The long awaited National Planing Policy Framework has been published. You can view the document here, or check back soon for detailed analysis.
All posts tagged consultation
Hartlepool Borough Council has published the last draft of its Core Strategy which will shape the future of planning in the Borough.
The Core Strategy sets out the main planning framework for the Borough for the next 15 years and has been drawn up following extensive public consultation over the past two years.
Consultation on the draft will run for the last time, from Monday 13th February to Monday 26th March. If you have any comments to make, or want to know more about the impact of the documents on you, get in touch with us today.
The headlines of the documents include:
- Allowing up to 5,400 new homes to be built over the next 15 years.
- Achieving this growth within the existing urban area as well as through a major new residential development to the south-west of the town and a smaller, limited area of new housing at Upper Warren.
- Earmarking Wynyard for further executive housing and prestigious business development and Elwick and Hart for small scale housing schemes.
- The creation of green spaces across the borough, including in Golden Flatts and in the new residential development in the south-west and the retention of the green areas which give a strategic gap between the town and Hart and Greatham.
- Promoting tourism and leisure developments, particularly at the marina, Seaton Carew and on the Headland.
- Policies to protect and enhance the town centre area and to support the creation of an innovation and skills quarter.
- Promoting the port, Oakesway Industrial Estate and the Southern Business Zone for business, recognising the town’s three new Enterprise Zones and safeguarding land for a new nuclear power station.
Following the conclusion of consultations, the draft Core Strategy will be examined at a public hearing by a Government Planning Inspector, ensuring that the document is realistic in its aims, the Inspector will also consider any comments made during the final consultation.
In a written ministerial statement, Planning Minister Greg Clark has put a timescale on publication of the final version of the NPPF framework, with the Government aiming to put it out by 31st March 2012.
The minister has strongly defended the planned changes to the framework, which see 1,300 pages of planning guidance distilled into 52, saying in a written response to criticism: “Our reforms aim to strengthen local decision making and reinforce the importance of local plans.”
Meanwhile the Daily Telegraph has set about on its ‘hands off our land’ campaign and has quizzed Local Government and Planning minister Bob Neill.
Mr Neill told the Telegraph in this article: “By the end of the year we will be in a very different place. We are genuinely prepared to listen to sensible improvements that have been made.
He added: “It was never intended to be a charter for inappropriate development in the countryside.”
Now local councils, planners and developers wait with baited breath and differing ideals to see what exactly this “very different place” will look like, and if it will get the UK building again. Forward thinking Prism MD Steve Barker has expressed his sense of relief at having a date set, but says he still has doubts:
“It’s very welcome news that a reasonably short timescale has been put in place to get the NPPF out in the wider world. Given the extent of problems with the construction sector and record lows in house building, it’s clear that it’s going to take a lot of determined effort by public and private sectors for the country to begin to build again. My fervent hope is that councils don’t think they have to wait until April to begin to respond to the challenges we so clearly face.”
Outside of the NIMBY brigade in the Telegraph, no credible developers have ever thought the NPPF was a charter to concrete the countryside with insensitive new development. However there is evidence that some officers in local councils are hoping that the guidance will be radically revised and they won’t have to change their attitudes. It’s clear from the Minister [Clark] that such dinosaurs need to be made extinct!”
As the Telegraph article states, an 18 month “transition period” is among changes being considered by the Government, giving councils more time to draw up local development plans.
“Or perhaps it will give those local councils who do not wish to change their attitude more time to stall action and hold back adoption of the new NPPF.” Steve added.
We’ll be sure to keep you posted with news from this heated debate as it unfolds.
You may have seen in our recent newsletter that we received some press coverage for our public consultation event at Allens West. A public consultation is a chance for plans to go on show for a proposed project which has not yet gone to planning committee. Local residents can come along to the event, usually held all day with no booking required, and speak to our team of planners about what exactly is involved in the development.
Speaking to the public about proposed planning applications is something we value at Prism and take great pride in. We try to never submit a major application without ensuring that everyone is as informed as they can possibly be – because without all the information, you can’t make an informed decision!
Often a well attended consultation gives us a feel for what the general opinion is of the plans, and what aspects we may need to reassure people on. After speaking to our planning team and looking over detailed plans people feel ‘in the loop’ and assured that our plans have their best interests at heart.
Prism like talking to you, and if you need to talk to us about a planning issue you have please call 01325 345 960.
With less than three weeks to go until the consultation period ends on the draft changes to the NPPF the debate is heating up. The major player for the opposition seems to be the National Trust, digging its heels in on matters concerning “sustainable development” and “greenbelt” — here we take a look at the latest developments in this ongoing conflict of interests with links to articles which state the facts and have generated much interest here in the Prism offices.
You may have seen in our newsletter that last Thursday (22.9.11) Planning minister Greg Clark faced the National Trust’s firing squad and stated his intent to listen to their concerns and take action. He also reassured those in attendance that he is determined to go ahead with the proposed changes but does not intend them to change the purpose of the planning system. You can read the article from the Guardian on this here.
You could be forgiven for being confused as to why the National Trust, owner of castles and similar rural heritage sites, is such a formidable enemy to make. Well let’s not forget their immense impact in the forestry debate which saw the government backtrack on policy in the face of outcry. This piece from the Economist explains why Mr Cameron might do well to get the charity on-side for this one, and why he might already be taking the steps by calling for dialogue.
Not only have the National Trust created a public backlash— inviting those opposing the plans to contact MPs-and lobbied party conferences, but now they have a list of demands rather resembling a list of ten planning commandments. You can see their demands here.
What’s next? Well there is sure to be a torrent of comment and debate around the demands, such as the comments here from Liz Peace stating that she believes the National Trust may have misread the NPPF. There will also be mounting support for the charity’s campaign with new petitions to sign appearing ever day and spreading like wildfire via Twitter and other powerful social media platforms. It’s certainly one to watch and an issue which will continue to dominate the planning world until the consultation closes on October 17th and we all wait with baited breath.
We’ve digested the proposed changes to the NPPF and brought you a run-down of a few points of interest and importance. The draft of the NPPF this information was taken from is subject to change as a result of the consultation process, but much of the content builds upon previous ministerial announcements and isn’t new.
Most developers will approve of the new ‘Golden Thread’ running through the guidance –the new presumption in favour of development. Once fully in place the default answer to an application being submitted will be ‘yes’ unless there is a good reason to say ‘no’! Such a seismic change in approach will not sit happily with all local authority planners!
This is one of the most fundamental reforms of the planning system and is being hotly contested by anti-development pressure groups who are mounting campaigns to force a ‘U’ turn similar to the one mounted over sale of forestry land. Those who find themselves in support of the new guidance will need to consider whether to make their support public to add a counterbalance to the objectors.
An increased emphasis has been put on the importance of meeting development needs through plans and doing so in as sustainable a manor as possible. Plan-making and development management is to be proactively driven by opportunities to deliver sustainable development, rather than constrained by barriers.
The local Government will further support the Government’s energy and climate change policy and zero emissions target by identifying suitable areas for low-carbon and renewable energy sources.
On the subject of zero carbon homes, the government are looking at ways to make the current assessment tools simpler. We have a range of tools covering energy measurement –Code for Sustainable Homes, BREEAM etc and they can seem quite daunting to work through. However there is no suggestion that the government are backing away from the 2016 carbon neutrality commitments set by the previous administration. In fact over the last few months there have been several key note speeches from ministers, reaffirming their commitment to pursuing the 2016 end date, despite the difficult economic climate. Those developers who took the idea of reforms to mean weakening of the Code seem likely to be profoundly disappointed.
There is proposed to be more support for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of green space. A new form of protection for local green space not already protected by National policy is proposed. This means local councils and communities can decide which areas of green infrastructure are important to them and put them forward for protection. It is however not intended to be a ‘nimbys’ charter and is clearly only intended to be used in special cases for special land.
On the local community subject; Local Councils are being asked to develop policies to protect community facilities and safeguard against unnecessary loss of facilities which are shown to be viable. The policies would not be limited to facilities in larger towns, but all facilities in rural areas as well.
It’s a lot about handing back the power to the local communities and Councils. Still on the agenda are Community Right to Build schemes relating to Green Belt sites to be permitted if backed by the local community as well as the continuing concept of neighbourhood plans supported by local referenda.
Also, it is proposed that the National Brownfield Target be removed and replaced by a system which allows local Councils to asses which land is most suitable for new housing developments based on local needs.
So that’s it, well almost all of it, in a rather large nut shell. If you have any questions or are wondering how this might affect you then send us an email and we will do our best to help!
I’ve been back from planning committee for a few days now and am still reeling from the decision to refuse planning permission. Apparently the fact that no technical objections exist, the site is allocated for housing and the scheme provides for much needed affordable housing doesn’t really count for much when the local community don’t want it on their doorstep. The quality of the debate wasn’t the greatest I have seen although it was most spirited. However the committee thought it was high time they set aside all of these allocations that keep constraining their decision making! So much for the comfort of a plan led system. It remains to be seen whether the Inspectorate will remedy the situation and overule the local planning authority but you will be unsurprised to know that the appeal is ongoing.
We are running up to the demise of our RDA’s in just a few weeks time and one of the last grants they will issue in the North East has been awarded to a major manufacturer we are representing. The proposals need to be rushed through as quickly as the system allows so that a start can be made on site before the end of the year: No start = no grant and the loss of the inward investment to another part of the European Union.
An SCI event has been undertaken with overwhelming community support and the planning officer has also been broadly supportive, noting that the site is allocated for industry in the Local Plan. Everything seems to be going in the right direction and even the Highways Agency are being supportive -all that is apart from the possibility of newts getting onto the site.
A formal objection has been received from our national ecological team on the basis that we might have newts present and need to survey for their presence. There are newts in the area so there is a kernel of legitimacey to their objection. But the catch 22 to the situation is that we can’t survey for the newts until the weather warms the land in April/May, by which time the opportunity to attract the grant and the business it supports will be gone. Two impartial sets of ecologist have looked at the site and pointed out that any newt on the site would have had to cross a busy main road to get there and would probably not have the best of genetic material to extend the newt gene pool. However its a classic dilema to the LPA as to whether they go for the certainty of securing inward investment or the possibility, however unlikely, of a protected species being present.
I’ve blogged before about the pre-eminence we give to protected species and I’m in danger of apearing like the dodgy developer on Corrie who persuaded his bats to leave in a manner not approved by Natural England. I’m not really authoring a book with Gordon Ramsey on 101 ways to cook newts but have to admit that it is becoming increasingly challenging getting the balance right between reconciling new forms of development and investment with the ecological issues. By way of example; we recently had a decision from a planning authority that prevented us from working on the site between November and April because of the possibility of bats being present. Subsequently they then went on to restrict work in the summer between May and September because of the possibility of swallows being present. Not too many weeks of available construction time in that permission yet the planner’s couldn’t see anything wrong with their decision.
Rather than wasting time trying to get Localism to work in a positive manner, I would rather the boffins put some serious effort into sensible guidance on how we can more properly consider the integration of development with the protection of any said species. At the moment we have a very blunt and unwieldy system that gives far greater weight into the possibility of protected species being present than it does job creation and inward investment.
Now, who is for pickled newts on toast…?
