The Planner - February 2015 by The Planner

FEBRUARY 2015 STRIPPED BY AUSTERITY HOW THE SYSTEM IS BEARING THE BRUNT // P.22 • THE FINE BALANCING ACT OF INCLUSIVE PLANNING // P.26 • POWER TO THE PEOPLE DEVOLVING PLAN MAKING // P.30 • CREATING A PORTFOLIO // P.4O

T H E B U S I N ES S M O N T H LY FO R P L A N N I N G P R O F ES S IO N A LS

PLANNER P

THE

FAIR SHARES Capturing land value: can we learn from the rest of Europe?

p1_cover_feb.indd 1

16/01/2015 14:53

Are you proud of planning and proud of planners? Share it with the world. Post or tweet a great initiative, award, project or plan. facebook.com/ProudofPlanning #proudofplanning #proudofplanners

p02_PLNFeb15.indd 2

16/01/2015 10:11

CONTENTS

PLANNER 06 22

THE

FEBRU ARY

20 15

“MANY COUNCILS WILL HAVE TO MAKE VERY DIFFICULT CHOICES ABOUT WHICH SERVICES TO PRIORITISE. SOME SERVICES HAVE ALREADY BEEN REDUCED AND MAY NEED TO BE CUT ALTOGETHER”

NEWS

THAT

6 The drive to reduce car dependency

7 Planning professionals receive New Year Honours 8 Housing tops election wish list 9 £220 million funding for low-cost London homes 10 The paths to working across boundaries 11 Revised Edinburgh Marina master plan submitted

OPINION 12 Chris Shepley: Fostering a bureaucratic purgatory 16 Robin Hambleton: The devolution deception 16 Claire Pearce: Going nuclear 17 Matthew James: Vote for planning changes 17 Ann Skippers: Behind the examination

COV E R I M AG E | N IC K LO U N DE S

FEATURES

INSIGHT

18 What can we learn from the rest of Europe about gaining value from development for the community? ask Janet Askew and Adam Sheppard

38 Legal landscape: Opinion, blogs, and news from the legal side of planning

22 Local authority 2 planning departments p have already been h stripped by austerity st measures. But the pain m is far from over, says David Blackman D

QUOTE UNQUOTE

“I WOULD OULD NSFORM TRANSFORM THE CENTRE OF LONDON TO AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THE CAR IS NO LONGER DOMINANT” JOURNALIST AND RAIL HISTORIAN CHRISTIAN WOLMAR LAUNCHES HIS BID TO BECOME MAYOR OF LONDON

p.03_contents.indd 3

26 Inclusive planning 2 is no longer the sole province of designers – p it is something planners should be addressing sh too. to By Mark Smulian

18 30

40 Career development: Creating a portfolio 42 Plan Ahead – our pick of upcoming events for the planning profession and beyond 44 RTPI round-up: News and interviews from the institute 50 Plan B: A Plain English Guide to the Planning System – first draft

30 Much more needs 3 tto be done to devolve planning down to local people, says Gavin Parker

FE B R U AR Y 2 01 5 / THE PLA NNER

19/01/2015 17:54

Legal 500 Leading Firm: Real Estate, Planning, Property Litigation Chambers Leading Firm: Real Estate, Planning

Davitt Jones Bould provides the full range of Planning Legal Services including contentious and non-contentious matters, advice on strategic planning issues, planning enforcement, compulsory purchase, highways law and environmental issues. In addition to legal services, the firm also provides accredited training on emerging law and practical issues.

Call us on 0344 880 8000 or visit www.djblaw.co.uk to find out more

Save up to 50% on training with a Season Ticket

BE WISE WHEN YOU ADVERTISE The Planner is the oﬃcial magazine of RTPI. We guarantee your advert will reach

20,000+ RTPI members monthly.

® Pre-purchase a season ticket with 5, 10, 15 or 25 places ® Places from £199* per event ® Mix & match your event selection ® Dedicated account manager to help manage your season ticket ® Year round access to over 50 events

020 3740 5828

C O N TA C T

www.rtpiconferences.co.uk/seasonticket

If you want to reach the valuable audience,please contact: lee-anne.walsh@redactive.co.uk or call 020 7324 2753

* (based on pre-purchasing 25 places based on the RTPI member price) RTPI Conferences is managed by Kaplan Hawksmere on behalf of the Royal Town Planning Institute

TH E P L AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p04_PLNFeb14.indd 4

123x91mm the planner filler ad.indd 1

13/01/2015 17:25

14/01/2015 19:06

PLAN UPFRONT

Leaderr Seeing the connectedness of things Joined-up thinking – we frequently complain about the lack of it, perhaps rarely praising its presence. Yet in planning, the requirement for ‘joined-up thinking’ is surely mandatory – despite the potential for multiple intepretations of what it comprises. Spatial planning, for example, is surely only ever possible through a joined-up approach. Indeed, surely any kind of development needs to be considered in context – with ‘consideration in context’ as good a deﬁnition of joined-up thinking as any. Joined-up thinking came to mind this month because of the launch by the National Planning Casework Unit (NPCU) of its new mapping app. Now there’s an interesting example of joined-up thinking – an interactive map based on key cases that have come under

Martin Read consideration by the NPCU (since April of last year). It’s based on data from referrals under the Consultation Direction 2009 – third-party requests to intervene, compulsory purchase orders and environmental impact screening directions. Users can navigate around a map of the UK, zooming in on individual cases by postcode, date range and decision type. Interactive tables group decisions by case type, so you can get a

sense of what’s happening up and down the country. Interestingly, this is part of the NPCU’s move to becoming more ‘open and transparent’ in the way it communicates casework decisions (it cites a commitment to the government’s Open Data agenda). The way in which planners and indeed members of the public can immerse themselves in any customised variety of the data is certainly joinedup – but it also makes you wonder just how much more could be achieved in this area. After all, the NPCU itself says that its app only covers “a number of key cases”.

“THIS IS PART OF THE NPCU’S MOVE TO BECOMING MORE ‘OPEN AND TRANSPARENT’ IN THE WAY IT COMMUNICATES CASEWORK DECISIONS”

I wonder to what level we can expect all this openness and transparency to reach? Because when IT used in this way allows for hitherto unseen patterns to emerge, that’s surely all to the good. And I doubt we’ve yet seen half of what open access to data through a database platform will end up doing for the profession, but Whatever its focus, more of this sort of thing can only be welcomed – particularly where such tools highlight inconsistencies in approach to decision-making. Any nuggets of insight unearthed by these tools can only help people who are empowered – either by time and resource – to make use of them. Which reminds me that in this edition you’ll read more about the constraints local authorities are working under as budget cuts bite ever deeper. It would be nice to report on people sensing some joined-up thinking behind the cuts – but they most emphatically are not.

CONTACTS Redactive Publishing Ltd 17 Britton Street, London EC1M 5TP 020 7880 6200

Picture editor Claire Echavarry

SUBSCRIPTIONS

Consultant creative director Mark Parry

Ryan.hadden@redactive.co.uk £120 – UK £175 – Overseas For bulk copies please email for details.

A DV E RT I S I N G & M A R K E T I N G EDITORIAL

Senior sales executive Lee-Anne Walsh – 020 7324 2753

Tel: 020 7324 2736 editorial@theplanner.co.uk

Senior sales executive Norbert Camenzuli – 020 7880 7551

Editor Martin Read martin.read@theplanner.co.uk

Recruitment sales John Seaman — 020 7880 8541 PRODUCT ION

Consultant editor Huw Morris Features editor Simon Wicks simon.wicks@theplanner.co.uk Reporter Laura Edgar laura.edgar@theplanner.co.uk Sub-editor Deborah Shrewsbury

Production manager Jane Easterman Senior production executive Aysha Miah PUBLISHING Publishing director Joanna Marsh ISSN 2053-7581

RT P I C O N TA C T S

Average net circulation 20,646 (October-December 2013) © The Planner is published on behalf of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) by Redactive Publishing Ltd (RPL), 17 Britton St, London EC1M 5TP. This magazine aims to include a broad range of opinion about planning issues and articles do not necessarily reﬂect the views of the RTPI nor should such opinions be relied upon as statements of fact. All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, transmitted or stored in any print or electronic format, including but not limited to any online service, any database or any part of the internet, or in any other format in whole or in partww in any media whatsoever, without the prior written permission of the publisher. While all due care is taken in writing and producing this magazine, neither RTPI nor RPL accept any liability for the accuracy of the contents or any opinions expressed herein. Printed by Polestar Colchester Ltd.

membership@rtpi.org.uk 020 7929 9462 Education education@rtpi.org.uk 020 7929 9451 Planning Aid Advice Line advice@planningaid.rtpi.org.uk 0330 929 9451 41 Botolph Lane London EC3R 8DL Media enquiries Tino Hernandez tino.hernandez@rtpi.org.uk 020 7929 8182 The Planner is produced using paper that is elemental chlorine free and is sourced from sustainable managed forest.

F EB R U AR Y 2 015 / THE PLA NNER

p.05_Leader.indd 5

19/01/2015 17:55

NEWS

Analysis { TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

The drive to reduce car dependency By Laura Edgar The 2014 Car Dependency Scorecard, a report by Campaign for Better Transport, looks at how 29 towns and cities compare in areas including public transport provision, cycling and walking and planning policies that support sustainable transport. London, Manchester and Liverpool were found to be the bestperforming cities, while Milton Keynes, Colchester and Peterborough came in at 27th, 28th and 29th respectively. London, the least car-dependent city, has a devolved transport system and well-developed public transport infrastructure, while Milton Keynes is spread out and has a low density, meaning its network is better suited to cars. The report highlights that something has to change if more people are to walk, cycle or use public transport instead of their car: People use cars because “they feel they have no choice and those without cars get isolated and excluded.” In response to its research, Campaign for Better Transport has made several recommendations in the report on how they believe car dependency can be reduced: c Future developments should be located near to existing public transport hubs, as well as be close to jobs, services and facilities that can reached by foot, cycling or public transport. c New developments should be designed so that walking and cycling are more convenient than driving, as well as safer and quicker. c New stations and line should be invested in while current stations and interchanges should be improved. c The use of smart cards, like London’s Oyster Card system, should be expanded. c Buses should have priority over other transport. c Cycling provision should be strongly invested in. c The integration of diﬀerent sustainable ways of travel needs to be improved so that people “can make door-to-door journeys without using a car.” c Small-scale infrastructure, such as real-time public transport information, 20mph speed limits and cycle parking, should be improved. c Road and pavement repairs and maintenance represents good value for money. Speaking to The Planner, David Metz, visiting professor, Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, explained that London, Manchester and Liverpool topped the list because their car use is limited as they are building centrally at high density. He added that he believed to reduce car dependency, “the need

T H E PL AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p6_7_news.indd 6

is to offer an efficient alternative for work trips – ideally rail, or BRT, or very effective priority bus lanes. This is the carrot. The stick comprises constraints on and charges for city centre parking (or congestion charging or workplace parking levy, although these are harder to implement).” Centre for Cities argues that a greater devolution of transport powers and a tailored transport system would help to reduce car dependency. Naomi Clayton, senior analyst, said: “All cities should get greater regulatory “RAIL IN powers over buses and more local fundALL ITS ing sources, while larger cities should FORMS, BEING have an integrated transport departSPEEDY AND ment.” RELIABLE, IS As the report recommends, Centre for AN ATTRACTIVE Cities would also like to see a system like ALTERNATIVE London’s Oyster cards for areas with a TO THE CAR ON combined authority – as would the CONGESTED Campaign for Better Transport’s chief ROADS executive, Stephen Joseph. FOR WORK “More devolution to English cities JOURNEYS” could mean more integrated and greener DAVID METZ, VISITING transport networks that make our towns PROFESSOR, CENTRE FOR TRANSPORT STUDIES, UNIVERSITY and cities better places.” COLLEGE LONDON

I M AG E S | A L A M Y/G E T T Y

16/01/2015 16:55

PLAN UPFRONT

Planning professionals receive New Year Honours Chief planner at the DCLG, Steve Quartermain has been awarded a CBE for services to planning infrastructure. He said: “I have always believed that planning is about making life better and making things happen and this has been a driver for my career to date, and I am of course absolutely delighted to have been honoured in this way.” Peter Rees, who retired as the chief planner for the Corporation of the City of London in 2014 and is now professor of places and city planning at University College London, will be awarded a CBE for services to architecture and town planning. Transport for London’s managing director of planning since June 2007, Dr Michèle Dix has also been recognised with a CBE for services to the transport industry. Former RTPI president Ewart Parkinson received an OBE for voluntary and charitable services in Cardiﬀ. Immediate past president of the RTPI, Cath Ranson, acknowledged Parkinson’s

contribution to the institute and to planning in Wales and expressed it is “terriﬁc to see so many planning and built environment professionals included in the 2015 New Year’s Honours, particularly RTPI members. “ She added: “These individuals reﬂect the diversity of the profession working in the public and private sectors across transport, spatial, architecture, sustainability and neighbourhood planning.”

Neighbourhood plan deadlines ﬁxed

20 weeks. A 13-week time limit will be imposed on all other applications. The government is also clarifying the information that must be submitted in a neighbourhood plan – including environmental – to ensure that independent examiners have all the required information to make a decision. Speaking to The Planner, Ann Skippers, of Ann Skippers Planning, said that the introduction of time limits is generally non-contentious. “Possibly the biggest implications will be for local planning authorities who will need to ensure that suﬃcient resources are in place to meet the new time scales and also perhaps have to consider further delegated powers to help achieve the time limits. “I welcome the recognition that some area applications are more complex in nature and will take longer,” she explained.

After consultation, the government has conﬁrmed that it will introduce time limits for decisions regarding neighbourhood plans. Last summer a technical consultation on planning was held as the government sought views on imposing a 10-week time limit on councils when determining neighbourhood plan applications. In response to the consultation, the government has announced that councils will have eight to 20 weeks to make a decision, depending on the area involved. For neighbourhood plan areas that follow a parish boundary, an eight-week time limit will be introduced, and for an area where more than one planning authority is concerned the limit will be

n Technical consultation on planning: http://bit.ly/1pt6bJk

Gloucestershire incinerator approved Communities secretary Eric Pickles has granted permission for a £500 million waste incinerator in Gloucestershire. Urbaser Balfour Beatty (UBB) was awarded a contract to design and then build the incinerator, which will be located at Javelin Park, in February 2013 by Gloucestershire County Council. The council’s planning committee went against the planning oﬃcers’ recommendation and refused to grant planning permission. UBB then lodged an appeal. Currently, more than half the household waste in the county gets sent to landﬁll, which cost £9 million in tax in 2013/14. Ray Theodoulou, cabinet member for waste, said: “The decision means the rubbish we can’t recycle can be disposed of in a safe and environmentally friendly way. “Our aim is to reach 70 per cent recycling across the county and stop burying waste in the ground completely.” Chair of the planning committee, Nigel Moor, said it acknowledges the decision to permit. In a statement on the GlosVAIN campaign website, incinerator objectors said: “This is awful news and a disastrous result for Gloucestershire.” The campaign is reviewing the decision document to see if there is the potential for a judicial review. Construction will start as soon as possible.

£500m waste incinerator

150,000

tonnes of waste will be treated there

per cent reduction in waste going to landﬁll

40,000

tonnes of carbon dioxide removed from environment

FE B R U AR Y 2 015 / THE PLA NNER

p6_7_news.indd 7

16/01/2015 16:55

NEWS

Analysis { GENERAL ELECTION 2015

Housing tops election wish list

By Laura Edgar

Question There are several key issues facing the planning and built environment sectors, including local authority cuts, infrastructure and public transport funding challenges, and housing provision. What do you think is the most compelling priority to be addressed by the political parties in this election, and the future government?

Answers “The housing crisis is at a critical point, which is why the RTPI is a core partner of the Homes for Britain campaign calling for the crisis to be ended within a generation and for the incoming government to have developed a plan to solve it within the first year of office. “We would like to see extensive City and Growth Deals conditional upon areas with sufficient allocated strategic housing land supply. “The RTPI has continually expressed its concern at the underresourcing and insufficient funding for planning departments. They continue to be stretched further and this needs to be addressed.” RTPI “As well as tackling the ongoing and dangerous cuts to local planning authorities, any incoming government needs to prioritise infrastructure – from funding, to better integration with planning, to delivery. “As more planning powers are devolved to city regions, the balance between delivering national infrastructure (including housing) and managing locally set priorities will become ever

more delicate, and a strong evidence base for the UK’s long-term infrastructure needs will be invaluable.” Ian Fletcher, director of policy at the British Property Federation. “Social housing waiting lists remain high, with not enough housing to meet demand. Local authorities have already had significant funding to improve existing council housing through the Decent Homes programme, but this doesn’t address the long waiting lists seen across the country. “North West Leicestershire District Council and other councils across the country have the aspiration to start building more social housing – but this would require funding from central government. In a time when the build rate is slow, local authorities could be a trusted vehicle for stimulating the housing market.“ Richard Blunt, leader of North West Leicestershire District Council “The County Councils Network believes that the most compelling priority is ensuring the rapid devolution of appropriate powers and budgets to the county level. “It’s only with a full set of powers, freedoms and devolved funds that counties can successfully address their specific local priorities, whether it’s improving rural roads, ensuring the sufficient number of new homes are built or other concerns. “The devolution of stronger strategic planning powers and longterm certainty regarding funding are vital components of unlocking economic growth in counties and ensuring that local people have a bigger say in the future of their local places.” County Councils Network “Ensuring that new homes are affordable, of high quality, in places that are well designed and come with the infrastructure needed to support them is essential to creating successful places and winning public support for new development. That won’t be achieved by further upheaval in the planning system or by dictating development from the centre. “The next government should focus on providing stability in the planning system, ensuring that it is adequately resourced and decisions are locally accountable so that councils and development partners can plan effectively for growth and make the best use of land.” Local Government Association “We need real localism; not a ‘deal’ between the government and local councils but a system where local power is guaranteed and cannot be taken away. Real localism will be achieved through a planning system which gives effective power to people, a revival of local and neighbourhood government and the further development of community rights. “We believe government should strengthen the provisions in the NPPF that call for community participation on major planning proposals and in the production of local plans. “We want to see ‘participation and not consultation’.” Dr Freddie Gick, chair of Civic Voice “Planning needs stability. Local plans are long-term strategies not short-term fixes or political footballs. Such stability will best be delivered not through more radical change to policy, but through a commitment of all parties to the NPPF and to positive planning. “This relies on all local authorities producing clear and concise local plans and ensuring that they are kept up to date, particularly with regard to ensuring a five-year supply of housing land. “Planning should be focused on delivery of development, ensuring that we deliver a sustainable future in social, economic and environmental terms.” Andrew Whitaker, planning director, Home Builders Federation

T H E PL AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p8_9_news.indd 8

16/01/2015 15:55

PLAN UPFRONT The First Steps Challenge Fund aims to accelerate the delivery of 4,000 homes between 2015 and 2020

£220

50,000

homes to be delivered quicker between now and 2020

homes delivered by Gentoo Genie over 10 years

million funding for aﬀordable housing

4,000 £220m funding for low-cost London homes The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has announced an allocation of £220 million worth of funding for two schemes to help Londoners buy aﬀordable homes in the capital. The First Steps Challenge Fund will be given a £180 million boost from the £1.45 billion the mayor secured from the government to deliver such housing.

The cash is being made available on a recoverable basis so that money can be reinvested into finding more affordable housing for Londoners. Additionally, £40 million of loan finance will be given to Gentoo’s Genie, a housing project through which buyers do not require a deposit or mortgage to buy their home. Its ‘home purchase plans’ allow first-time buyers and renters to buy shares in their home every time they make a monthly payment. At the end of the agreement, customers will own their homes outright. Johnson said: “Shared ownership is crucial in helping the unprecedented numbers of people in London desperate for good quality low-cost housing. I want the funding to help thousands more Londoners to own homes.”

Cork bids to be the ‘Sydney of Europe’ A landmark redevelopment programme championed by Ireland’s marine minister Simon Coveney that aims to transform Cork into the ‘Sydney of Europe’ by late 2018 is moving oﬀ the drawing board. Two of eight separate projects that form part of a total investment of €1 billion are already underway. These include the €40 million

I M A G E S | A L A M Y / G E T T Y / PA

p8_9_news.indd 9

clean-up of the old Irish Steel/Irish Ispat site on Haulbowline Island in the centre of Cork harbour. The €40 million plan to redevelop Spike Island as an Irish-style Alcatraz or Robben Island tourist development has also begun. The other six parts of the project – including a new multi-million cruise terminal for Cobh and the Port of Cork’s new €100 million deepwater berth at Ringaskiddy – are at planning stages. Coveney said the massive clean-up operation at Haulbowline – Ireland’s most toxic landﬁll site after half a century of steel production – is Ireland’s number one industrial-environmental priority, given a looming European Union deadline.

people helped into ownership of the mayor’s two terms

2,000

NRW launches strategy to combat coastal flooding A scheme to make Wales more resilient to coastal flooding has been launched by Natural Resources Wales, the country’s environmental agency (NRW). The delivery plan focuses on a number of themes, including sustained investment in coastal risk management, improved information on coastal flood defence systems and greater clarity of roles and responsibilities of agencies and authorities. The storms in January 2014 caused millions of pounds’ worth of damage, hundreds of homes and businesses were flooded and even the natural environment and landscape of Wales were changed. But although the storms were devastating in many places, the existing coastal defences protected around 74,000 properties from flooding –avoiding an estimated £3 billion of damage. Publication of the strategy came as the Welsh Government announced £1.9 million towards a new flood defence scheme for Rhyl in North Wales. The funding is for the final phase of the project that, once completed, will mean a reduced flood risk for more than 2,600 homes and businesses.

FE B R U AR Y 2 015 / THE PLA NNER

19/01/2015 17:56

NEWS

Analysis { STRATEGIC PLANNING

The paths to working across boundaries By Laura Edgar

Collaboration, strong leadership and democratic accountability are key to strategic planning, according to a new RTPI report

For example, Cambridge local planning authorities have formed a Joint Strategic Planning Unit (JSPU) to consider collectively each authority’s concerns. The JSPU works with the local authorities and all relevant bodies to ensure that regional spatial planning is coherent, with the report ﬁnding that: “There are strong advantages to undertaking strategic economic, transport and housing planning in a coordinated manner.” Alternatively, Strategic Planning found that Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership consists of councils that are happy to collaborate. As strategic planning will involve trade-oﬀs, having political relationships that can be built upon is helpful. If councils and other bodies are to cooperate and work together successfully, the report says, strong leadership skills will be required, “both politically and professionally”. Strategic planning must also take into account the needs and voices of businesses, it argues. The report concludes with recommendations for fresh approaches to strategic planning in each of the UK’s four nations, plus the Republic of Ireland. These include, for example, the creation of a “clear planning hierarchy” within Wales. Report author and RTPI head of policy Richard Blyth told The Planner that without strategic planning, “problems will arise, with housing, labour and transport out of sync. “You can have the houses, but how are you going to provide transport links? This may happen over one or more boundaries so councils need to work together for it to work. “A large enough housing supply is not being put forward. Councils need to communicate on where these should go.”

Strategic Planning: Effective Cooperation for Planning Across Boundaries puts the case for effective strategic planning based on six general principles (see table). The paper is based on roundtables held throughout the UK and Ireland, as well as case studies that draw lessons from good practice as far afield as Queensland in Australia. Broadly, the report argues that top-down strategic spatial planning tends to be less successful than locally designed and enacted approaches that emphasise collaboration. The report found that: “cooperation between local authorities brings major benefits to all of the councils in a given area”. This was key to how the Communauté Urbaine of Lille-Metropole – made up of several large local authorities – dealt with the decline of the region’s textile industry in the 1970s. The Communauté made Lille city the centre of the solution and created a transport network that linked the wider communities with jobs created in the city. The wider region has now developed jobs over seven centres. Moreover, the report says, for the coordinated management of F RO M T H E R E P O RT housing markets, energy supplies, jobs and transport networks to be successful, cooperation needs to General principles for strategic planning extend beyond strategic planning area boundaries. In this case the RTPI references the Northern inic Have focus – being efficient in the use of resources and clear about its purpose; tiative under the 1997-2010 Labour c Be genuinely strategic – dealing only with matters which require resolution across boundaries; government, which focused on c Be spatial – i.e. it should make choices between places, not establish general criteria for later improving connectivity between decision-making; cities in the North. c Be collaborative – meaning that partners work together to see how they can deliver each Finding local authorities and other’s agendas; partnerships that want to work c Have strong leadership – so that negotiations between places are productive and not together “has advantages when protracted; and political choices have to be made,” c Be accountable to local electorates. says the report.

T H E PL AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p10_11_news.indd 10

I M AG E | G E T T Y

16/01/2015 15:55

PLAN UPFRONT

47k Revised Edinburgh Marina master plan submitted A revamped master plan for the Edinburgh Marina development – a 400-berth marina, residential, retail and spa hotel scheme for Granton Harbour – has been submitted to the city council. The amount of residential development has been scaled back. Originally, more than 3,300 new homes were proposed;

houses built in rural Northern Ireland between 2000 and 2010 – the equivalent of a ‘Derry-and-a-half’. Londonderry is the province’s second-largest city

this was subsequently halved and is now around 1,500 dwellings. The total area of the proposed new retail and leisure space remains unchanged from that approved in January 2014 – 9,220 square metres and 5,000 sq m respectively. But the layout has now been redesigned to have a centre to the retail, commercial and leisure space that is more accessible for both residents and visitors. The revised scheme also makes provision for the extension of the tram service and a potential fast link ferry service to and from Kirkcaldy, as well as facilities to accommodate cruise ship tenders. There will also be a larger community boatyard and improved facilities for local yacht clubs.

Green group says ‘laissez-faire’ planning hurts the environment Green campaigners in Northern Ireland have claimed that the province’s environment is suffering as a result of an indifference to planning policy. That’s the criticism levelled by Friends of the Earth NI director James Orr in an interview in the Belfast Telegraph. He complained that the Northern Ireland Executive was bending over backwards to accommodate damaging development. “The problem is not development – it’s the type of development that’s on offer. It’s extractive, it’s exploitative I M AG E S : A L A M Y / i STO C K

p10_11_news.indd 11

Data mapping app is launched The National Planning Casework Unit (NPCU) has launched a mapping app that interactively showcases its data. Speciﬁcally part of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Open Data Initiative, the app features a number of key cases considered by the NPCU, which manages planning decisions on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government. The data on the app is based on referrals under the Consultation Direction 2009, Third-Party Requests to Intervene, Compulsory Purchase Orders and Environmental Screening Directions from April 2014 onwards. The data should increase the amount of information available to planning professionals and the public, providing easy insight into NPCU casework. Users are able to navigate around the map and narrow down their search area by postcode, date range and decision type. Additionally, there are interactive tables that group decisions by case type. The NPCU is working on ways to develop the app, including the range of data that is available. Ranuka Jagpal, the head of NPCU, said: “This app marks a signiﬁcant point in the NPCU journey towards being more open and transparent in the way we communicate casework decisions in support of the government’s wider Open Data agenda.” n App link: http://bit.ly/150VhEN

sometimes,” he said. “Sometimes the pillars of our communities are the people who are involved in damaging our communities and there’s also a very close link between political donations and a laissez-faire planning policy that allows development that wouldn’t simply happen in most other parts of Europe,” he said. “We’ve allowed 47,000 houses to be built in the countryside between 2000 and 2010 – that’s the equivalent of a Derry-and-a-half being put into the countryside” he added.

F EB R U AR Y 2 0 15 / THE PLA NNER

16/01/2015 15:56

CHRIS SHEPLEY

O Opinion Fostering a bureaucratic purgatory Panic swept the think tank. The Jabberwock had lumbered in through the air lock, brushing the security guard aside, and asked them to come up with plans for devolving powers to local government. This was against all the instincts of the slithy toves on duty, Lucinda and Ptolemy, who felt unusually outgrabed. Things had been going OK in the borogroves; their transformative ideas for the changes of use of launderettes (surely the spur for the recent spurt in the growth rate) slipped through unnoticed and had given the planners a brillig bewilderment. But the Scots had been allowed to have a grown-up political debate – something alien to the slithies, who preferred to keep such matters to themselves. Now they had to respond. The slithies contemplated the idea of a joint authority, which a frumious Bandersnatch from somewhere Northern called Manchester had articulated. Sounds worryingly like the Metropolitan Councils, thought Ptolemy. They’d read that those had been slain by the vorpal sword a generation ago. Even though they had worked quite well, having boundaries that bore a close relationship to reality (which the think tank had successfully resisted across local government as a whole), voters had committed the sin of electing people the government didn’t like. Uﬃshly, the councils had done things the government didn’t want. That was how it

“EVERYTHING THAT MOVED NOW FELL UNDER THE JABBERWOCK’S RUTHLESS PURVIEW. LOCALS MUST BEWARE THE SPENDING OF EVEN THE MEREST GROAT” worked in olden days. But, they resolved, it was not going to happen again, now that they’d developed jaws that bite and claws that catch around the throats of local government. They were not going to turn mimsy. They gyred and gimbled for a while at the dread thought of decision-making slipping from their grip. It was a familiar conundrum; they

T H E PL AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p12_13_shepley_quoteunquote.indd 12

must give the impression that this was exactly what they wanted, whilst at the same time making it impossible. “I suppose”, said Lucinda, “we’ll have to do the usual. We’ll make enthusiastic burblings, but make sure these new outfits have no money. And as few powers as we can get away with. We’ll do it in itsy-bitsy bits, as confusingly as possible. One benefit of the present set-up is that nobody understands it. Shires, unitaries, counties, parishes, neighbourhoods – it’s almost as confusing as it was before they threw it up in the air in 1974”. “Ah, yes. 1974”, said Ptolemy. “A manxsome triumph”. There was a danger of a decent system emerging, but the 1970’s slithies saw off the threat and – O frabjous day! – they concocted a

divided group of weak, malleable, and povertystricken councils that could easily be pushed around. Everything that moved now fell under the Jabberwock’s ruthless purview. Locals must beware the spending of even the merest groat. They warmed to the task. “We’ll talk up the decentralised goodies, make everyone think everything’s changed, but foster a bureaucratic purgatory, make them have to agree to everything among themselves, which we know they’ll hardly ever do, and blame them when anything goes wrong, even if it’s our fault. We’ll set them effulgent targets, just outside the realms of possibility, we’ll check, audit, review, restrain, and regulate. But otherwise they’ll be free as the Jubjub bird, floating high o’er hill and dale.” It was for the best. The slithies knew that. People out there had nothing to offer other than a bit of local knowledge and a touching desire to do some good, which is hardly what modern governance is all about. They lacked the Jabberwock’s unique combo of hardedged realism, and political ruthlessness. Surely it was in their best interest to leave it all to the slithies.

Chris Shepley is the principal of Chris Shepley Planning and former Chief Planning Inspector

I L L U S T R AT I O N | O I V I N D H O V L A N D

16/01/2015 14:33

Quote unquote FROM THE WEB AND THE RTPI

“We should apply applly some real vision and approach marine planning and ‘seabed use’ in the same way as we do for terrestrial planning and land use strategy”

“Children don’t buy houses, so who cares? Throughout the country, they become prisoners of bad design and so do adults” GEORGE MONBIOT, THE CHILD INSIDE, PUBLISHED BY THE GUARDIAN AND HIS BLOG

CALUM DUNCAN, CONVENOR OF SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENT LINK’S MARINE TASKFORCE, ON THE DRAFT NATIONAL MARINE PLAN

<- “It is essential that councils … grasp the opportunity to reconnect planning and public health and so improve the wellbeing of both people and places” KATE HENDERSON, CEO AT THE TCPA, WRITING IN THEINFORMATIONDAILY.COM

“I’ve always thought that ﬁxing housing policy is one of the cornerstones of social justice” STEPHEN COWAN, LEADER OF HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM COUNCIL, IN INSIDEHOUSING.CO.UK

“Providing 66,000 new homes is a challenging ambition but one in line with the city’s aim to be the best in the UK” PETER GRUEN, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR NEIGHBOURHOODS, PLANNING AND PERSONNEL, LEEDS CITY COUNCIL

“Because the HS2 people are really, really bad at maths and make things up that aren’t true I’m worried that HS2 will cost more than they say” “I would transform the centre of London to an environment where the car is no longer dominant”

ALEX RUKIN, 9, GIVING EVIDENCE TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS HS2 HYBRID BILL COMMITTEE

JOURNALIST AND RAIL HISTORIAN CHRISTIAN WOLMAR LAUNCHES HIS BID TO BECOME MAYOR OF LONDON I M A G E S | I M A G E S O U R C E / PA / S H U T T E R S T O C K

p12_13_shepley_quoteunquote.indd 13

FE B R U AR Y 2 0 15 / THE PLA NNER

16/01/2015 14:34

CORRESPONDENCE

I Inbox

YOUR NEWS, VIEWS AND QUESTIONS F E E D B ACK

Ian Kinloch — In his first sentence Chad Sutton (Legal Landscape p38, January) refers to the ‘planning system in the United Kingdom’, but devotes the rest of his article to England. I am familiar with the position in Wales and I can assure Mr Sutton that to refer to a UK planning system is wide of the mark. Almost every departure he mentions (NPPF, localism, etc) does not apply to Wales, where the Welsh Government is creating a system markedly different from that east of Offa’s Dyke – notably with the Planning (Wales) Bill now before the National Assembly. Ian Kinloch LMRTPI

Philip Bisatt — Gary Stephens’ letter (The Planner, January) calls on planners to take a “long look at the system we’ve inherited”. I absolutely agree! His suggestions for changing development management seem to have much in common with how building control operates. Private ‘approved inspectors’ now undertake much of work once done by local authorities. In much of the rest of the world people are basically allowed to build what the development plan says they can build, and as long as they conform to the plan, approval is pretty much guaranteed. There is no long-winded process of applying for permission, or going through a politicised committee. In Australia last May, I called in at a planning authority in the Sydney suburbs of to ﬁnd out how

planning operates there. I was told that permission to develop in accordance with the development control plan (DCP) would normally be granted within 20 days, and that many plans would be approved by ‘private certifiers’ for conforming with the DCP. Each defined plot was supplemented by a ‘design code’ that sets out the form of development that would be permitted. The DCP had taken five years to prepare – not much longer than it takes to produce many plans here (and even after slogging through plan preparation this still leaves us trying to control built form through a separate development management process). The difficulty we face is that the process of approving development can’t be speeded up as long as our development plans lack physical detail and are not legally binding. The lack of prescription in our development plans is also a reason for the poor design quality of so much greenfield development. Changing to a more prescriptive ‘zoning’ type of planning system would require plans to consist of recognisable street layouts and building plots; such issues of urban morphology are key to creating well-designed, recognisable ‘places’. Zoning also offers potential to link ‘planning’ and ‘land’ more effectively through the tax system, using land value taxes linked to the permitted land use. This would seem to be a more appropriate way to raise funds for infrastructure than CIL, in that zoning through plans would create a tax liability and thus an incentive to develop, whereas CIL, like all development land taxes, has the opposite effect.

It’s time ministers embraced intelligent planning reform and stopped uttering words like ‘Stalinist’ when anyone suggests more prescriptive planning. Philip Bisatt

Lisa Harding — I am the wife of a town planner and have spent 25 years reading his copy of The Planner. I have learnt a thing or two and last year I had the conﬁdence not only to write an objection against a major development, but was also brave enough to speak at a committee meeting – not something to be undertaken lightly. So when I read Eleanor Gingell’s blog ‘The empathetic planner’ in December’s issue, my heart warmed. I think all district council planners should read it. Thank you,

Eleanor – and thanks to The Planner for keeping me entertained in the bath! Lisa Harding

Ron Tate — I may not be the only one to pick up on this, but Janet Askew is in fact the 100th president, not 101st. George Lionel Pepler was president in 1919-20 and again as Sir George Lionel Pepler in 194950. Ron Tate

(Thanks Ron, but we’re taking the US presidency line on this. Barack Obama is oﬃcially the 44th President, but only the 43rd person to serve; Grover Cleveland served two separate terms. Accordingly, Janet Askew remains the 101st RTPI president – Ed.)

ON THE WEB @ThePlanner_RTPI The Planner Think Tank group on LinkedIn is live – and we’re keen to invite you in. We’re always happy to receive your emails, or even physical letters (getting actual post is such an exciting novelty these days) – but The Planner’s Think Tank group is where we engage with you ahead of, during and after publication of news and features. We also use the

group to conduct surveys, elicit response to topical questions and amplify debates. If you’re in the RTPI’s own group, you’ll probably see us asking the odd question there as well. So, please visit us and join the group at The Planner Think Tank. See you online.

T H E P L AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p14_Correspond.indd 14

16/01/2015 14:34

ADVERTISEMENTS

} Consultants Savills Planning - Business Space Expert ecology advice from the specialists Based in London, Norwich, Lewes and Edinburgh

David Jackson Head of Business Space djackson@savills.com +44 (0) 7967 555 796

*VU[HJ[ `V\Y ULHYLZ[ VMÄ JL enquiries@ecologyconsultancy.co.uk

Business Space is one part of our full range of planning consultancy services

Experience and quality that make a difference

savills.co.uk

www.ecologyconsultancy.co.uk

THE BUSINESS MONTHLY FOR PLANNING PROFESSIONALS

Savills-BusinessSpace eighth.indd 1

Environmental Planning

PLANNING DESIGN ENVIRONMENT

Planning specialists advising on all sectors including city centre ofÄces, logistics & warehouses and industrial space

Planning for nature

15/01/2015 14:16

Environmental Assessment Landscape Assessment

GUIDE TO CAREER DEVELOPMENT 2015

Green Infrastructure Planning Masterplanning & Urban Design Genesis Centre, Birchwood, Warrington, WA3 7BH // p.2 NOW CUM AND DO THEN RS IN 100 G UP TH ERS PLANN • 100 YEA • DIGGIN CHIEF E // p.24 ED // p.36 FUTUR REVISIT CITIES

NE PLAN

In March 2015 The Planner is publishing a Guide to Career Development circulated to entire membership The RTPI

THE

BUSI

N ES S

H LY MONT

FO R

PLAN

NING

PROF

ES S IO

N A LS

01925 844 004 tep@tep.uk.com www.tep.uk.com

Landscape Design & Management Historic Environment & Archaeology Ecology & BREEAM Arboriculture

Offices in Warrington, Milton Keynes, Gateshead, London & Kent

THE

2014: This guide will inform planning g 1914 NTURY OF A CEDMARKS N LA professionals seeking to develop lop p their career predominantly att THE management to senior level. It will oﬀer cutting-edge advice to those looking to progress C THE in their current careers as AGHEANG ND E well as those looking to move e A within the profession. h s ng ha ng e niin he nni an la ce th siince ow plpe How ped sin op lo on on ello matio d ve de forrm 's fo R PII' RT HER

2014

PLANNE THE B USIN

ES S M ONTH

LY FO R PLANN

OES CHANGE OF PLANNING PEOPLE PLANNING // p.18 GREEN OUT OF CITIE? // p.2 LEAD S? ING PLAN // p.2 NING

ING PR O F ES

Planning our sustainable future

S IO N A

d 1

12:48

Birmingham Bristol Derby Exeter Glasgow London Warrington

BRIT YOU AIN’S PLANNG NERS LOOK THE TO FUTU R

p1_cov er_nov. indd 1

ADVERTI S I NG OP P ORTUNI UNITT I ES ES

24/11/2

014 10:35

If you want to be included please contact Lee-Anne Walsh: 020 7324 2753 Contact:

P u b l i ca t i on date: March 2015 B o oki n g deadl i ne: 2nd Feb 201 5

Paul White t: +44 (0) 20 7121 2612 paul.white@atkinsglobal.com

Plan Design Enable

www.atkinsglobal.com/urbanplanning

FE B R U AR Y 2 0 15 / THE PLA NNER

PLANNER MarketplaceFeb15.indd 15

16/01/2015 10:33

B E S T O F T H E B LO G S

O Opinion

Robin Hambleton is professor of city leadership, Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments at the University of the West of England, Bristol

The gove government has attempted to portray portr the devolution proposals for governance change in cities like Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield as a bold step towards the decentralisation of power in England. But are these so-called ‘devo deals’ all that they seem? With a speech on 3 November 2014, “Manchester to get directly elected mayor”, chancellor George Osborne set out an ambition to introduce into England an era of centralisation that goes well beyond the Thatcherite co m m a n d - a n d control state of the 1980s. The Autumn Statement confirmed his bid to finish off the idea that locally elected democratic institutions should be accountable to those who elect them. Rather, these elected authorities are to be told by the state to decimate local services in the name of austerity. So startling is the nature of central government policy towards local government that I suggest that we need a new word for it. To ‘Osbornify’ public policy involves introducing extreme measures to boost the power of the central state while pretending that power is being decentralised. It takes political spin to a new level of deception. Osborne said his proposals to create a directly elected mayor for the Manchester conurbation, with powers over transport,

Claire Pearce is group manager for strategy and business services at Sedgemoor District Council

Going nuclear

The devolution deception

housing, planning and policing, would “give Mancunians a powerful voice and bring practical improvements for local people”. But he added: “I want to talk to other cities who are keen to follow Manchester’s lead – every city is diﬀerent and no model of local power will be the same.” Think about it. The Osborne proposals involve Whitehall taking three massive steps to centralise power. First, who will decide which areas of the country are to have these new governance a r ra nge m e n ts ? Ministers. Second, who will decide the criteria for devolving power to these localities? Ministers. Third, who will crawl over the detailed proposals cities have for urban development and socio-economic innovation? Ministers. Classic divide-and-rule tactics. Cities in England understand this well enough. But they have few options currently. The solidarity of local government is a casualty as localities vie for the bespoke attention of central government. I have worked in several innovative cities in the world. In many of them, civic leaders are creating more inclusive cities by promoting civic pride, social innovation and place-based creativity. English local authorities can do the same, but not if Osborne is allowed to suﬀocate local democracy.

“SO STARTLING IS THE NATURE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT POLICY TOWARDS LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT I SUGGEST THAT WE NEED A NEW WORD FOR IT”

2 BLOG

BLOG

Planning is regularly used as a punch bag by national politicians, with planners criticised for creating barriers to growth. Both before and after the election we will be treated to yet more change, but will it actually help to transform places? Will it link investment to new jobs for local people to create long-term value and sustainability? Conflicts exist between national infrastructure projects and localism, while planning authorities have the role of honest broker. District planning authorities provide the local leadership and vision to plan for the longer term. They marshal investment to secure jobs, homes and schools and transform landscapes to improve e nv i ro n m e n t a l resilience. Members and officers have the local knowledge and are in touch with what local businesses and people need. Sedgemoor, at the centre of the South-West, has Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Somerset Levels as well as pockets of deprivation. It has a strong tourism offer as well as core logistics, business and educational sectors. It will soon host much of the associated development for Hinkley C nuclear power station and will be significantly affected by resulting commercial, housing and transport demands. We must

maximise the legacy benefit from the project and minimise impact. The test will be the extent to which government, investors and the relevant agencies align to make things happen and work together to regenerate sites to accommodate housing, hotels and the supply chain. Bridgwater will be centrestage: one town with two planning systems – namely the usual Town and Country Planning Association system running in tandem with the Development Consent Order regime. This means multiple consents and interrelated and overlapping issues. With different decision-makers, regulatory bodies and developers come competing national and local issues – from local infrastructure gaps to national energy shortages. Our local plan is economic-led with a specific regeneration vision for Bridgwater. Our challenge for 2015 is set. Positive planning with a focus on solutions and a healthy dose of pragmatism will help with coordination and delivery on the ground. The reality is that Bridgwater will for the next 10 years be an unusual case in planning terms. There is a danger with myriad changes and the scale of the challenges that we’ll lose sight of what is important – people and place. Our focus must remain on implementing our vision.

“THE STARK REALITY IS THAT BRIDGWATER IS, AND WILL BE FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS, AN UNUSUAL CASE IN PLANNING TERMS”

T H E PL AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p16_17_blogs.indd 16

16/01/2015 14:34

Have your say Would you like to see yourself in these pages? Get in touch by email – editorial@theplanner.co.uk Topical, inspirational, angry or amusing – we consider all relevant comment

Matthew James is the planning and urban design team leader at Hampshire County Council Property Services. This article is written in a personal capacity

Ann Skippers is principal of Ann Skippers Planning as well as an independent examiner and a past president of the Royal Town Planning Institute

Behind the examination

Vote for planning changes

In the lon long weeks of electioneering before befo May’s general election, many promises are going to be bandied around by the political parties. Housing, the NHS and, of course, the evergreen topic of immigration all get a look in. But I sense that planners are emerging from their embattled shells to become a little louder and prouder; swing voters who hold the key to a future coalition, perhaps? So here is my election manifesto, calling for imagination to focus all our minds on positive planning. Some might argue more ‘stick’ than ‘carrot’. But then do orchestras work better with or without a conductor? (1) Add a new test in the National Planning Policy Framework: planning applications and policies should show how they achieve ‘demonstrable good’. Imagine what a positive onus this would place on applicants and local planning authorities in preparing and assessing planning applications, shifting the focus from weasel words such as ‘mitigation’ and ‘balance’. (2) Introduce a requirement for estate agents and developers to specify the amount of ﬂoor space in property marketing details. Imagine how empowering this would be for homebuyers; and how it might nudge house builders to design and market new properties.

4 BLOG

BLOG

(3) Make it a legal duty for local

planning authorities to have an up-to-date development plan in place, covering a 10-year period. Imagine a nation where all local members were forced to confront the development and conservation needs of their area in a timely manner, and resource planning teams were made to achieve this and positively engage their constituents in the process. (4) Bring environmental standards for new homes and offices under the remit of building regulations, rather than local planning policies. It doesn’t matter a jot to our planet if one district is slightly cleaner and greener than the next. Imagine the saving in paperwork that is now piled on planning officers’ desks. (5) Finally, adapt community polices to recognise the distinction between public sector services (which are, in the main, movable and adaptable) and commercial facilities such as pubs and local shops, which are often outbid by higher value uses when unprotected by policy – and then lost forever. Imagine how much more responsive planners could be in meeting the challenge of public sector service transformation – modernising nursing homes, office space and police work, for example – if given the flexibility to do so. Can I count on your vote?

“IT DOESN’T MATTER A JOT TO OUR PLANET IF ONE DISTRICT IS SLIGHTLY CLEANER AND GREENER THAN THE NEXT.”

Nearly a year on, people are still talking about Slaugham’s failure at examination. That’s good in some ways because neighbourhood plans need to be of a high standard. So if Slaugham made people sit up and pause for a bit, then I make no apology for failing it at examination. These are important statutory plans that have real bite. Just think how many appeals Pickles has recovered over recent months if you need any more convincing. The key to successful examination is to show how the plan meets the basic conditions. A clear provenance for each policy will help do this, together with a robust evidence base. But it is hard to judge just how much evidence is needed and what that might look like, particularly in respect of those bemusing housing numbers. Selecting development sites is often a terrifying prospect for communities and can prove divisive. Cries of “I still have to live in this village, you know” are not uncommon among those tasked with such assessments. But it’s the extra layer of insight that local knowledge brings that could mean that a site scoring highly won’t be allocated, while a site scoring more poorly might well be because it deals with an eyesore that has been the bane of that community for years.

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) seems to be a mysterious thing. The key for me is for local authorities to undertake screening at an early stage and to use SEA as an influencer on an evolving plan rather than as justification after the horse has bolted. Experience is growing, of course, but what to expect at examination can still be puzzling. There is increased concern over consistency among examiners. The examiner’s remit is quite tight; the test of a n e ighb ou rh o o d plan is whether it meets the basic conditions – very different from the tests for a local plan. While modifications recommended by examiners have the potential to derail community aspirations, most will recognise that examiners can only deal with what’s in front of them and will welcome clear, precise reports. A health check will help to identify any areas of concern before a formal examination. Many more people have become engaged in planning and now understand how difficult – and rewarding – it is. Slaugham is still the only plan to have failed at examination. And I hope that remains the case. What’s needed now to help those working in neighbourhood planning is stability and greater certainty over long-term support and funding for communities.

“LOCAL KNOWLEDGE COULD MEAN THAT A SITE SCORING HIGHLY WON’T BE ALLOCATED”

F EB R U AR Y 2 0 15 / THE PLA NNER

p16_17_blogs.indd 17

16/01/2015 14:34

L A N D V A LU AT I O N

COMMUNITY Comparing ways of capturing value from development for community gain across countries in Europe gives an insight into best practice, but what can we all learn from each other? ask Janet Askew and Adam Sheppard

n an international research project investigating how countries capture the increase in the value of land to provide public facilities and infrastructure, the system of cost recovery practised in England came out well. It was commissioned by the Dutch government’s ministry of infrastructure and environment, and we were encouraged by the words of Professor Rachelle Alterman, who refers to Britain as the “world’s former laboratory of betterment-capture instruments”. She argues that historically, Britain has led the way in the world in considering the nexus between planning regulations and property values, using the terms betterment and compensation as far back as 1894. This gives British planners the opportunity to reﬂect on what kind of system best suits diﬀerent economic and political conditions.

Two systems of cost recovery in England Owing to the unique discretionary system of decision-making in the UK, a very diﬀerent way of capturing developer contributions for public facilities has evolved. Political objectives, recession and economic boom times have contributed to the appetite for taxing the value in land, or at least capturing some community gains from it. For many years a variation of the Section 106 agreement has prevailed in England – each case taken on merit, taken on ability of the developer to pay and the ability of the local authority to negotiate.

T H E PL AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p18_21_parcelling_askew.indd 18

16/01/2015 14:35

CHEST

This now sits alongside the latest idea – the imposition of a new ‘tax’ which will contribute to the provision of infrastructure, called the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), introduced to bring consistency, certainty, transparency and integrity into a system that was increasingly being seen as flawed and not fit for purpose. The CIL does address these issues to a great extent, and provides local authorities with some discretion in how they spend the money, on what they impose the levy, and how they recover costs from new development within their area. But in delivering the certainty, a less flexible system is created without the opportunity for negotiation in most instances. The risk here is that viability issues with individual development sites cannot be negotiated upon, potentially affecting the deliverability of the scheme. CIL was also introduced to incentivise communities to accept development in their areas. In handing down to communities a proportion of the funds raised, the community itself can decide on what the money is spent. Incentives of this nature are a relatively new idea in the UK, and it might not necessarily work as the government hoped. It is interesting that Section 106 has been retained. It might be said that it is a flaw in the current arrangements, as it creates the possibility that developers might be paying two different taxes, potentially for two different uses – infrastructure under CIL and housing and other on–site uses under Section 106. An opportunity to create a single system for cost recovery to replace the Section 106 agreement was missed with the introduction of CIL, although efforts continue to explore how this might be achieved in the longer term. Developers have been quick to point out what they see as a potentially unfair system (Savills and the Home Builders Federa{ tion, 2014).

I L L U S T R AT I O N | N I C K L O U N D E S

FE B R U AR Y 2 0 15 / THE PLA NNER

p18_21_parcelling_askew.indd 19

16/01/2015 14:35

L A N D V A LU AT I O N

Recovering costs in other European countries

“IT IS TOO EARLY TO SAY HOW SUCCESSFUL CIL WILL BE – EITHER FOR HARDPRESSED LOCAL AUTHORITIES TRYING TO RAISE MONEY FOR ALL INFRASTRUCTURE; OR FOR DEVELOPERS, WHO WILL BE LOOKING TO SEE IF THE CIL SYSTEM RESULTS IN INCREASED OR REDUCED CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THEM”

In the countries studied as part of the research, it was found that Belgium, Germany, France and the Netherlands (as well as England) use a variety of different methods to capture value from land. So this idea is far from being the preserve of only the British. All arrangements have to be read within the context of the different planning systems and legislation. The research discovered two main approaches – the formation of a fund from monies collected by agreement, and/or a levy or tax for direct recouping of the costs of infrastructure. In Germany, a very radical arrangement allows for the collection of a special levy from existing property owners, if and when there are demands for new infrastructure, such as roads, footpaths, parking spaces, new grass strips, but not necessarily bearing any relationship with a particular new development. This has led to many lawsuits and challenges (Hobma,2014). Belgium has a betterment tax, imposed on private property owners whose land has gained value owing to rezoning of their area, which is outside the owners’ control. Brownfield land is exempt from this. Any monies collected go partly to the local authority but into a general fund, so it is not hypothecated for infrastructure or public facilities, and priorities for spending are determined by the government, and not the municipality. England and France have a special fund (CIL in England). In France, this is a tariff, a development tax, applied differentially across the municipality’s area. The principle of both funds is that the money collected is pooled and spent according to priorities across the district, and not related to any particular development. The Dutch government liked the idea of the pooled fund and it was very interested in the English CIL. It can be applied to developments of all sizes, so it is suitable for organic development.

The Dutch system The Dutch approach to municipality-led development, the so-called ‘active land policy’ is often cited as a model for other countries (Buitelaar, 2010), but the recession across Europe is aﬀecting this tradition of public ownership. Dutch municipalities have bought land on the open market (with or without compulsory purchase) and developed it for housing, industry, business parks, which, alongside traditional land-use planning tools and zoning approaches have achieved policy goals. This has meant that infrastructure

has been taken care of – the provision and funding of schools, roads, open space, was either provided by the municipality as it prepared the land for development, or built into the sale of the completed development. There are two further ways to recover costs for public facilities in the Netherlands (Hobma et al, 2014), which are not so different to the British system. The first is through private law agreements with developers prior to (re)development who offer payment, creating certainty for the local authority. The second is through the legally binding landuse plan (bestemmingsplan) outlining which costs are to be

How is the new system working in England? As part of the research, we looked at many English case studies, particularly at the CIL schedules being published. In areas where development viability is particularly diﬃcult, the CIL schedule was set at zero per cent to ensure that proposals are not prevented from coming forward, but in other places, there was a long wish list – mainly roads, highway improvements and schools. Some schedules, for example, show a distinct lack of imagination and vision – merely a list of road improvements for the district. The CIL legislation allows for some ﬂexibility, and it is too early to say how successful CIL will be – either for hard-pressed local authorities trying to raise money for all infrastructure; or for developers, who will be looking to see if the CIL system results in increased or reduced contributions

recovered from any development, to be paid when the building permit is granted. The slowing down of development and decrease in the number of partnership agreements between municipalities and developers has resulted in a steep decline in public and private investment for community facilities. Planning gain The Dutch comprehensive and integrated approach to planning, whereby development and financing are closely coupled, is under pressure, in part because of the financial crisis and a lack of flexibility that makes it susceptible to external shocks,

such as recession (Buitelaar, Galle, Sorel, 2014). Certainty is reduced as there are less likely to be large-scale public-private developments. As a result, the Dutch government is considering how to capture land value from a more realistic organic growth – and for this the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment turned to other European nations to investigate alternative methods of what is known as planning gain in England. In practice, the planning system is also under review, leading to a new act on environment and planning in 2018. There has been continuing consultation about this act and it is not yet ﬁnalised.

T H E PL AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p18_21_parcelling_askew.indd 20

16/01/2015 14:35

References Alterman, R (2012), Land Use Regulations and Property Values: The ‘Windfalls Capture’ Idea Revisited, in The Oxford Handbook of Urban Economics and Planning (Editors: Nancy Brooks, Kieran Donaghy and Gerrit-Jan Knaap) pp. 755786, Oxford University Press, 2012. BBC Report at: http:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/ uk-england-25094100 (accessed 11.01.15).

from them. Alterman (2012), analysing the English system, concludes that the indirect value capture methods (such as Section 106 agreements in the UK) might be more successful in the long run than attempts to capture value by laws, regulations or by more formal government policies. This might be true – developers and government are used to negotiation and discretion in the UK system, but it depends on the economy and the acceptance by the industry. Both developers and local authorities might prefer the certainty oﬀered by CIL or, alternatively, might prefer Section 106, which oﬀers the chance to negotiate – especially for under-resourced local authorities. Enforcement is key to Section 106, whereas the charging schedule published under CIL rules should ensure that spending on infrastructure is commensurate with the funds received. However, one issue with this kind of fund is actually spending it! In 2014, the BBC reported that local authorities in England are sitting on £1.5 billion of unspent money, with half-a-million pounds not allocated to any projects, and nearly £10 million was returned to developers because it was not being spent within time limits.

“POLITICAL OBJECTIVES, RECESSION AND ECONOMIC BOOM TIMES HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE APPETITE FOR TAXING THE VALUE IN LAND, OR AT LEAST CAPTURING SOME COMMUNITY GAINS FROM IT”

Buitelaar, E (2010) Cracks in the myth: ‘Challenges to land policy in the Netherlands’, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geograﬁe, Vol. no.8, pp.849 -856 Buitelaar, E, Galle, M, Sorel, N, (2014) The public planning of private planning: an analysis of controlled spontaneity in the Netherlands, in Cities and Private Planning, Ed. Emanuel D, and Moroni, S , Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Hobma, F.A.M, Askew, J, Sheppard A, et al (2014) Internationale vergelijking ﬁnanciering en kostenverhaal bij organische gebiedsontwikkeling, TU Delft, Delft. Savills and Home Builders’ Federation (HBF), (2014), CIL – getting it right, Savills Research, London

Conclusion It is possible to learn from good practice in whatever country, and the Dutch government was open-minded when it commissioned the research into cost recovery. The research uncovered some interesting systems, but the British system emerged as well thought-out, with opportunities to transfer its principles elsewhere. It is not possible to copy directly from other countries, owing to the particular nature of their legislation. The British discretionary planning system is recognised and venerated round the world, but it is very diﬀerent to the system of zoning that prevails in most places. In England, the introduction of CIL oﬀers real opportunities to pay for more sustainable developments, and local authorities need to draw up some innovative schedules of expenditure. More research is needed on how communities are spending the money distributed down to them and it might be that they push for better uses to improve areas and enable a more sustainable lifestyle. If history is anything to go by, if CIL is not seen as successful – and if developers suggest it is delaying investment or preventing payments under Section 106 agreements for housing – then a future government might seek

About the authors JANET ASKEW is director of Academic Engagement, Faculty of Environment and Technology at the University of the West of England, Bristol (Janet. askew@uwe.ac.uk) ADAM SHEPPARD is a senior planning lecturer at the University of the West of England, Bristol (Adam. sheppard@uwe.ac.uk)

FE B R U AR Y 2 0 15 / THE PLA NNER

p18_21_parcelling_askew.indd 21

16/01/2015 14:36

THAT 22

T H E P L AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p22_25_blackman.indd 22

16/01/2015 17:03

FUNDING CUTS

Local authority planning departments have already been stripped by austerity measures. But there are more to come and now the cuts are really starting to hurt, says David Blackman

ouncils have borne the brunt of the coalition government’s spending cuts – and, within town halls, no service has been more exposed to austerity than planning. The impact of the government’s funding squeeze was laid bare in The Impact Of Funding Reductions On Local Authorities, published by the National Audit Office (NAO) in November 2014. With a reduction of another 10 per cent pencilled in for 2015/16, Parliament’s spending watchdog calculated that by the end of the forthcoming financial year, central funding for local government will have dropped by 37.3 per cent since the election of the coalition government. The Local Government Association (LGA) says that figure has increased to 40 per cent following further cuts of £2.5 billion for next year, which were announced following the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Autumn Statement. The next Parliament is unlikely to see much relief, with the main parties signed up to further austerity (see box). The NAO found that the planning and development services of county councils and single-tier authorities, such as metropolitan boroughs, had seen the largest spending reductions across the whole of local government. It calculated that the budgets of planning departments in such authorities had nearly halved (46 per cent) since 2010.

{

FE B R U AR Y 2 0 15 / T HE P LANNER

p22_25_blackman.indd 23

16/01/2015 17:03

FUNDING CUTS

The pain was most acute during the early years of the government. The axing of special grant programmes, such as the housing market renewal pathfinder initiative, exacerbated the wider squeeze on local authority budgets. However, further cuts are in the pipeline. According to the LGA, the 10 per cent budget reduction lined up for 2015/16 means that it is shaping up to be a crunch year for councils. It warns: “Many councils will have to make very difficult choices about which services to prioritise. Some services have already been reduced and may need to be cut altogether.” A survey of LGA members said that nearly a third of councils said they had “very little or no scope to reconfigure services further”. To add insult to injury, a recent online survey carried out by the Manchester Evening News illustrated how low planning ranks in terms of public priorities. The city’s residents identified planning as one of the three services that should see the biggest cuts – way below more immediately pressing areas like social care.

“THERE’S NO FAT LEFT. CREATING EFFICIENCIES HAS BEEN DONE TO DEATH. NO MATTER HOW CREATIVE YOU ARE, THERE’S GOING TO BE AN IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE”

his members’ list of concerns. He says there are complaints throughout the process, from securing pre-application meetings to the slow discharge of conditions, which can take up to six months after resolution to grant planning permission has WAHEED NAZIR been given. Hugh Ellis, head of policy at the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), describes lack of resources as the most glaring of the many ills bedevilling the planning system. “It’s a practical problem because the capacity is not there to service the private sector or communities properly. It’s reaching the point in some authorities where they can’t function effectively. You can see planning in some falling off the edge of a cliff,” he says. And although delays in development control prompt the loudest complaints, Ellis believes that forward planning is the biggest pinch point. “It’s pretty grim in some rural authorities; we’re seeing district councils where it’s getting down to one qualified planner in the planning team. The government can’t go on being critical of local government for poor plan preparation rates when they don’t have any resources to do it.”

No more fat

Living on scraps

Birmingham, as England’s biggest local authority, is at the sharp end of the next round of cuts. Waheed Nazir, the city’s director of planning and regeneration, had the grim task of implementing 40 per cent cuts to his department soon after taking on the role five years ago (see The Planner, August 2014). He was able to achieve this stiff target through efficiency measures such as reorganising the council’s planning teams and making better use of IT. Satisfaction with the council’s planning services has increased despite these changes, he points out. But Nazir believes that future cuts will be much more challenging for his service. “In 2010 there was an opportunity to create new structures, but there’s no fat left. Creating efficiencies has been done to death. No matter how creative you are, there’s going to be an impact on performance.” And although the post-2010 cuts took place against a backdrop of stagnant development, the next round of reductions will have no such leeway. Andrew Dixon, policy adviser to the Federation of Master Builders (FMB), says planning is rising up

Planning specialisms that generate no fee income, like enforcement and heritage conservation, are among the areas that have been particularly vulnerable to the axe. In Birmingham, for example, Nazir is having to cut back on enforcement. But the problem isn’t just the sheer number of planners who have been laid off in recent years. Many of those made redundant were senior members of staff. “The experience has gone out of local authorities because they have made the senior people redundant,” says Richard Woodford, director of Manchesterbased consultancy HOW Planning. Dan Mitchell, a director of the Barton Willmore Planning Partnership, agrees. “You end up with a service with less experienced planners who are very reactive to members,” he points out. However, it is hard to see how experienced planners will be persuaded to stay in local government, given the continuing pay squeeze on the sector. “It’s becoming increasingly challenging to retain staff,” says Nazir, who has seen a number of his senior officers headhunted by the private sector in recent months. And the cutbacks in planning will prove counterproductive for efforts to foster wider economic growth. Woodford gets exasperated with civic leaders who boast at seminars about how their local authorities are open for business, while they are failing to resource planning departments adequately.

T H E PL AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

I M AG E | PE T E R S E A R L E

p22_25_blackman.indd 24

16/01/2015 15:56

He says: “Politicians need to wake up and realise that they need to devote more resources into the planning departments because growth comes from delivering planning permissions.” The FMB’s Dixon concurs. “This is holding back economic growth and housing delivery, both of which are top of the government’s agenda. If we want to deliver more homes in the right places, which the planning system is there to ensure, we need to ensure adequate resources. It’s not rocket science.”

Finding the money

Where will the axe fall after the general election? Austerity looks set to remain the watchword in local government, whichever of the two main parties is in power after May’s vote. The coalition government’s stated deﬁcit reduction plan, as outlined in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s recent Autumn Statement, will involve the biggest reductions in spending in town halls. The Institute of Fiscal Studies think tank predicts that those departments, like Communities and Local Government, which are

not shielded from the full impact of the overall spending squeeze, will see their budgets fall by up to 40 per cent. The scale of these cuts is compounded by two factors: ﬁrst, George Osborne’s pledge to target a £23 billion surplus by the end of the next Parliament and, secondly, the government’s decision to continue the protection of some departments – such as health and education – from the wider cuts. Shadow chancellor Ed Balls says a Labour administration would maintain both the current government’s deep cuts to council spending in 20152016, as well as its 1 per cent

cap on pay rises for public sector workers. But Labour’s commitment to continue borrowing for investment gives the Opposition more leeway. The IFS calculates that public spending would have to fall by £4 billion under Labour’s plan, compared with the £23 billion that the Conservatives say they will have to ﬁnd. Less welcome news for planners, however, is the Opposition’s pledge to axe the New Homes Bonus, which gives councils an incentive to spare planning from wider cuts to services, as part of its broader £500 million drive to rein in local government funding.

As cuts are set to continue for the rest of the next Parliament, councils have little option but to find ways to recoup the cost of services from those that use them. The New Homes Bonus, under which the government allows councils to retain a share of any additional revenues generated by development, gives councils an incentive to put resources into planning. Nazir says he has used the prospective carrot of bonus cash to persuade Birmingham council’s planning fee income. members to spare his department “Fees need to reflect the amount of work that from headcount cuts in the forthwe need to do on planning applications and that coming three-year budget round. developers want. We are not seeking to set a fee But the LGA warns that the inevicharge to make shedloads of profit.” table time lag between permissions Increased fees won’t hold back development, being granted and development says Nazir. “If you’re building a house extension delivered means it is hard for counyou’re not going to not do it because you’re paycils to factor the bonus into their ing £300 instead of £150.” short-term calculations. And the private sector is open to the idea. Starved of alternative sources of A construction source says: “We would be “THE GOVERNMENT funding, councils are pushing for open to arguments that planning fees should CAN’T GO ON BEING the government to relax its cap on rise if it was ringfenced in order to ensure more CRITICAL OF LOCAL the fees that they can charge for proefficient running of the system.” GOVERNMENT cessing applications. But, given the immediate funding constraints FOR POOR PLAN Nazir says: “In any commercial facing the planning system, HOW’s Woodford PREPARATION RATES organisation you would set your fees favours a more direct approach; allowing develWHEN THEY DON’T opers to fund the cost of planning staff salaries. based on your service, but I am stuck HAVE ANY RESOURCES “It’s a no-brainer to contribute to the cost of with planning fees set by central TO DO IT” funding an officer if it means they can to get a government. HUGH ELLIS planning application through the system.” “Fee charges don’t reflect the cost of running the service, so local Nazir says he would “not be comfortable” about authorities have had to come up with new and tying contributions to a specific post. creative ways of finding other means of backing Ellis shares these doubts. “There have to be some real safeguards around up charges.” impartiality,” he says. Bristol City Council’s chief planner, Zoe Willcox, Allowing developers to pay for planners may be a bridge too far. But, given agrees that councils need the flexibility to set their the trajectory of broader spending cuts, Willcox believes that planning must own fees. become a lot more financially self-sufficient. She told an autumn planning conference in the She says: “You can’t expect local government in the future to be subsidising a planning service. With all the other priorities, it’s just not going to happen.” city that her department was now largely reliant on

F EB R U AR Y 2 0 1 5 / THE PLA NNER

p22_25_blackman.indd 25

16/01/2015 15:57

I N C LU S I V E P L A N N I N G

BALANCING INCLUSIVE PLANNING MAY ONCE HAVE BEEN ALL ABOUT DISABILITY ACCESS AND THE PROVINCE OF DESIGNERS ALONE, BUT IT IS NOW SOMETHING PLANNERS SHOULD BE ADDRESSING TOO. BY MARK SMULIAN

T H E P L AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p26_29_inclusivedesign.indd 26

16/01/2015 14:37

omeone designing a tall building with disability access at the forefront of his or her mind would no doubt put the lift prominently near the door. But someone designing the same building mindful of the prevention of obesity would give prominence to the stairs instead to encourage their ascent by visitors. It can be hard to reconcile the multiple demands made by inclusivity on planners and the professions with which they work. Thinking on inclusive planning and design can be categorised as part of sustainability â&#x20AC;&#x201C; that places, and the structures within them should be designed so that as far as possible everyone can use and enjoy them without requiring special treatment. Inclusivity is sometimes viewed narrowly as being concerned only with disability access. Important as that is, the term has expanded now to concern creating places that do not exclude anyone, because thinking about access by those with mobility, visual or any other kind of impairment has been central to its planning and design.

Accreditation requirements The RTPI plans activities to increase awareness of inclusive planning this year as part of its research projects, awards programme and support for a government initiative on the education of all built environment professionals. This initiative seeks to get all relevant professions to change their accreditation requirements so that degree and other training courses and continuing professional development all explicitly include education in inclusivity.

I M AG E | I STO C K

p26_29_inclusivedesign.indd 27

{

FE B R U AR Y 2 0 15 / THE PLA NNER

16/01/2015 14:37

I N C LU S I V E P L A N N I N G

Like ‘sustainability’, or perhaps ‘affordable’, ‘inclusivity’ can be a slippery term to grasp and define. Former RTPI president Professor Colin Haylock explains: “Inclusive planning grew out of concern about disability access. “There has been a gradual maturity of thought about inclusive planning with people thinking about more fundamental things on how the environment is used and places created, and whether any group is excluded, and try to design places and buildings so that they are not.” This approach does not solely involve disability, or indeed the impact of our ageing society on mobility. As Newcastle-based Haylock notes: “Newcastle has a reputation as a party city with young people out making a noise in the centre, but the area is also being promoted as one to live in. “So there is a conflict there, and by using inclusive design and planning you can try to resolve that so that one does not impinge on the other too much.” Such conflicts can be hard to resolve, though. Haylock gives the example that “if you were designing a building with disability access in mind you would place the lift prominently in the entrance hall – not hide it round the back. “But as far as the obesogenic agenda is concerned you would want to give prominence to the stairs to encourage people to use those, so there is a real challenge there.” He describes inclusive planning as “more a state of mind, something about how you approach the interrelationship of uses”.

Buck the trends The most obvious or fashionable solutions may not be right, he suggests, recalling the trend a few years ago towards ‘lifetime homes’, which were supposed to promote inclusivity by allowing people to inhabit the same home throughout their lives as these would be designed to meet the needs of all age groups. “‘Lifetime homes’ turned out to mean that homes were too small at some life stages and too large at others, and we think more in terms of lifetime neighbourhoods now,” he says. “People may not stay in the same home, but they will drink in the same pub and ﬁnd the accommodation they want within the same community and neighbourhood, though not the same house. It seems a more realistic approach.” Haylock says “asking intelligent questions in place-making” is at the heart of inclusive planning. He admits he at ﬁrst thought planning was peripheral to inclusive design, “but I came to see it is right at the centre because we do the strategic thinking about how sites should be used for development and which sites to use for which purpose and how they relate to each other”. Another former RTPI president, Ann Skippers, says the most important factor in promoting inclusive design in the profession is for “planners to realise it’s in their remit to do something about this. “Too often it is thought that inclusivity is just something for design professionals, of building control, and not something planners should address.

“But it goes beyond the design of buildings into place-making, so everyone can use and enjoy a place without requiring special treatment. It needs a holistic approach.” Skippers says developers are more receptive than might be thought to having their initial plans changed to make them more inclusive and that fear of being taken to appeal need not be a deterrent to planners standing their ground against designs that fail to deliver inclusivity. “There is plenty in the National Planning Policy Framework in support of inclusive design that provides the ammunition we need to do this,” she says. “It would be good, though, to have clear support from planning inspectors.”

Amenity for all The former Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, now merged with the Design Council, has produced a number of guides to inclusive design. Lead adviser Nicola Mathers says: “Planning is fundamental to the things we are trying to promote. “Disability access is important, but not the only consideration. We emphasise place, so people can move around fully and conﬁdently in the built environment whether they are young, or old, depending on their state of health or need for wheelchair access. “We also need good planning for the ageing population so people can stay in their own home and access their surroundings. If people are able to get out of their homes it is better for their health, so we need to plan around access to public transport, green space and amenities, which are also all important for young people.” This can simply involve planners in looking at what is before their eyes and thinking about how it could be used diﬀerently. Haylock tells the story of a town in southern England – which he declines to name – that formerly had a branch of the Woolworths chain store at its centre, which now stands empty.

T H E PL AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p26_29_inclusivedesign.indd 28

16/01/2015 14:37

“But it has had a new “IT’S IMPORTANT health centre built a mile or THAT THIS ISN’T so outside town,” he notes. JUST VIEWED AS “Inclusive planning says BUILDING THINGS you would put those two facTHAT CONFORM tors together so the health WITH THE BUILDING centre would have been in REGULATIONS AND the old Woolworths, where it THEN ASSUMING would be accessible to all at THEY ARE OK, IT’S the heart of the community. ABOUT THE PUBLIC Whoever was responsible for REALM BETWEEN those decisions was not thinkBUILDINGS TOO” ing about inclusive planning.” The RTPI’s work on inclusive planning this year will include a research project on the Location of Development, says Rosslyn Stuart, director of professional standards and development. She explains: “This has arisen out of the work we did in responding to the communities and local government select committee, where it became clear that there is insufficient data on the sustainability implications of the National Planning Policy Framework at national level in England.” The project will seek to identify good examples of inclusive planning and is expected to have implications for public health and transport policy. Stuart says built environment professions “have to respond” to concerns about inclusivity, and so the RTPI is looking at how this would fit with both planners’ training and continuing professional development. “It’s important that this isn’t just viewed as building things that conform with the building regulations and then assuming they are OK. It’s about the public realm between buildings too,” she says. The RTPI will include requirements for inclusive planning in relevant award categories for 2015 and has held meetings with heads of planning schools, “to ensure they are aware of it and how inclusive planning should be taught and tested”, says Stuart. Putting inclusivity firmly in the training curriculum comes as part of a wider government initiative that followed the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Built Environment Professional Education project (BEPE), which is supported by the RTPI among many others. Project leader Julie Fleck explains: “The Olympic and Paralympic Games were great for accessibility. For example, we were even able to set a standard of 1:60 so that shallow gradients were achieved across the park.

“BEPE grew out of Olympic Games legacy work. The idea is that we want all built environment professional institutions to change their accreditation processes to make it requirement to teach inclusive design in courses consistently and effectively. “We now have 14 key professional bodies involved and it’s about looking at the wider environment, not just new building.” She says that while most courses purport to teach inclusivity, “some places train planners to do it, but others at present do so inconsistently, or only on one course, or just as tick-box exercise without really engaging. “So we want a shift in thinking so this is something that runs right through professional training and becomes part of normal professional practice.” Inclusive design should not involve measures that are obtrusive or hinder the movement of non-disabled people, says Fleck. “Inclusive design is good design that makes buildings and spaces easy and comfortable for all of us to use. With an ageing population we need to recognise that what might be helpful to partially sighted people is in fact helpful to many people, so that inclusivity is unobtrusive and not a signpost to a ramp round the back of a building, but instead perhaps an automatic door that most users hardly notice.” Should the planner handling an application to build on a steep gradient insist that the building is reworked so that the slopes are used to make it accessible, even if this risks an offended developer lodging an appeal? And how should the disability and obesity conundrum be solved in an office block? There are no easy – and certainly no universal – answers. Better training and heightened awareness of inclusive design and planning should, though, equip planners to reach workable solutions that help the largest number of people.

F EB R U AR Y 2 0 15 / THE PLA NNER

p26_29_inclusivedesign.indd 29

16/01/2015 17:04

N EI G H B O U R H O O D P L A N N I N G

Politicians pay lip-service to the idea of devolving planning down to local people, says Gavin Parker, but uptake of such opportunities by communities so far has been sparse and much more needs to be done

THERE G N EI G H B O I L L U S T R A T I O N | A U D E VA N R Y N

T H E P L AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p30_33_neighbourhood.indd 30

16/01/2015 15:57

GOES THE OURHOOD N

eighbourhood planning (NP) in England is self-evidently important for the current government’s localism agenda and was launched amid claims that it would radically shift power and control of planning agendas down towards communities. While I argue that NP is in principle a positive advance, subject to necessary modiﬁcation, the reality is that a far more modest set of outcomes have emerged so far and more slowly than the government expected. This should now be a base from which to learn and to build upon, however, given that – as with other parts of the planning system – there is a desperate need to embed and evolve rather than remove and restart after so much change. We also need to pursue an approach to planning that builds understandings of issues, needs, options and implementation diﬃculties among the wider public.

{

FE B R U AR Y 2 0 15 / THE PLA NNER

p30_33_neighbourhood.indd 31

16/01/2015 15:57

N EI G H B O U R H O O D P L A N N I N G

“AN NDP CAN ADD DETAIL AND SHAPE TO EXISTING POLICY, OR HELP TO PLUG GAPS WHERE A LOCAL PLAN IS SILENT – THE PLAN POLICIES CAN ALSO ALLOCATE SITES”

There is an emerging political consensus that planned growth, let alone sustainable development, needs to be understood and shaped by the wider community and this assures us that a form of NP will continue past 2015, under whichever next administration. Moreover, many professional planners are drawn to the idea of working with the public to shape policy and attune decisions, but the road plotted by Skeffington back in 1969 has been a difficult one with much consultation, community involvement and engagement being tokenistic or limited. NP itself has also proved to be challenging and this has been particularly so for local authorities operating in a changing institutional environment and in the midst of exercising significant cuts. So while national politicians and planners alike are broadly well disposed to the idea, the operating environment is less conducive. It is tempting to say that it has always been thus in local planning and so incremental improvement should be what’s in our sights. This cannot only be about simplification, but also about support and ensuring that those involved understand and engage effectively.

Adding detail and shape Crucially, there are enough areas that wish to pursue the NP option to justify claims of success by this measure at least. At the time of writing, uptake had reached beyond 1,200 neighbourhoods, with the overwhelming majority of those areas opting to produce a Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) to form a part of the statutory local planning framework. An NDP can add detail and shape to existing policy, or help to plug gaps where a local plan is silent – the plan policies can also allocate sites. It must meet the ‘basic conditions’ and be deemed in general conformity with higher-level policy found in the NPPF and the relevant local plan. Oh, and the plan must successfully pass a neighbourhood referendum by a simple majority. Yet despite growing uptake and there being funding and support available from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) for almost four years now, the number of plans that have passed the referendum stage is still relatively low (by December 2014 they totalled 43). This reﬂects both the inertias involved in starting to plan from scratch and the typical stop-start nature of co-production involving volunteers (and notwithstanding other inhibiting factors as intimated above). But the numbers are ticking upwards. Recent research on neighbourhood planning, which focused on neighbourhood experiences, showed that many participating neighbourhoods had made good progress and were overcoming diﬃculties encountered, often with the aid of consultant support, or their local planning authority, or both. It is clear the NDPs are necessarily co-produced and neighbourhoods need their local planning authority to play their part. If NDPs are to proceed within what is accepted as an aspirational or ideal two-year preparation period, then the study indicated a number of aspects that are in need of attention. The full report details a wide range of proposed areas for improvement and some have been taken up by government already. The conclusions also provide an assessment of the evidence gaps that require further consideration. Altogether, these indicate suggested necessary adjustments to support, process, structure

and, overall, a need for a better understanding of all actor behaviours and motivations. Most respondents had perceived the process as burdensome, but a majority thought it was proportionate for a plan to be accorded statutory status. Although many appreciated that an NDP cannot be rushed if a high-quality plan is to be produced, some recognised that a faster NP process could make the task more attractive to those leading the process. The importance of building relationships and momentum within a community was cited, given a recognised need to create a plan that ultimately has to gain popular support through the referendum. One wonders if there is a lesson here for deliberations over local plans and their accountability? Given that NP is a multi-stage activity, there were suggestions for changes to various key stages, summarised as follows:

AREA DESIGNATION: delay from some local authorities was seen as holding up the process and this should be tightened. There was also a plea made to clarify guidance on how to implement area designation more smoothly for all concerned. EVIDENCE GATHERING: for some areas, delays or problems with assembling evidence for the plan were registered and delay was seen as relating to a general lack of resources and time. This highlights how NDPs are co-dependent on other resources and activity. PLAN WRITING: respondents asked for improved guidance on writing plans and there was a widely held view that there should be pro formas or templates available. There was a wish to have more clarity on what supporting documents were required. Other suggestions included having a pro forma for an NDP available at the beginning of the process and having access to standard policies, given that eﬀective policy writing was seen as challenging.

2/ 3/

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY: this apparently went well for most groups, but it was noted that little advice or guidance on community engagement was available. Work to support this dimension of neighbourhood planning was recognised as being useful and in my view there needs to be more attention paid to how early NP stages are designed and exercised to ensure inclusivity and accurate reflection of neighbourhood views. INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION STAGE: clarification of time scales and the obligations of the local authority to respond (and support), alongside the production of simplified guidance on the independent examination stage was highlighted in this respect. Otherwise such issues may act to unduly influence. NEIGHBOURHOOD REFERENDUM: the main issue identified for this stage related to clarification on publicity and the ability to campaign in support of a Neighbourhood Plan in the run-up to the referendum.

T H E P L AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p30_33_neighbourhood.indd 32

16/01/2015 15:57

c The role of specialist input: Particular importance was placed on face-to-face support and the role of consultants was identiﬁed as important in many cases. More than two-thirds of the neighbourhoods had used consultant support, and it was particularly valued for policy writing and dealing with technical matters such as Strategic Environmental Assessment.

Conclusion

Overall, more face-to-face advice and a better explanation of the process generally would help. There were four main dimensions identified where modification would be helpful: skills and capacity; the support needed; the local authority role; and the role of specialist inputs. These are summarised briefly as follows: c Capacity and skills of those producing neighbourhood plans: Most communities have been able to access the skills and knowledge needed for NP. There are a wide range of skills and knowledge that can be drawn upon from within the community but, importantly, partners are also seen as having a key role given the range of skills needed to produce an NDP. It would appear that lack of skills introduced delay rather than totally impeding the progress of plans. c Support with the NP process: The evidence from the research strongly suggests that, in principle, NP can be undertaken by most communities if effectively supported, and in particular if the relevant local authority is supportive. This includes a need for improved guidance, tools and templates; both by means of consolidating existing material and in making it more specific to likely issues or tasks. It was felt that these should provide a greater level of clarity and certainty for qualifying bodies to help them progress. Improved project planning was called for to assist groups to organise, reflect on needs and create a realistic schedule. These aspects of the report recommendations are currently being worked on by DCLG and partner organisations. c The local authority role: Local planning authority input and attitude made a significant difference to NP progress. Overall perceptions of support by the local authority to communities participating in NP were positive. Numerous examples were cited where local authorities had enabled good progress but in other cases, whether deliberately or not, local authorities had slowed down or frustrated NP progress. The development of more structured partnerships and agreed demarcation of roles and actions should be considered. Some argued that there should be clearer guidance and some more clarity and specification about what to expect from local authorities under the duty to support. Establishing a memorandum of understanding, or similar, to outline the responsibilities of the local authority and the neighbourhood would aid clarity. It was clear that further work to explore the attitudes, capacity and behaviours among local authorities was still needed.

The overall conclusion of the research was that NP is proceeding reasonably well for most participating groups and they appear to be navigating through the process with help. There are very many areas not participating, of course, and the concern is that we don’t really know why not, or whether there are other effective means of engaging people in planning processes that are being deployed instead. The use of key local individuals and teams, as well as funding to support the activity has, on the whole, acted to enable urban, rural and more or less deprived neighbourhoods to embark on NP. But more can be done. Improved support through guidance and toolkit-type resources are in preparation, and recent announcements to enhance the funding package for NP support will go some way to help. Although there is some recognition of variable need and of inertias in some areas, there is still a feeling that some urban areas and places where pre-existing stocks of social capital are weaker do need more help and encouragement. Moreover, it is in those areas that planning and engagement activity could bring tangible as well as process or community building gains in the form of socio-economically valuable development. The next government should consider this carefully and ensure that the community engagement elements of NP are properly supported and designed – and as part of that ensure that issues are properly debated and transparently decided. So, as well as making sure that the process is inclusive, the questions should be, who needs NP and who actually gains from it? There is a possibility that NDPs by their very existence reflect dissatisfaction with local planning practices past and present, and on some level all may gain. Equally, it may be that NP acts as somewhat of a microcosm of difficulties existing with local plan production. For one thing, local referenda on draft local plans may be an option worthy of consideration as a means of concentrating minds over the dysfunctional relationship between government and the public and also to assist in the development of public understanding of planning as a positive if often difficult, co-produced force. Gavin Parker is professor of planning studies at the University of Reading and lead author of the recent research report User Experience Of Neighbourhood Planning In England. The views expressed here are his own.

To read the User Experience Of Neighbourhood Planning In England report in full, go to: www.tinyurl.com/q3szdhh

F EB R U AR Y 2 0 1 5 / THE PLA NNER

p30_33_neighbourhood.indd 33

16/01/2015 15:57

INSIGHT

DiF { D

DECISIONS IN FOCUS

Decisions in Focus is where we put the spotlight on some of the more signiﬁcant planning appeals and court cases of the last month – alongside your comments. If you’d like to contribute your insights and analyses to future issues of The Planner, email DiF at editorial@theplanner.co.uk

The planning inspector agreed with the developer that the proportion of aﬀordable housing speciﬁed rendered the proposal unviable

HOUSING

Inspector backs developer on ‘unrealistic’ s106 agreement (1 SUMMARY Bloor Homes Limited successfully appealed against Charnwood Borough Council’s refusal

of an application to vary a planning obligation in a Section 106 Agreement dated November 2012. The planning obligation, which was the subject of the appeal, concerned the proportion of aﬀordable housing to be provided as part of the development in north Leicestershire. The planning inspector concluded that the level of aﬀordable housing

T H E PL AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p34_37_dif.indd 34

provision would make the proposed development unviable and agreed that a reduction was justiﬁed. (2 CASE DETAILS Bloor Homes sought to challenge the council’s refusal under a mechanism introduced by the Growth and Infrastructure Act into Section 106BC of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990. The application and appeal procedure assesses the viability of aﬀordable housing requirements only. It does not reopen any other planning policy considerations or review the merits of the permitted scheme. Bloor Homes successfully argued that the original obligation made the scheme unviable in the current market conditions as a result of a shortfall of residual value

I M AG E S | A L A M Y

16/01/2015 15:58

against land costs. The developer also submitted evidence that data on which the affordable housing contribution had been calculated had not properly factored in the current market values and market demand of the area within which the development was to take place. (3 CONCLUSION REACHED The inspector allowed the appeal, stating that the Section 106 affordable housing requirements guidance explicitly provides for the avoidance of ‘unrealistic section 106 agreements’ owing to the potential negative impact that onerous planning conditions can have on developers. In the medium to long term this might result in the development stagnating and therefore not benefiting the community. The inspector concluded that the assessment on which the affordable housing contribution was made was initially too high, and that the value of the housing market in the area was at the lower end of the local housing market and demand was lower than other areas in the locality. It was also noted that owing to the existence of another development site close by it might lead to a more competitive housing market.

subsequently agreed either by the council or on appeal is, however, only valid for three years – so developers are encouraged to build as much of their scheme as possible within this period. From the planning authorities’ perspective, care should be taken when imposing unrealistic levels of aﬀordable housing in planning obligations. Alterations in the value of housing created in such developments might result in planning permissions remaining unimplemented or delayed through viability issues. Given the lack of housing supply experienced in many areas, a careful balance needs to be struck dealing with such applications on a case-bycase basis. POLLY REYNOLDS Senior associate, Veale Wasbrough Vizards

MIXED DEVELOPMENT

Judical review green-lights urban extension (1 SUMMARY A High Court ruling has dismissed a judicial review brought by Luton Borough Council in its dispute with Central Bedfordshire Council over the latter’s approval of a 5,150-home urban extension including 200,000 square metres of retail and industrial space near Luton’s border with Houghton Regis. (2 CASE DETAILS Luton Borough Council launched judicial review proceedings last July, citing 10 grounds of challenge in a bid to quash the planning permission. The claim was that Central Bedfordshire Council had failed to correctly interpret the NPPF

in relation to green belt and retail issues, had not considered alternative sites, had attributed incorrect weight to the emerging Development Strategy, and had also failed to disclose viability information. (3 CONCLUSION REACHED Despite the above, Justice Holgate backed Central Bedfordshire Council, identifying four of the grounds as being unarguable. He was satisﬁed that there was nothing misleading in the council’s committee report and that Central Bedfordshire Council had properly exercised its planning judgement and there were no matters open to legal criticism. The council,

Luton Borough Council failed to sway a judical review into blocking a new settlement near the town’s border

(4 ANALYSIS [1] POLLY REYNOLDS The opportunity to revisit affordable housing obligations has provided developers with an incentive to revisit current consents to see whether there is scope for the affordable housing contributions to be reduced. Any modification

FE B R U AR Y 2 0 15 / THE PLA NNER

p34_37_dif.indd 35

16/01/2015 15:58

INSIGHT

DiF { D

DECISIONS IN FOCUS

The inspector decided that Wessex Water’s environmental aims trumped green belt considerations

said Holgate, had correctly balanced the important benefits the scheme would bring against the concerns raised by Luton council. Justice Holgate awarded developer LIH £7,000 in costs and rejected Luton’s request to go to the Court of Appeal, stating: “It is most unfortunate that this project, which will deliver much-needed development and nationally important infrastructure, has been delayed by a challenge lacking in legal merit.” (4 ANALYSIS [1] JASON LONGHURST The judgement handed down emphasises the robust decision-making processes at Central Bedfordshire Council and the expertise with which officers and members exercised planning judgement in this case. It is therefore incredibly frustrating that, in spite of a well-framed and lengthy judgement, Luton Borough Council has chosen to initiate an immediate appeal against the decision for undefined reasons and without fully assessing the judgement. This action alone seems to illustrate a real desire to frustrate the proper planning process and the delivery of much-needed housing and infrastructure. JASON LONGHURST Director of regeneration and business, Central Bedfordshire Council

INFRASTRUCTURE

Sewage access track goes ahead on appeal (1 SUMMARY Planning permission has been granted on appeal for

an access track and Bailey bridge to serve the Berry Hill Sewage Treatment Works on land north of Berry Hill Puriﬁcation Works in Dorset. (2 CASE DETAILS The proposed development would construct a new access to the Berry Hill Sewage Treatment Works, which is located in the green belt between the northern edge of Bournemouth and the River Stour. A key objective of Wessex Water’s Asset Management Plan 2010-2015 (AMP5) Sludge Strategy is to provide the capability to digest over 90 per cent of all sewage sludge by March 2015 “in order to minimise greenhouse gas emissions and increase renewable electricity generation in conformity with the government’s climate change commitments”. To address access problems

connected with the increased activity and capacity on site, a new access track (‘the track’) was proposed. (3 CONCLUSION REACHED The appeal was allowed and planning permission granted. Inspector Roger Pritchard deemed the issues in focus to be whether the proposed development constituted inappropriate development in the green belt and, if so, “whether the harm by reason of that inappropriateness and any other harm, including its eﬀects on the openness of the green belt, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development”. Also at issue was whether the proposed development represented the least environmentally damaging practicable option in the

terms set out by Policy 46 of the adopted Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Waste Local Plan. Inspector Pritchard agreed that safeguarding the countryside from encroachment was a significant factor in this appeal, but he also recognised that the area of land over which the track would pass clearly falls within the category of green belt land identified by the first purpose recognised by Policy KS3 of the adopted Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy. This states that the two most important purposes of the green belt in its area are to protect the physical identity of individual settlements by maintaining wedges and corridors of open land between them and to maintain an area of open land around the conurbation.

T H E P L AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p34_37_dif.indd 36

16/01/2015 15:58

+ We’d like to incorporate your comment, insight and analysis into Decisions in Focus each month. Whether you can oﬀer a brief obversation on a matter of interest within an inspector’s judgement or an informed interpretation of a decision, please let us know by emailing DiF at editorial@theplanner.co.uk

ROUNDUP Here are six more decisions that we think are worth a look this month. All the details and inspector’s letters can be found on the Planning Portal website: www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk

APPEAL DECISIONS

D1590/A/14/2223261

HOUSING

(3) Application: Appeal (1) Application: Appeal against refusal to permit erection of three blocks and conversion of existing building to create 12, two-bedroom apartments, amenity space and access and remove scrap yard in Redbourn, Hertfordshire. Decision: Appeal allowed. Main issue: Although this building would be three storeys high, it would be mostly screened from view by existing and proposed dwellings in the street. Its height would also be compatible with land and buildings to the rear of the appeal site. Overall, the inspector considered the scheme would not be overbearing and would preserve the character and appearance of the street scene and conservation area by replacing an unsightly scrap yard. Appeal reference: APP/ B1930/A/14/2215465

(2) Application: Appeal against refusal to grant permission to demolish an existing bungalow and replace it with a detached house at Leigh-on-Sea, Essex. Decision: Appeal allowed. Main issue: The proposal would be larger than the adjacent bungalow and of a diﬀerent design, but the inspector decided it would not be unacceptably intrusive. It would respect the varied but coherent character of the area and accord with the Southend-on-Sea Design and Townscape Guide (2009). Appeal reference: APP/

against a refusal to grant permission for change of use to permanent residential mobile home park on land at Swadlincote, South Derbyshire. Decision: Appeal dismissed. Main issue: The appeal site is part of a larger area where permission was granted on appeal in 2001 for the provision of a seasonal showmans’ depot of nine residential serviced hardstandings with lawn, service areas for maintenance works of vehicles and amusement equipment, open space and a children’s play area. Use of the site as a permanent mobile home park would represent residential development in the countryside for which there is no justiﬁcation and which the NPPF seeks to discourage. Appeal reference: APP/ G2435/A/13/2210772

(4) Application: Appeal against an application to vary planning permission subject to conditions in Sale, Greater Manchester. Decision: Appeal allowed. Main issue: Permission to build a part two-storey, part first-floor side extension, and part single-storey front extension was granted last July, with a condition that the garage permitted was fitted with a roller shutter door or door that does not project past the front building line of the garage when in use, so a vehicle front of the garage didn’t overhang the highway when the door is in use. The inspector said the condition could be dropped as the development had enough

space for a new parking bay at the front of the plot and this was unlikely to cause material harm to pedestrian safety as the road layout oﬀered good visibility. Appeal reference: APP/ Q4245/A/14/2222732

He also saw no danger of coalescence between the villages of Aston Clinton and Buckland. Appeal reference: APP/ J0405/A/13/2210864

(5) ENERGY

(5) Application: Appeal against refusal to grant permission for extensions to provide additional residents’ bedrooms and a new sun lounge at a nursing home in Nantwich, Cheshire. Decision: Appeal allowed. Main issue: The appeal site is one of a small group of residential properties at the edge of a village. Of the four proposed extensions, three would be two-storey to the rear of the building. The other would be a singlestorey sun lounge at the front. The inspector said the extensions would be modest and not disproportionate additions to the building. The car park at the front of the building is an adequate size for the likely increase in staﬀ and visitors. Appeal reference: APP/ R0660/A/14/2224416 Application: Appeal against a refusal to grant outline permission to build up to 47 dwellings, access, and amenity space at Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire. Decision: Appeal allowed. Main issues: The site to the north of Aston Clinton is a series of arable ﬁelds stretching from the village edge to the A41 bypass. Housing land in the area is scarce and the inspector regarded the landscape as agreeable, but with no particular visual qualities, so impact on the character of the site would be slight.

(6) Application: Appeal against refusal to permit installation and operation of a 250kW wind turbine with an overall tip height of 55m on farmland at Beaworthy, Devon. Decision: Appeal was allowed, as was an application for costs. Main issue: The site for the turbine is in a field laid to grass on sloping land above the valley of Henford Water. Before the hearing, Torridge District Council had advised in a letter that it would not defend either of the reasons for refusal, which relate to the effect a) on ecological diversity (including bats), and b) on living conditions in terms of noise. It withdrew all the reasons for refusal before the hearing and offered no evidence that the appeal scheme was unacceptable. The inspector ruled that this was unreasonable behaviour and there was no evidence to suggest that the reasons for refusal were justified. Councils risk an award of costs against them if they behave unreasonably with respect to the substance of the matter under appeal by refusing or failing to decide applications without reason or by unreasonably defending an appeal. Appeal reference: Appeal Ref: APP/ W1145/A/14/2220508

FE B R U AR Y 2 0 15 / THE PLA NNER

p34_37_dif.indd 37

16/01/2015 15:59

INSIGHT

LLegal landscape CRYSTAL BALLGAZING Beverley Firth shares some planning predictions for 2015 First off, I make it clear I just didn’t see the Plain English Guide To The Planning System in my 2015 crystal ball – so you may want to take that oversight into account when weighing up whether or not I am likely to be right about any of the following. Although there were lots of reservations at the time, most of us are living quite comfortably with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and appreciating its brevity and focus. But there has been a growing concern about recognising when development becomes sustainable development and can claim the benefit of the presumption in favour within paragraph 14 of the framework. Without that clarity, many argue that NPPF is giving rise to the opposite – unsustainable development. This concern seems to have different facets to it, but a key issue is the apparent conflict between the reference to the three dimensions on page two, and the statement in paragraph six that paragraphs 18 to 219 of the NPPF “taken as a whole” constitute sustainable development. What’s more, there are concerns that the application of the NPPF is happening in a way that over-emphasises the economic role of

Beverley Firth the deﬁnition. This is all dangerous territory in the run-up to an election, so my ﬁrst prediction is that there is a statement from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) on the point – but that when examined, this does little more than take

“I PREDICT THE APRIL 2015 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY DEADLINE WILL BE PUSHED BACK TO TAKE THE PRESSURE OFF”

us back to the page two definition, and the paragraph six reference to the rest of NPPF. Even though a number of local authorities took the opportunity to be ‘Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) frontrunners’, how many CIL supporters are there out there now? And many local authorities are staring April 2015 in the face with no prospect of a charging schedule in place by then. We are promised a review of CIL this year, so I make two predictions: first, we will have sufficient manifesto words on CIL to give us something to talk about before May, with more than a hint that CIL will be phased out or scaled back post-election; and second, the April 2015 deadline will be pushed back to take the

pressure off. The other government policy about which there were lots of reservations at the time was the scrapping of strategic planning. I like to think that even at the heart of DCLG there is recognition that this has been a backward move. Plus there is the realisation that many areas are not covered by up-to-date local plans. Forward planning deserves a prediction, so here I say that DCLG will set up a bidding round for local plan resources for authorities who have strong ‘duty to cooperate’ credentials and can make a case for early adoption of a plan if resources can be made available. I don’t want to leave National Planning Practice Guidance out of the reckoning, so I predict two amendments to the guidance: first, to soften footnote 11 in paragraph 47 to benefit local planning authorities with a lot of supply locked up in large-scale sites; and second, a reintroduction of disaggregation to the sequential assessment process so that large-scale retail or leisure proposals are considered in their component parts as well as combined. Finally, there could be votes to be won by scrapping the A1/A2 to C3 permitted development rights – so that’s my final prediction BEVERLEY FIRTH Beverley Firth is a partner in planning law at Mills & Reeve LLP

T H E P L AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p38_39_LegalLandscape.indd 38

16/01/2015 14:39

LATEST POSTS FROM THEPLANNER.CO.UK/BLOGS

B LO G S The large number of prior approvals under the general permitted development amendment rights in England suggests that it could provide much-needed homes – but so far, few have been transformed into homes

L E G I S L AT I O N S H O R T S Offices to homes: the story so far Polly Reynolds Under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013/1101, a developer is permitted to change the use of a building from an office to a residential use without the need to undertake a full planning application. This policy is designed to create more dwellings to ease the housing shortage. Research by online planning journal Planning Resource has provided interesting evidence of the effect of the new permitted development right. Statistics gained through Freedom of Information requests show that in the period from May 2013 to July 2014, 2,005 prior approval applications were made to London boroughs and 269 applications made within eight other main English cities. Planning Resource’s research has led to an assessment that this could culminate in a total of 17,425 potential residential units. This permitted development right is currently valid for a period of three years, ending at the end of May 2016. But the government plans to further extend this right to enable the completion of the

development under the 2013 Order to be extended to 30 May 2019. This large number of approved prior approvals suggests that this permitted development right could provide a much-needed boost to the housing supply, satisfying the government’s policy intentions. The practical results of this policy have far exceeded the government’s estimates. It was predicted that as a result of the policy only 190 offices a year would become housing units. It is suggested that developers are using this as an opportunity to circumvent the requirement to meet any affordable housing contributions that are associated with a full planning application and thus making the provision of dwellings more economically viable for developers. Further, the requirements to be met for such an application are less stringent than for a normal planning application with only information on transport and highways impacts and contamination and flooding risks on the site to be supplied by the applicant. And despite the large number of prior approval applications, there is little evidence to suggest that these applications are being implemented. It is suggested that developers are using this permitted development right as a

negotiation tool when making a full planning application. Planning Resource figures suggest that 24 per cent of prior approval applications within London are being refused. That number is considerably less in the other core English cities, with the figure down at 8.1 per cent. But these are not negligible amounts and should be considered to be a disincentive for anyone to make such an application if he merely intends to use the process as a negotiation tool. The main reasons for rejections appear to be the effects on transport or highways and that the building was not actually being used as an office immediately before 30 May 2013 or, if the building was not in use immediately before that date – a key requirement of the right. This permitted development right, through an initial assessment appears to be offering owners of office buildings the chance to assist in increasing housing stock in an area where demand vastly exceeds supply. But so far there appears to be scant evidence that this large number of prior approval applications is translating into homes. The success of this government initiative remains to be seen. Polly Reynolds is a senior associate at Veale Wasbrough Vizards. preynolds@vwv. co.uk.

Schoolboy speaks up in Parliament against HS2 rail link A nine-year-old has told MPs of his concerns about the proposed HS2 rail line. Alex Rukin told the High Speed Rail (London to West Midlands) Bill Select Committee that he was worried about the cost of building the rapid link as well as the noise it would make in operation. Rukin said at a hearing in the House of Commons in January: “I am really worried that I won’t be able to get to sleep at night when I’m at my mum’s house because HS2 will be going really fast on a bridge past the bedroom windows.” He also questioned project bosses’ mathematical ability during the hearing. The committee is hearing evidence against the provisions of the hybrid bill, which is eﬀectively the government’s planning application to build phase one of the £50 billion rail project. Alex’s father Joe is manager of the Stop HS2 Campaign, and sat with him through his evidence. The bill is currently progressing through Parliament.

Ban for director in land bank scam A trickster has been banned from being a company director for 14 years for running a land banking scam. Eren Metcalfe, formerly known as Eren Cemal Ibrahim, was the sole director of Natural Wealth Solutions, Proctor Capital and Land Security Management. Through these three companies, he misled people into parting with at least £1.7 million for small plots of land of little value, claimed the Insolvency Service. It said the companies’ sales staﬀ represented the plots of land as being suitable for development and having a realistic prospect of obtaining planning permission. But the land sold had little, if any, value for development purposes; it was sold at mark-ups of between 18 and 63 times the purchase price; and it had little prospect of obtaining planning permission. Paul Titherington, oﬃcial receiver at the Insolvency Service’s Public Interest Unit, said: “These companies have brought misery to unsuspecting members of the public who were persuaded to part with their savings in exchange for virtually worthless plots of land.”

Pickles vetoes 500-home Essex scheme Eric Pickles has turned down a bid to build 500 homes and related facilities on green belt in Essex. The communities secretary’s oﬃce wrote to developer Westﬁeld Properties with the decision this month, after calling in the Thurrock scheme last year. The letter said Pickles concurred with the planning inspector who recommended refusal of the application made to Thurrock Borough Council. “The proposal would result in the permanent loss of some 14.5 hectares of green belt, harming the fundamental aim of the green belt to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. “The secretary of state concludes that very special circumstances to justify the proposal do not exist in this case,” it added.

F EB R U AR Y 2 0 15 / THE PLA NNER

p38_39_LegalLandscape.indd 39

16/01/2015 14:39

INSIGHT

Career { D E V E L O P M E N T C CREATING A PORTFOLIO

A portfolio of work is traditionally considered the preserve of ‘creatives’, such as designers and copywriters. But planners are increasingly being asked to submit examples of their work when applying for new positions. What makes a good portfolio?

“

t’s certainly becoming more common for employers to ask for examples of work,” says Kirsty Hall, founder of property recruitment consultancy KDH Associates. “We’re noticing that more candidates, particularly at junior and intermediate levels, are submitting portfolios with their CVs when applying for positions. They certainly grab my attention when I’m reviewing responses on behalf of clients – and they’ll often be the ﬁrst candidates we call to discuss the role.” That’s because, says Hall, submitting a portfolio shows that the candidate is prepared to go “a step beyond” a standard CV and job application. This in turn implies that they will bring the same desire to impress to the advertised role. To a prospective employer, a candidate with a portfolio looks motivated, willing and serious – three qualities that every workplace needs. But what should a planner’s portfolio contain? How should you present it? And what are the do’s and don’ts of an eﬀective portfolio?

l Portfolio do’s and don’ts By Kirsty Hall, KDH Associates (www. kdhassociates.co.uk)

Projects to be proud of

“POTENTIAL EMPLOYERS CAN SEE THAT I AM A WELL ORGANISED INDIVIDUAL AND TAKE CARE IN THE APPEARANCE OF MY WORK – CRITICAL IN THIS INDUSTRY” 40

Choose the projects you are most proud of and that accurately represent your experience. Also think about the job that you ideally want – for example, if your experience has mainly been on retail schemes but you really want to do more residential work, then include any projects that have a residential element. Think also about projects that showcase your ‘transferable’ skills, such as negotiating, presenting, report writing, and so on. There is no shame in referring to your work as part of a team eﬀort – just be sure to explain what your speciﬁc role was. Planning is, after all, a collaborative process, and a prospective employer will have far more respect for you if you are honest about the extent of your autonomy.

T H E P L AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p40_41_career_dev.indd 40

16/01/2015 15:59

When describing the work, be speciﬁc. Include as many details as you can to give your prospective employer a clear idea of the scale and nature of your work. Include information such as who the applicant or client was, the number of units, the location and any particular issues that arose, or material considerations, such as being in a conservation area, and so on.

+ How my portfolio helped me get my job Gareth Jackson is an associate at Quod

What sort of beneﬁt does having a portfolio give you? GJ: “Potential employers can see very quickly the range of schemes I work on, but also that I am a well-organised individual and take care in the appearance of my work – which I feel is critical in this industry.”

Consistent presentation Be consistent – decide on a format and stick with it. If you include images for one project, then do this for all projects. Order your projects logically. I would recommend following a chronological order, with your most recent projects first. Just as with a CV, make sure that the first page really makes the reader want to read the whole document. Remember that your prospective employer is likely to be very busy and will not have time to read your version of War And Peace. One of the main attractions of portfolios from an employer’s perspective is that they give an insight into your experience and capabilities more quickly and effectively than your CV – but this benefit is lost if they are presented with a tome of 30 pages. The best portfolios I have seen have been limited to 10 pages or fewer. It sounds obvious, but only take credit for the work that you have done. If you are including images or referring to any work done by others then make sure you credit accordingly.

A ﬁtting format I would recommend submitting your portfolio at the same time as your CV, either through the application process or through your recruitment consultant. Make sure that it is in a PDF version, as there are so many versions of Word that you risk corrupting your formatting. I would also recommend taking a well-presented hard copy of your portfolio with you to any interviews and ensuring that you have a copy you can leave with the interviewer if they request it. You may wish to make this a slightly more detailed document, perhaps either by adding additional projects or by providing further details on your projects

accompany my CV, which then enables me to discuss it in more detail with the interviewer. I also set it up as an electronic ﬁle that I can present should the opportunity arise.”

Do you continue to add to it?

Why did you create a portfolio? Gareth Jackson (GJ): “I felt it was important to be able to quickly demonstrate my experience and to try and stand out a little – particularly given the number of CVs employers receive. It was a great way of showcasing the type of schemes I had worked on while also demonstrating my presentation skills.”

What does it contain? GJ: “It’s six to eight pages long and laid out neatly, with two schemes per page. Each scheme consists of a ‘hero shot’ of the development, accompanied by the logo of the local authority and the status of the project. I also include a very brief paragraph about the scheme, including key details such as the type of development and quantum of ﬂoorspace and anything else that I feel is speciﬁc to that project.”

What were your selection criteria? GJ: “I chose mainly large-scale schemes that I had played a signiﬁcant role in and that the employer may have been aware of. I also chose schemes that were of relevance to the role I was applying for. I make sure that I’m able to change the content depending on the circumstance.”

How do you present your portfolio? GJ: “As a printed booklet to

GJ: “I like to keep it up to date as often as possible, as it can also be an important tool when meeting potential clients and when pitching for new work. Clients, as well as potential employers, are always keen to understand more about your experience, but don’t necessarily want to read every detail about it.”

“(A PORTFOLIO) GRABS MY ATTENTION WHEN I’M REVIEWING RESPONSES ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS”

ﬁve tips for l Gareth’s a tip-top portfolio

1 2 3 4 5

Don’t overload your portfolio with text because you will get your chance to discuss the schemes further during an interview. Ensure that you include schemes that are relevant to the job you are applying for. Make your portfolio neat and well organised. Group schemes into appropriate categories (by borough, by type, and so on). Make sure the images you use are clear and are not overshadowed by large amounts of text. Ensure that your portfolio is accurate with regard to development descriptions and oﬀers a fair reﬂection of your experience.

FE B R U AR Y 2 0 15 / THE PLA NNER

p40_41_career_dev.indd 41

16/01/2015 15:59

INSIGHT

Plan ahead P

Send feedback to editorial@theplanner.co.uk Tweet us @The Planner_RTPI

In with the old Once a marginal concern, conservation is now firmly in the planning mainstream. A conference in York in March will look at the latest approaches to ‘constructive conservation’ in planning and development “I started as a conservation planner in this part of the world in the early ’70s,” explains RTPI Yorkshire’s honorary secretary Bob Wolfe. Now semi-retired, Wolfe has witnessed a sea change in attitudes towards the historic environment during 50 years as a professional planner. “Conservation as an activity has moved from the left field and become mainstream,” he explains. “There was no question in those days that ‘redevelopment’ was the word that was used, rather than ‘conservation’. “We were cleaning up the old city centres, such as Coventry. What we were doing in the 1960s was building a modern Britain and old buildings were not valued. In those days people equated old buildings with slums.” It’s very different nowadays, with strict procedures for the evaluation and protection of threatened buildings more than a decade old. Leeds was one of the early authorities in the North to take preservation of

“DON’T BREAK IT. USE IT. IT’S QUITE DIFFERENT FROM HOW IT USED TO BE”

‘Historic’ no longer means ‘redundant’ – Bob Wolfe

historic buildings seriously. Wolfe’s role included identifying buildings worth preserving during massive city centre redevelopment. “They employed me and another person to look at the historic value of what we were going to knock down,” he recalls. “But our first task was to designate areas of conservation in the middle of a massive redevelopment programme.” In the 1980s, the work started by Wolfe paid off with the high-profile restoration of the Victoria Quarter, a complex of handsome shopping arcades designed by the theatre architect Frank Matcham. Victoria Quarter is now one the premier shopping areas in the North and provides a perfect example of ‘constructive conservation’ – the restoration, regeneration and reuse of historic assets, rather than their simple preservation. “Constructive conservation is about the use of archaeology as a living thing,” observes Wolfe. “Neil Redfern, English Heritage’s principal inspector of ancient monuments, would say that it has no use unless

it has got a use. “Don’t break it, use it. It’s quite diﬀerent to how it used to be.” Conservation is an essential principle in development for modern planners. ‘Historic’ no longer means ‘redundant’, as many modern developments incorporating elements of older buildings amply demonstrate. Wolfe cites the examples of King’s Cross in London and the saving of the threatened Settle to Carlisle railway, along with it associated landscape, railway buildings and monumental structures. Indeed, railway buildings provide a number of good examples of constructive

conservation in action. As it happens, ‘Constructive Conservation at the Heart of Placemaking’ will take place in the City of York Council’s West Offices – a grade II-listed former railway station and hotel. Attendees will be given a tour of the building, alongside a programme of presentations and panel discussion that will touch on the ‘genius loci’ of place, sustainable heritage, what Wolfe calls the “liveability” of conservation. Contributors will include English Heritage’s Neil Redfern and Sue Illman, past president of the Landscape Institute. “We’re hoping the delegates will learn from each other,” says Wolfe. “They’ll walk away with knowledge of experiencebased conservation within touching distance of where they live and work. And they should have confidence to deal with similar projects themselves.” Ultimately, what makes constructive conservation is hard to define exactly. “It’s a bit like what makes a good book – when you’ve read it you know it. If people respond to things in a positive way and you show how the use of historic assets can be used to their benefit, then how wonderful.”

C O N S T R U C T I V E C O N S E R V AT I O N AT T H E H E A R T O F P L A C E M A K I N G

Where: West Oﬃce, City of York Council, York When: Wednesday, 18 March 2015, 9.30-3.45 Find out more: http://bit.ly/1KIXIwu Discover more about RTPI Yorkshire’s 2015 conference series at http://bit.ly/1xokVd5

T H E PL AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p42_43_event_listings.indd 42

16/01/2015 14:40

DIARY

LISTINGS Talks, conferences, training, master classes – everything you need to keep on top of the latest thinking and developments in the planning world.

EAST OF ENGLAND 28 January – Building the city Half-day seminar hosted by Peterborough City Council. Peterborough was designated a New Town in 1967. In the past 40 years, Peterborough has had extraordinary growth. Explore the lessons learnt from the development corporation that are still relevant. The director of planning at the city council will share its vision and plans. There will also be a discussion on why community engagement matters and how it can be done to promote planning. Venue: Town Hall, Peterborough City Council Details: www.bit. ly/1z3eLlm 24 February – Rural aﬀordable housing/ exception sites Rural communities are getting older, losing their services and their historic economic backbone. Across professionals, there is a consensus about the key issues but less so about the potential solutions. This event brings planners together with housing and other professionals to discuss issues, practical solutions and good practice. Venue: The Maltings, Ship Lane, Ely, Cambridgeshire Details: www.bit. ly/1wgrSBb

SOUTHWEST 30 January – Politics and planning: The respective roles of members and oﬃcers in contemporary decision-making An event to explore some of the political aspects of planning, including the perspectives of politicians on their role as portfolio holders, and the relationship between oﬃcers and consultants with politicians involved in various aspects of the planning process. Venue: The Watershed,

Bristol Details: http://bit. ly/1B6vcCe 11 February – The Academy of Urbanism Glass-House debates: Is our view of place too shortsighted? Wolfson Prize winners David Rudlin and Nicolas Falk speak. How much do we consider the longterm consequences of our decisions and actions around place? Can we make quick wins and still achieve long-term success for people and places? Are sustainability and political and ﬁnancial attention spans mutually exclusive? Members only. Venue:Bristol Details: www.bit. ly/1uqmeKl 25 February – NPPF and NPPG: lessons & case studies A review of some of the emerging lessons since the introduction of the NPPF and its supporting guidance, highlighting key issues from the most recent appeals and case law. Venue: Town Hall, Cheltenham Details: www.bit. ly/1qHvtYB

NORTH EAST 11 February – Neighbourhood Planning Workshop for Oﬃcers (Newcastle) A Planning Advisory Service workshop to discuss issues and share practices in supporting neighbourhood planning. A range of experienced partners in the neighbourhood planning process will speak and there will be an opportunity to shape the agenda by sharing issues and questions before the event. Members only. Venue: Thistle Newcastle City Centre Hotel, Neville Street, Newcastle upon Tyne Details: www.bit.

DON’T MISS The RTPI’s guide to the planning system in 2015 A key issue of devolution is what approach to take to strategic planning in England. Commentators have focused on various aspects of devolution, but how would planning work? We are seeing cooperation in operation between planning authorities and this seminar will discuss how that could improve. The afternoon session looks at planning with limited resources from the point of view of government, local authorities and applicants. Date: 26 February Venue: The Hatton (etc Venues), 51-53 Hatton Garden, London Details: www.bit.ly/1xZkPgk

ly/1BhgDLM 25 February – Politics of planning As the election looms, this seminar looks at the implications that politics at both the local and national level are having on the planning system and the development process. Chaired by Ross Smith, director of policy at the North East Chamber of Commerce. Venue: International Centre for Life, Newcastle Details: www.bit. ly/1vwqThz 25 February – Members annual reception An informal networking event open to all members of the RTPI NE region. Venue: Holiday Inn, Jesmond Road, Newcastle upon Tyne Details: www.bit. ly/1zvwpzx

NORTHWEST 2 February – Public Inquiries (1) The event will consider inquiry procedure and process with speciﬁc emphasis on the role and approach to giving witness evidence to help those preparing for giving evidence at an inquiry as well as those involved in the management of the inquiry case and team. Venue: Pinsent Masons, 3 Hardman Street, Manchester Details: http://bit. ly/1ym8TWZ 12 February – Planning Support This will help those new to planning, planning support staﬀ or those who are expected to comment

on planning applications. It will look at the basics of planning, including the latest updates in mapping, the development management process and when permission is and isn’t required, how to comment eﬀectively on an application, the issue of development viability, the decision-making process, and how and when to appeal, including reference to appeals, judical review and legal challenges. Venue: BDP, Ducie Street, Manchester Details: www.bit. ly/16sGyDM 2 March– Planning Law Update Planning keeps the courts busy, with key decisions being made in the interpretation of policy and the NPPF, housing land supply and neighbourhood plans. This year’s event will help to make sense of it all, and looks at the implications of the election. Venue: Football Hotel, 99 Sir Matt Busby Way, Old Traﬀord, Manchester Details: www.bit. ly/1BwI4QQ

EAST MIDLANDS 17 February – East Midlands APC seminar 2015 The APC process will be presented and discussed by RTPI’s Hilary Lush. The seminar will cover: practical experience statement; professional competence statement; professional development plan; maintaining the log book; acceptable experience; presentation and formatting; and reasons for unsuccessful applications. Venue:East

Northamptonshire Council Thrapston, Kettering Details: www.bit. ly/1GPm1nJ

WEST MIDLANDS 26 February – Planning law update A seminar led by planning lawyers on topical legal issues, new and emerging legislation and guidance, recent case law and appeal decisions plus their signiﬁcance and impact. Venue: Birmingham Details: www.bit. ly/1AEKWs6

YORKSHIRE 10 February – Neighbourhood planning workshop for oﬃcers A Planning Advisory Service workshop to discuss practices in supporting neighbourhood planning (NP). A range of experienced partners in the NP process will speak and there will be an opportunity to shape the agenda by sharing questions. Members only. Venue: The Leeds Club, 3 Albion Place, Leeds LS1 6JL Details: www.bit. ly/1AEOz11 19 February – Forward planning: regaining the initiative What can planners do to reclaim a central role in strategic and spatial planmaking? This conference takes an overview of the evolving picture, invites ideas from key thinkers and looks at examples of good practice in strategic thinking, forward planning and cooperation. Venue: Leeds Details: www.bit.ly/1takthx

F EB R U AR Y 2 0 15 / THE PLA NNER

p42_43_event_listings.indd 43

16/01/2015 14:40

NEWS

RTPI { Housing coalition campaign to ‘end the housing crisis within a generation’ MARIA BALL, RTPI COMMUNICATIONS & PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER, OUTLINES THE HOMES FOR BRITAIN CAMPAIGN

The RTPI is part of a coalition of organisations with an interest in the housing agenda. It is led by the following, but includes over 100 other organisations: c RTPI c National Housing Federation c Chartered Institute of Housing c Crisis c Home Builders Federation c National House Building Federation c Royal Institute of British Architects c Residential Landlords Association There has been a well-documented issue in terms of lack of house building in the UK for some time, with only half the homes that are needed being built since the 1970s. At a time when housing in this country had descended into crisis, a coalition of organisations from every corner of the housing world came together in 2012 and decided to take action. Under the Homes for Britain banner this coalition is now asking for all political parties to commit to end the housing crisis within a generation. Further to this, the campaign is seeking that the next government will publish a long-term plan for housing within the ﬁrst year of taking oﬃce, setting out how they will end the housing crisis within a generation.

Background – the issue Lack of housing for people has aﬀected society in many ways. For example, house prices have doubled in real terms over the past 40 years, and the

RTPI news pages are edited by Tino Hernandez at the RTPI, 41 Botolph Lane, London EC3R 8DL

average first-time buyer today needs a £30,000 deposit, almost 10 times the deposit required in the early 1980s (National Housing Federation [NHF], 2014). Many people are stuck in homes that are too small, putting off starting families, while others still live with parents. The housing crisis affects people from all walks of life and across the UK.

The public’s response The public is rightly concerned about the issue and just 25 per cent of people think that their housing situation will generally improve in the next 10 years (NHF, 2014). MPs are also reporting that housing is the third most common issue for which constituents approach them for help (Ipsos Mori survey, 1978-2014). In addition, 77 per cent of people believe that none of the political parties will eﬀectively deal with the issue (NHF, 2014).

The campaign Although most people know there is a crisis they do not know what to do to challenge it. So the campaign will build commitment to break down apathy around the issue. This will be done in a number of steps from January through to April. c Highlight the negative symptoms of the housing crisis. c Provoke a sense of injustice about the issue. c Drive belief that ending the housing crisis is a problem that can be solved by politicians. c Incite action targeted at parliamentary candidates and the political parties.

What the public campaign will look like The ﬁrst part of the campaign will essentially bring the issue into the mind of the public, identifying people with the housing crisis – for example: ‘Forced to spend hours commuting? Then you’re a victim of the housing crisis. Be a voice, not a victim.’ This part of the campaign seeks to make people active in identifying that they are caught up in the issue and that they can take action on it. The campaign will focus resources in marginal seats in urban areas and where rents have gone up consistently, so that the messages strike a chord. The messages will be seen on advertising boards around the high street. Secondary phases of the campaign involve social media and also getting the messages across at the Tube in Westminster and a rally in March, aimed at politicians again. The ﬁnal phase will seek to get messaging linked to the leadership debates in the run-up to the election. See more on the campaign website with ways to support it at www.homesforbritain.com.

T H E PL AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p44_47_RTPI_news.indd 44

16/01/2015 14:40

Editorial E: rtpinews@rtpi.org.uk

RTPI (switchboard) T: 020 7929 9494 F: 020 7929 9490

Registered charity no. 262865 Registered charity in Scotland SCO37841

RTPI SHORTS

Richard Newsome Planning, development and regeneration associate GVA PROPERTY CONSULTANCY

(1) What do you currently do? In GVA’s Newcastle oﬃce I am part of a team of nine involved in promoting a range of projects including major town centre, residential, and education proposals through planning policy and planning applications. I’m also the regional chair for the RTPI North East in 2015 and sit on the CPD steering committee to help formulate CPD programmes.

(2) If I wasn’t in planning, I’d probably be… An architect. I did some work experience at an architects’ practice when I was 16 and seriously considered architecture as a career. But I realised that I was more suited to the role of a planner partly as my writing skills are much better than my drawing skills. I think it was the right decision and I still get to work closely with architects, helping to shape proposals.

(3) What has been your biggest career challenge to date? Relocating from London to Newcastle upon Tyne ﬁve years ago was a big challenge. It meant moving into a diﬀerent commercial market and having to build up new professional contacts and relationships. Getting involved with the RTPI North East was a great way to establish connections and helped to speed the process along.

(4) What attracted you to the profession? I had always been interested in the built environment and a module on the urban environment in my A-Level geography course made me think planning could be the profession for me. The idea of being involved in a wide range of discussions that inﬂuence the built environment and seeing the results of my work realised appealed to me.

(5) What single piece of advice would you give to someone starting out in planning? Don’t be afraid to ask questions of your peers and listen to their advice. Listening to diﬀerent people also helps you to pick up diﬀerent techniques and to create your style and approach to planning.

(6) If you could change one thing about the planning profession, what would it be? Local government resourcing for planning as a profession needs addressing. I know a lot of planners who work in local government departments that are evidently under-resourced, yet they bring in sizeable planning application fees. More of these fees should be ringfenced to help planning departments to deliver the service they want to be able to deliver. This would beneﬁt everyone involved in the planning system including local communities, developers, and consultants.

PLANNERS HONOURED IN 2015 The New Year Honour’s list, published at the beginning of January, acknowledged the achievements of prominent RTPI members. Ewart Parkinson, FRTPI, former RTPI president (1975-76) received an OBE for voluntary and charitable services in Cardiﬀ. Steve Quartermain, MRTPI, the Department for Communities and Local Government’s chief planner, received a CBE for services to planning infrastructure. Peter Rees, FRTPI, who retired as chief planner at the Corporation of the City of London last year was awarded a CBE for services to architecture and town planning. RTPI president Cath Ranson said: “I’m proud of the extraordinary contribution they have made to planning and the communities in which they live and work across the UK. “I would particularly like to acknowledge former RTPI president Ewart Parkinson and the important contribution he has made to the Institute, to planning in Wales and to strengthening cultural ties between Wales and Norway, in particular his role in the salvaging and reconstruction of the Norwegian Church in Cardiﬀ Bay.”

RTPI COMMISSIONED REPORT GAINS NATIONAL COVERAGE The RTPI commissioned report Success And Innovation In Planning generated national and regional news at the end of 2014, with an opinion piece on The Guardian online, generating 85 comments. The report, which was authored by Newcastle University’s Global Urban Research Unit, conducted research into the best examples of UK planning success over the past 25 years. The RTPI used the report to celebrate planning innovation and called for a greater focus on the opportunities of devolving powers to cities. n You can find the piece here: http://www. theguardian.com/cities/2014/dec/19/five-citieswhere-planning-went-right Other stories were generated in Property Week, BBC London News online, The Newcastle Journal, News and Star (Cumbria). The story was covered by broadcast radio too, including Wave FM (Scotland) and BBC Radio Cumbria, where Craig McLaren, director of Scotland and Ireland, and Richard Blyth, head of policy, spoke about good examples of planning. n You can find the news piece and report here: http://www.rtpi.org.uk/briefing-room/newsreleases/2014/december/rtpis-centenary-reportpraises-planning-innovation/

F EB R U AR Y 2 0 1 5 / THE PLA NNER

p44_47_RTPI_news.indd 45

U HONO

16/01/2015 14:41

NEWS

RTPI { Why the 21st century will be an ‘age of planning’ into a vicious circle of decay and decline, forcing more people to migrate to growing places.

The strength of the evidence base In the papers we’ve drawn on the best available research, making it accessible to a wide audience by using pictures, charts and diagrams. As we note in our paper on healthy towns and cities, we know that sprawl correlates with higher rates of obesity, more traﬃc fatalities, greater ozone pollution, less social capital, higher vehicle miles travelled, less physical activity, and higher residential energy use. So why do we continue to produce and encourage more of it in some countries?

People and planners want the same things

THE RTPI’S CENTENARY PLANNING HORIZONS PAPERS LOOKED AT THE CHALLENGES THAT WILL SHAPE THE 21ST CENTURY. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL PLANNING? BY DR MICHAEL HARRIS, RTPI DEPUTY HEAD OF POLICY AND RESEARCH

Alongside the papers, we commissioned a survey to understand what people want from their communities. The results suggest that the public values what planners value – hardly surprising, given that planners seek to deliver ‘public goods’ in the wider interest, but important to remember at a time when planners are often on the defensive. Most people want more say in how communities develop. Most like where they live, but think their area oﬀers too few economic opportunities. They also want green spaces and walkability.

Planners must step up to meet challenges The sheer scale and pace of these challenges Some of the fastest-growing cities (many in the developing world) will suffer increased flooding and adverse weather. Millions of people will be affected, and there will also be a significant impact on the global economy. In terms of health, some findings in the Planning Horizons series do come as a shock. We’re aware of rising obesity, but half of China’s population is now pre-diabetic and the nation has a higher diabetes rate than the US. And the UK is projected to have the largest population of all European Union members by 2060 – 79 million people. Such facts leave no room for complacency.

These challenges are all closely related to each other The theory and practice of spatial planning emphasises interrelationships, so in one sense this is no surprise. But what examining these issues makes clear is just how interrelated they are, and so how ineﬀective or even self-defeating largely unintegrated responses to them will be. Spatially unbalanced and inequitable growth means that some cities and regions suﬀer from overpopulation and overwhelmed infrastructure and services, creating pressures for sprawl and degrading the environment as agricultural areas are lost. Such conditions foster inequality, poor health and greater vulnerability to climate change and pollution. Meanwhile, other places are losing population and slip

Case studies included in the papers – from Malmö to Medellín, Johannesburg to Copenhagen – show that when planners take a leading role they can produce the places that everyone wants. They don’t and can’t act alone, but the successful towns and cities we include in the papers wouldn’t be what they are without planners. Planners need to be recognised, invested in and supported. But as our code of professional conduct also states, they should “fearlessly and impartially exercise their independent professional judgement to the best of their skill and understanding”. To critics, the 20th century closed on the ideological defeat of ‘planning’ – that is, if you disingenuously conﬂate the demonstrably successful organisation of towns, cities and rural areas for public beneﬁt with the discredited faith in state-led economic planning. To everyone else, it’s obvious that the 21st century must be a new age of planning if we are to secure a sustainable future.

T H E PL AN N E R \ F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 5

p44_47_RTPI_news.indd 46

16/01/2015 14:41

Neil Dunlop Strategic planning adviser OBITUARIES

BELFAST CITY COUNCIL

NOTICE OF MEMBERS’ DEATHS It is with great regret that we note the deaths of the following members. We oﬀer our condolences to their families and colleagues.

c Prof James Bell (North-West) c Peter Adderley (East of England) c Leonard Gomersall (Scotland) c Martin Dalby (North-West) c Ian Becker (North-East) c Douglas Speechley (Overseas) c Andrew Duckworth (Overseas) c John Bishop (East of England) c Jonathan Hainsworth (South-East) c Allen Hambly (Wales) c Frederick Thompson (Scotland) c Allen Matheson (Scotland) c Stephen Hewitt

(South-West) c Philip Guest (South-West) c Harry Slater (East Midlands) c William Deakin (South-East) c Donald Schoﬁeld (North-West) c John Woodcock (North-East) c James Palmer (Scotland) c Mervin Schonegevel (South-East) c William Wood (Scotland)

c Chezel Bird (South-West) c Professor Sir Peter Hall (London) c Geraldine Amos (South-West) c Stephen Turnbull (Scotland) c Aneurin John (Wales) c To Han Chan (Overseas) c Lilian Brafman (London) c Ratneswar Bose (Overseas) c Alistair Landells (Scotland) c Thomas Richardson (West Midlands) c John Kenyon (Yorkshire) c William Rees (East Midlands) c Thomas Duncan (Scotland) c Derek Robertson (Scotland) c William Hillen (Northern Ireland) c Frederick Robinson (London) c Andrew Hickie (North-East) c Philip Atkins (West Midlands) c Colin Green (London) c Brian Panter (South-East)

(1) What do you currently do? I am currently an adviser to Belfast City Council, building up the knowledge and skills of the councillors and oﬃcials to facilitate the smooth transfer of planning powers from the Northern Ireland Executive to local government in April 2015. Previously, I worked in the city for the Department of the Environment as the planning manager for Belfast, although I had spent many years there beforehand, working as the principal in charge of the city centre and in several jobs in the department’s headquarters, also in Belfast. I have also just been elected chair of the Northern Ireland branch of the RTPI.

(2) If I wasn’t in planning, I’d probably be… As a sports nut, I might have gone into coaching on a full-time basis, but as I get older the cold weather makes that less appealing. Alternatively, given my long-standing interest in the built environment and love of making things, I would have been happy doing model-making. I have admired many models of proposed developments over the years and the opportunity to sit and translate a 2-D drawing to a 3-D work of art would be very satisfying.

(3) What has been your biggest career challenge to date? As project manager for the introduction of the first computer system for planning in Northern Ireland, I had the task of setting up and endto-end testing the whole process. It was fraught with difficulties as it had to be installed across nine different offices, dealing with 25,000 applications a year, which was unique at the time. Younger planners today would not recognise the massive mainframes that were used to run the system or the dot matrix printers, which churned out reams of paper and got jammed on a regular basis.

(4) What attracted you to the profession? I have always had an interest in buildings, but did not take the necessary technical subjects to allow me to become an architect. However, I was pointed towards town planning as an alternative and I developed an interest in the wider picture and the context of buildings, which has stayed with me ever since.

(5) What single piece of advice would you give to someone starting out in planning? Be conﬁdent! All too often, young planners fall back on policy to give them the only answer to a problem without looking for the best solution for a site and arguing for that.

(6) If you could change one thing about the planning profession, what would it be? I am sure it is a common issue for many planners, but the competitive nature of developers and the adversarial stance taken in discussions, appeals or inquiries do little to promote the best solutions and often lead to mediocrity of design.

FE B R U AR Y 2 0 15 / THE PLA NNER

p44_47_RTPI_news.indd 47

16/01/2015 14:41