Thorncliffe | Your Shout

Planning committee approval | Community consultation

You are here: Home / Archives for Uncategorized

Uncategorized

The Gove agenda

Is this the last throw of the dice for Gove on planning reform?

With time rapidly running out before the election, Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove has put forward an idea to bump up housebuilding which he might just get through in time. 

It comes out of the fact that the Conservative government does not like Labour Mayor of London Sadiq Khan. Accusing him of adopting planning policies which hinder development, Gove ordered a quick review of the London Plan. The four-member panel included DLUHC’s favourite planning silk Christopher Katkowski (or ‘KitKat’) and ex-Local Government Association Chair James Jamieson, who has just been given a peerage. 

This review could not find any policy in the London Plan to remove or alter, but did come up with a short cut: a presumption to grant permission on brownfield sites. They wouldn’t apply it on Green Belt or open land sites, and would still balance public benefit against harm to heritage assets. And it would only happen for councils which were below their housing targets. 

So taken by this was the Secretary of State that he has proposed to apply it everywhere – not just London. A quick consultation opened this week, to conclude on 26 March; if it is able to go ahead, national Planning Policy will be amended: the Secretary of State has legal power to change planning policy without much Parliamentary scrutiny. 

There are two parts of the change. Every council will have to give weight to the need to deliver more homes on brownfield sites, and a brownfield presumption will apply if any of the 20 largest urban councils are falling short on housing delivery. Where a council is ordered to apply a brownfield presumption, it will still be its planning committee deciding how to balance it. More work for the Planning Inspectorate? 

Sadiq Khan may be looking quizzical about this new policy. His first go at a London Plan included a ‘Small Sites policy’ which gave outer London boroughs high targets to be achieved by higher density developments on sites below 0.25 hectares – almost all of which were brownfield. Planning inspectors cut it back and the Mayor reluctantly complied. 

Meanwhile Michael Gove may have given away his confidence about the Conservatives’ chances of regaining the Mayoralty by adding an extra question on the consultation about raising the threshold for referring applications to the Mayor. 

DLUHC’s consultation closes on 26 March, which is within the ‘purdah’ period before the Mayoral election and would be after the time a May general election would have to be announced. 

Don’t be afraid of the voters

Just before Christmas, the Tories came up with the concept of street vote development orders, a new route to planning permission that will give residents the ability to propose development on their street and, subject to meeting certain requirements, vote on whether the development should be given planning permission.

Of course, it’s a bit late in the government’s timetable, so they’re unlikely to have legislative time to introduce it before a likely Labour government come in during the autumn.

But it got us thinking – is it something the development industry should be afraid of?  Should we be scared of voters saying “no” to our carefully prepared, very expensive, schemes?

The answer, as you’d expect from the company that operates YES! is absolutely no.  You should not be afraid of the voters.

Sure, there are plenty of NIMBYs.  But we’ve shown recently that local people want development, and it’s just a case of finding them, and getting them to put pen to paper.

Over the past few months, we’ve found 600 supporters for a scheme in RBKC, about 100 for a scheme in Brentford, about 50 for a scheme in Slough, 300 for a scheme in Leicester, 90 for a scheme in Bristol, and 1900 for a cross-border scheme in Merton and Wandsworth.

So next time you worry about the people saying no to your scheme, just pick up the phone to YES!

Whatever the challenge, we’ll say YES! 

Good lobbyist? Thank you The Times

Here is The Times article on what we do. It neatly sums up the issues for developers – that they are dealing with a complex system that is difficult to navigate. We’re not defending the planning system – far from it. But we hope we provide a service that helps developers engage with the local community and local politicians. Our belief is that this constructive engagement will make the scheme better for all.

If you’d prefer to read the article online, click on this link.

The Times

The Times has contacted us about councillors helping developers understand the complexities of the planning system. The journalist initially inferred that there might be a problem with this. We hope we reassured her that anyone that works for us that is also a councillor adheres to our triple lock – abiding by the law, their council’s own code and our code, and never works in their own local authority area – full stop. We also drew her attention to what Eric Pickles said about the matter when he was Secretary of State – “Councillors are not full time politicians. They can, and should have outside jobs and interests. I believe the sunlight of transparency will be the best disinfectant.”

We are passionate about reforming the planning system to make it easier to build homes that are desperately needed.  We’re also passionate about engaging with local communities to empower them to say yes to new homes.

Lee Rowley the new Housing Minister

  • The widely reported fact that Lee Rowley is the 16th Housing Minister since 2010 remains problematic. He has less than a year to do anything, and this isn’t much time.
  • Is housing a big priority for the current PM – the fact that Sunak didn’t mention it in his conference speech and hasn’t made it one of his five key priorities is also an issue.
  • There are two Bills in the King’s Speech which deal with housing in general but they are both about existing homes – the Renters (Reform) Bill and the Leasehold and Freehold Bill. Although they are not politically contentious in what they do, there will be attempts to make them do more.
  • Major changes to the planning regime can’t be done without a Bill but Rowley may be able to do more tinkering through secondary legislation – to remove red tape and extend permitted development.
  • He can start setting up development corporations just using secondary legislation. Sunak announced one for Euston station but he could go looking for others.
  • Labour’s decision to position itself as in favour of big housebuilding (and to gently question green belt protections) gives Rowley a bit more room to pose as being in favour of sensible and popular development which doesn’t destroy the countryside and which local councils control – if that’s how he wants to be seen.
  • It’s possible an opportunity may come up to have another vote on relaxing the nutrient neutrality rules – that allowed the Conservatives a nice chance to undermine Labour earlier this year.

localcouncils.co.uk

communityUK