theresa May is really keen on being seen as an egalitarian and keen to see a fairer distribution of our limited housing resource, then this relief (due to take effect in April 2017) should be repealed by the new Chancellor Philip Hammond.
If not repealed, then regulations should allow the properties to be sub-divided, as will be necessary if the size of the housing stock is to better match the size of households (average 2.3 people and falling) or the owner occupier should be allowed to let out the property while they move to a smaller one, either owned or rented.
The impact of one move within a systems is usually hard to predict even when most of the relevant components of the system and their interrelationships are known. However, it is doubtful that the Chancellor gave a thought to what effect this tax break might have for the distribution of housing. Many people might believe that a Government should have more concern about the provision of housing than about handing out a windfall tax for the rich.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)