All posts tagged development

120328NPPF

Directors Blog on the NPPF

By on March 28, 2012 in NPPF, Planning Policy

Today has been a quiet day in the office, a time for reflection on the meaning of life and the National Planning Policy Framework that has just appeared yesterday. Yesterday we faced a barrage of phone calls from anxious clients wanting to know how they were affected by the new proposals and whether it really was the developers charter as some wilder parts of the media had suggested.

Mr A, who owns a field in the middle of nowhere in particular was most disappointed that he didn’t have his golden ticket for his new house but for other clients the position seems less clear.

On the one hand we are told that the guidance takes immediate effect and that decision makers should apply its principles straightaway. Yet buried in the back of the document, hidden in the annex is the statement that for 12months from the date of publication, decision makers may continue to give full weight to their old LDF policies, even when they conflict with the new NPPF, provided the ‘old’ policies stem from no later than 2004. 

A number of us who have struggled with the absurdities of ‘One App’ validation requirements will perhaps take heart from the idea that validation lists should be frequently reviewed and that LPA’s should only request information that is relevant, necessary and material to the application. I wonder if that means I don’t have to procure the Air Quality Report sought for a proposed leisure development built just above the high tide mark up the coast from here?

I was pleased to see the continued reference to LPA’s looking for ‘solutions rather than problems’ and the continued emphasis on approval of sustainable developments wherever possible. However from past experience I shudder to think how we are going to get to grips with measuring  and assessing sustainability.

There is interesting and positive clarity on the greater emphasis given to assessing viability and it is interesting to note the reference to mitigation taking into account the need for competitive returns to a willing landowner and willing developer. Now all we need to do is to work out how to use the HCA’s assessment tool and we have got it cracked!

I was also struck by the new definition of Veteran Tree defined because of its great age, size or condition.  This got me thinking to the prospect of a Veteran Planner defined because of its age and circumference…..I certainly think I qualify on both fronts!

I’m sure that as I continue to plough through the guidance there will be more interesting nuggets of new information to delight and frustrate us in equal measure so I’ll keep you all posted with my thoughts.

120327NPPF

The NPPF is published

By on March 27, 2012 in Localism, NPPF, Planning Policy

The long awaited National Planing Policy Framework has been published. You can view the document here, or check back soon for detailed analysis.

120220CrowAppeal

Appeal won with costs

By on February 20, 2012 in Appeals, Prism News

Following on from our work with Kirklevington Riding Centre, Prism Planning have secured permission at appeal for a new house at Crows Meadow Farm, off Dalton Back Lane, Dalton Piercy, near Hartlepool.

The Planning Inspectorate granted the appeal and awarded full costs against the Council for what was agreed to have been an unnecessary appeal which has delayed the construction of a house on the site for no clear reason.

Our Clients had been operating a successful riding centre from the site for over three years. The business offers full and ‘part-time’ DIY livery services for horse owners in the local area. During this time, the family have lived on site in a mobile home, which was granted a temporary permission in 2007. Having demonstrated the viability of the business over the intervening period, Prism Planning submitted a planning application for a permanent house on the site in May 2011.

The business could successfully show a need for someone to live on site and be available to look after the horses; the proposed house complied with all relevant local and national planning policy. Despite this, the application was still undecided 5 months later with no positive end in sight.

The Councils officers ignored several pieces of key national policy during the consideration of the application and considered trying to impose legal agreements on the proposals which were wholly improper. Due to the delay, and position the Council adopted, an appeal against the Council’s failure to determine the application was submitted by Prism Planning and a hearing was later held at the Council offices in January 2012. In allowing the appeal, the Inspector found the Council to be “unreasonable” in their behaviour and “unreasonable” for not determining the application within the usual timescale.

Whilst we always try to have a productive relationship with the Councils we work with, there are times when the only way forward is to appeal. When we appeal we aim to win and this is a result that we are very proud of and adds to our impressive success rate. This is the second equestrian dwelling we have won at appeal in the last few months and shows that our in depth knowledge reaps benefit for the client. It is of course disappointing that taxpayers money was needlessly spent opposing such a sound case where there was no practical reason for the delay.

Our case studies pages will be updated soon…

120217HBCCoreStrat

Hartlepool Core Strategy Review

By on February 17, 2012 in Planning Policy, Public 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:

  1. Allowing up to 5,400 new homes to be built over the next 15 years.
  2. 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.
  3. Earmarking Wynyard for further executive housing and prestigious business development and Elwick and Hart for small scale housing schemes.
  4. 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.
  5. Promoting tourism and leisure developments, particularly at the marina, Seaton Carew and on the Headland.
  6. Policies to protect and enhance the town centre area and to support the creation of an innovation and skills quarter.
  7. 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.

120126PlanningSpeed

Getting your applications through the system quick

By on January 26, 2012 in Development Control

If you are looking to make a ‘minor’ application, for a small scale development it really does pay to make sure that the application is as complete and throrough as possible before submitting it.

Many Planning Authorities in the North East of England are imposing strict time limits to allow them to meet their Government imposed targets, particularly for applications with an 8-week determination target that are delegated to the Planning Officer for decision – these are applications where a decision can be reached without going before the Council’s Planning Committee.

These time limits can mean that applications need to be withdrawn, or worse are refused by the Council, where information is incomplete or when issues arise requiring further attention and resolution would take the application beyond the 8-week target.

This can seem unfair given the huge amount of work which needs to be undertaken and often doesn’t even guarantee a successful outcome.  Indeed, withdrawing an application to avoid refusal (refusal is nearly always better avoided if possible), preparing the additional information and then re-submitting can mean that an application that should take 8 weeks to approve can take 18-20 weeks!

It really does pay to get advice before you start and to make sure that you are providing the planning authority will all of the information that they might reasonably require to properly consider your application.  We offer free consultations and will always let you know what we think of your chances, good or bad.

We like talking to you

By on November 1, 2011 in Development Control, Prism News, Public Consultation

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.

A window of opportunity for ‘marginal’ planning applications

By on October 17, 2011 in Development Control, NPPF, Planning Policy

The consultation for the draft National Planning Policy Framework has ended today and here at Prism we think this provides a window of opportunity for those of you with development projects. While the draft stands, and it is as yet unclear how quickly changes may be made, some marginal projects which may have previously been refused, or not been viable could now have a good chance.

This is by no means because it is, as it has been dubbed by doubters, a ‘developer’s charter’. It is because of the positive move towards a presumption in favour of sustainable development, along with changes to policy pushing the threshold for the Council’s housing supply past the 20% mark already approved.

At Prism we are already working on an application which may not have been approved previously but which has a good chance of succeeding in the present climate and we have plenty of advice and expertise to share. If you think your planning application might benefit from this window of opportunity and want to find out if it meets the criteria of the draft NPPF please contact us. We are great at problem solving and always find a solution that suits our clients, so why not take this opportunity to move forward with your development plans and get advice from the Prism team?

You can call us on: 01325 345 960 or email: admin@prism-planning.com

NPPF – Naysayers take note!

By on August 17, 2011 in Development Control, Localism, NPPF

There is a part of me that is looking forward to the day, which is not too far off, when I’m going to have lots more shelf space in the office. Out will go the 10ft length of Planning Policy Statements and the even older Planning Policy Guidance notes and in their place will come a slim volume, just ½ an inch thick (or 15mm for the converted amongst you). Some of the old PPG’s I doubt have ever been opened by the team – at least not since they were bound up to have as an essential reference tool for the practice. I’m sure we will manage without them.

The new guidance is causing major rifts to open up within the profession. The invitation to comment is being taken as an opportunity to lambast those within the profession who hold a different view. One national journalist, presumably writing with a certain amount of his tongue stuck firmly in his cheek, has accused the new guidance as leading inevitably to new bungalows being built upon the white cliffs of Dover. Others have talked about there still being so much short-termism, nimbyism and delay that not a lot will happen as a result.

Generally those supporting the new framework have been slightly more measured in their support than the opponents. The latter have likened the reforms to the debacle over student loans and sale of the forestry commission. One leading pundit has even gone so far as to write that “Planning will no longer serve the interests of the public or the environment!”

Personally I find these words and attitudes extreme and unhelpful. Trying to find words of comfort to assist an out of centre proposal one of my clients wishes to take forward, I struggled to find any seismic shift in core guidance. Others have pointed out that concepts such as Green Belts remain firmly untouched. On the whole, when studied carefully I don’t think that it represents the end of planning as we know it.

What it is trying to do is to change attitudes and approaches, particularly in planning offices up and down the country. Those who simply act as conduits for feedback on development proposals will have to apply their critical thinking they were trained for. They need try to problem solve and find solutions to issues–not to simply reject a proposal because they have received an adverse view.

Like it or not the country needs new development; people don’t live in allocations the last time I checked, they live in houses actually built. If they are not being built, something needs to be done. Perhaps the presumption in favour will help to address this. I do hope so.

What is clear is that over the last 5 years, under the guise of modernising and improving the system, we have ended up with a complex and burdensome approach. Our policies have become mired in complex and bewildering arays of documents of various stages of completion. Our planning applications require so many documents and investigations to underpin them, many of which simply to prove a negative, that good schemes aren’t coming forward because there is too much cost and risk involved. Those applications that do make it through the validation process seem to face universal claims for financial contributions as Councils attempt to fill depleted coffers and officers think that developers are still cash cows to be milked whenever the opportunity arises.

We do need to return to basics and Sir Peter Hall does well to remind us that all we are doing is to return to the system as it was set up in 1947. I do hope that opponents of the reforms will in the remaining time available, focus more on the adjustments required to get the new system to work. Its not free of errors and areas for improvement, but the danger we face is that the current focus on extreme interpretations will result in a lack of attention to detail and the guidance comes in without the final polish it could be given.

Planning for Growth – The Planning Inspectorate Take Note

By on June 21, 2011 in Development Control, NPPF

In allowing two planning appeals a Planning Inspector has placed significant importance upon the Ministerial Statement of March 2011, ‘Planning for Growth’, which says that the planning system has a key role in ensuring that the sustainable development needed to support economic growth is able to proceed as easily as possible and that the promotion of sustainable economic growth and jobs has to be a top priority. Councils have been urged to have full regard of this statement in their consideration of planning applications.

We recently (20th June 2011) won appeals against two decisions by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council to refuse planning permission for the change of use of a vacant former shop premises within Redcar town centre to either a betting shop or a café restaurant. The Council was concerned that the loss of a shop premises within the “prime shopping area” of the town centre to a non-retail use would harm the vitality and viability of the town centre.

We successfully argued against the Council’s concerns, the Planning Inspector fully endorsing our arguments that neither of the proposed uses of the premises would materially erode the vitality or the retail character of the prime shopping area or the town centre as a whole.

More significantly, however, the Planning Inspector took full note of the Ministerial statement, ‘Planning for Growth’, and the Government’s clear expectation that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy. The Inspector accepted our argument that the Ministerial Statement provided significant “in principle” support to the appeals and that they will meet the aim of promoting sustainable economic growth and jobs.

Concerns over demolition follow new EU ruling.

By on April 18, 2011 in Planning Policy, Prism News

For many years now we have had a system of controls over the demolition of buildings. In very simple terms, if demolition of a house has been proposed, the Council have had to give a ‘prior approval’ to the demolition although in nearly all other cases we have been able to simply get on with demolition of other building.

This has been quite handy over the last couple of years as business rates have started to bite on empty industrial buildings. Its been quite a boom time for the demolition sector as a result.

There has however just been a new Court of Appeal decision that will seemingly lead to far reaching changes to our current ability to ‘wack and drop’ unused commercial buildings. In a new landmark ruling the Court has said that before undertaking demolitions, it must be determined whether the demolition would have a significant environmental impact and if necessary an Environmental Impact Assessment must be produced and signed off by the Council. This means that demolition contractors and owners of buildings due for demolition will no longer enjoy the freedom to simply ‘get on with the job’ in hand.

The ruling will not only result in some demolitions requiring EIA but will also result in most other demolitions having to go through a formal notification process with the LPA.

A significant amount of red tape and potential delay has just been introduced into what was previously a fairly straightforward and simple process. Admittedly this red tape hasn’t been introduced by the Government –they are the victims of it as much as the demolition contractors and we await their reaction to what will surely be an unwelcome bit of news. However it certainly isn’t going to help the recovery of the property sector which is still lagging way behind the rest of the economic sectors and needs every boost it can possibly get.

To avoid getting into hot water, anyone thinking about demolitions would be well advised to seek specialist advice from a suitable planning consultant –such as Prism!