The Planner December 2016

DECEMBER 2016 UK INFRASTRUCTURE: BUILDING THE WAY FORWARD // p.20 • UNDER PRESSURE: PLANNERS VS POLICYMAKERS // p.28 • SEA CHANGE? BACKLASH OVER PANEL’S REFORM PLANS // p.32 • MOVE ON UP HOW TO ACHIEVE PROMOTION // p.40

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

01_cover_Dec.indd 1

21/11/2016 18:10

2017

Delivering a strong, inclusive future 21 June 2017 | London

Attend the planning event of 2017

Learn

Network

Explore

Be inspired by high-profile UK and International speakers

Exchange knowledge with colleagues from both public and private sectors

New themes in our series of topical breakout sessions

Join key influencers and planning professionals from around the world to discuss and debate how planners can contribute to building a stronger, inclusive future for all.

BOOK NOW

Early booking discount

RTPI Members £170+VAT (quote PM17) Standard Price £270+VAT (quote PC17) Headline Sponsor for 2017

theplanningconvention.co.uk | 020 3131 6385 *Prices are normally £195 for RTPI members and £295 for the standard price. A limited number of discounted places are available for student/unemployed/retired RTPI members at £99 - please call to book. All prices exclude VAT.

p02_PLN.DEC16.indd 2

18/11/2016 09:56

CONTENTS

PLANNER 11 24

THE

D ECEMBER

20 16

“THIS WAS ABOUT US COLLECTIVELY LOOKING AT GLOBAL CHALLENGES, COMPARING AND CONTRASTING AND COMING TO A SHARED AGENDA ABOUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED”

NEWS

6 Autumn Statement: funding welcome, but details too vague for some

7 Barwell lifts direction on Birmingham development plan

OPINION

8 Housing Infrastructure fund introduced 9 City deals for Scotland and Wales, billions for affordable housing in London 10 NI planning ‘in a better place’ since 2015 changes

17

11 Aberaeron announced as Wales’s Best Place

16 Chris Shepley: No one comes out a winner in the blame game 18 Toby Lloyd: More power to planners will ease Britain’s housing woes 18 Naomi LuhdeThompson: Heathrow expansion is not a done deal 19 Laurie Handcock: Understanding heritage can unlock housing growth in London 19 Hannah David: More planning required to overcome Nimbyism

FEATURES 20 An assessment of the nation’s infrastructure needs points the way forward.

Mark Smulian reports 24 RTPI CEO Trudi Elliott talks to Simon Wicks about Habitat III 28 Planning has rarely been under such pressure, says David Blackman 32 Reforms suggested by a government panel to SA appraisals and SEAs are making waves, says Huw Morris

QUOTE UNQUOTE

“IF WE DON’T LOOK AT THE INTERGENERATIONAL PIECE AT SCALE, WE’RE NEVER GOING TO GET NEAR OUR TARGETS” JOHN NORDON OF PEGASUS LIFE CONSIDERS A ‘WHOLE LIFE’ APPROACH TO PLANNING FOR HOUSING

COV E R I M AG E | J ON E N O C H

p03_contents.indd 3

INSIGHT

20

36 Decisions in focus: Development decisions, round-up and analysis 40 Career Deveopment: Moving on up: How to achieve promotion

16

42 Legal landscape: Opinions, blogs and news from the legal side of planning 44 RTPI round-up: News and interviews from the institute 50 Plan B: Wheels within wheels

50 D EC E MB ER 2 01 6 / THE PLA NNER

3

25/11/2016 16:02

ADVERTISEMENTS

Consultants { border

archaeology

Birmingham Bristol Derby Exeter Glasgow London Warrington

archaeology & built heritage

Planning our sustainable future

working throughout the UK

e: ask@borderarchaeology.com

t: 01568 610101

Contact:

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

borderarchaeology.com ISO 9001 | ISO 14001 | OHSAS 18001

Savills Planning -

Business Space Planning specialists advising on all sectors including city centre oτces, logistics & warehouses and industrial space David Jackson Head of Business Space djackson@savills.com +44 (0) 7967 555 796

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

savills.co.uk

4

Plan Design Enable

www.atkinsglobal.com/urbanplanning

THE BUSINESS MONTHLY FOR PLANNING PROFESSIONALS

}

TO ADVERTISE IN T H I S S EC T I O N : SINGLE BOX: 55MM HIGH X 90MM WIDE DOUBLE BOX VERTICAL: 113.5MM HIGH X 90MM WIDE DOUBLE BOX HORIZONTAL: 55MM HIGH X 184.5MM WIDE

Contact James Brunt: james.brunt@redactive.co.uk 020 7880 6230

T H E P L AN N E R \ D EC E M B E R 2 0 1 6

PLN Directory Dec16.indd 4

17/11/2016 17:02

PLAN UPFRONT

Leaderr Barwell’s Birmingham decision a good way to end 2016 – When news reached us in the 24 hours after the Autumn Statement that planning minister Gavin Barwell had lifted the holding direction on Birmingham City Council’s Development Plan, it’s fair to say there was a flurry of excitement here in The Planner’s offices. In spite of a positive outcome to an independent planning inquiry, the government’s decision in June to issue a holding notice had surprised many.

But on 24th November, citing the scale of unmet housing demand in Birmingham as “exceptional and possibly unique”, Barwell finally sided with the original planning inspector Roger Clews’ view that the plan was consistent with national planning policy. Now 51,100 new homes are set to be delivered within the city.

Martin Read Our enthusiasm on hearing the news has a lot to do with the breadth and scale of Birmingham’s ambition, and how the plan demonstrates planning’s key role in an economic as much as environmental and social context. If this development plan isn’t the balance of boldness and pragmatism that government is looking for, it’s difficult to know what would actually fit the bill.

Birmingham hasn’t been alone in having its

development plan called in. October saw Bradford Metropolitan District Council’s core strategy suffer a similar fate.

The link between the two cases is opposition from a local MP to the incursion into the green belt that both plans require.

So while we await a response on Bradford, the Birmingham decision addresses what was a growing sense across the planning world of a government intervening against exactly the kind of planning to resolve the housing shortages that it has been at pains to encourage.

Waheed Nazir, Birmingham’s strategic director of economy,

“THE LINK BETWEEN THE TWO CASES IS OPPOSITION FROM A LOCAL MP TO THE INCURSION INTO THE GREEN BELT”

heralded the decision as important “for both for the city and the wider UK in terms of our ability to deliver housing growth”.

Of course, between our going to press and the day you receive this copy of The Planner, it’s likely that the much-anticipated housing white paper may have been published, changing the news cycle and inevitably resulting in fresh discussion about Theresa May’s administration and how it is addressing this most important of issues.

In its current absence from the news cycle, the Birmingham decision represents an encouraging message to lead with in our end-of-year print edition.

Speaking of which, and on behalf of all of the team here on The Planner, a merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all our readers.

We’re publishing our regular online newsletters through until week commencing 19th December, returning on Tuesday 3rd January 2017.

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

Sub-editor Deborah Shrewsbury Picture editor Claire Echavarry

SUBSCRIPTIONS £120 – UK £175 – Overseas

Designer Craig Bowyer EDITORIAL

A D V E RT I S I N G & M A R K E T I N G

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

Sales manager James Brunt – 020 7880 6230 james.brunt@theplanner.co.uk

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

Recruitment sales Sabmitar Bal – 020 7880 7665

Consultant editor Huw Morris

PRODUCT ION

Features editor Simon Wicks simon.wicks@theplanner.co.uk Reporter Laura Edgar laura.edgar@theplanner.co.uk Content development executive Martha Harris

Production manager Jane Easterman Senior production executive Aysha Miah-Edwards PUBLISHING Publishing director Joanna Marsh

RT P I C O N TA C T S

Average net circulation 19,072 (January-December 2014) © 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 Southernprint

Membership membership@rtpi.org.uk 020 7929 9462 Education education@rtpi.org.uk 020 7929 9451 Planning Aid England advice@planningaid.rtpi.org.uk 41 Botolph Lane London EC3R 8DL Media enquiries Rebecca Hildreth rebecca.hildreth@rtpi.org.uk 020 7929 9477 The Planner is produced using paper that is elemental chlorine free and is sourced from sustainable managed forest.

ISSN 2053-7581

D EC EMB ER 2 01 6 / THE PLA NNER p.05_Leader.indd 5

5

25/11/2016 16:01

NEWS

Analysis { AUTUMN STATEMENT

Funding welcome, but details too vague for some THE CHANCELLOR UNVEILED MORE FUNDING TO FIGHT THE HOUSING CRISIS BUT LITTLE DETAIL ON HOW IT WILL WORK, SAYS HUW MORRIS He became a millionaire by selling used cars, medical equipment and then building homes. No surprise then that chancellor Philip Hammond, like his recent predecessors, hopes housing holds the key to future fortunes.

His first and last autumn statement placed housing central to generating growth and driving productivity. But commentators noted the statement was heavy on mood music, eye-catching with its figures but light on detail.

A total of £3.7 billion will go to building 140,000 more homes by 2020-21. Some £2.3 billion of this will come from a new Housing Infrastructure Fund for councils seeking to “unlock new private house building in the areas where housing need is greatest”, said Hammond, to deliver 100,000 homes. A further £1.4 billion in a Housing Delivery Fund was unveiled to build 40,000 affordable homes.

The initial welcome for the

6

numbers was replaced by doubts that they added up.

“The headline numbers are eye-catching but it requires a stretch of the imagination to believe that new homes supply can be unlocked for £23,000 each or an affordable house can be built for £35,000,” said EY head of real estate Russell Gardner.

Ben Read, partner in the planning team at commercial property consultancy Rapleys, also did some quick maths and claimed Hammond “failed to deliver a silver bullet” for housing delivery. “The focus on investment in traditional and technological infrastructure is welcomed. It is often these areas which act as ‘pinch points’ for both economic and residential development capacity. The commitment of £2.3 billion investment in infrastructure to unlock potential for 100,00 new homes in areas of high demand, can only be welcomed as a fiscal aid to

support viability. However, it’s questionable whether the proposed £23,000 per plot is an efficient approach.

“Similarly, support to increase affordable housing delivery is much needed, with £3.15 billion for new affordable housing in London and a further £1.4 billion from the Housing Delivery Fund for 40,000 new affordable houses - at £35,000 per plot -, but there was an absence of detail on how this will represent an effective approach in light of the 1 million home target over the parliament, which is well short of its objective.”

Similarly, Colliers International head of planning Anthony Aitken said the infrastructure fund creates “a good soundbite” until the wider context is considered. “With 300,000 houses required each year in the UK, and just over half that number being delivered, the scale of the housing crisis, predominantly lack of housing supply, becomes all too apparent. The fund will not start until 2021 and represents four months of the annual requirement. The biggest incentive that could help provide new homes in high demand areas, especially the south east of England, would be for government to require, indeed insist upon, local authorities to provide timely local plans, where they have to meet their housing demand in full, having undertaken full green belt reviews.”

Roy Pinnock, planning partner at law firm Dentons, acknowledged that the infrastructure fund could be “a game changer” if it rewards areas for actively planning for

Housing by numbers 1 MILLION

The government’s new homes target over the lifetime of parliament

£2.3 BILLION

Housing Infrastructure Fund to deliver 100,000 homes

£1.4 BILLION

Housing Delivery Fund for building 40,000 affordable homes

£3.15 BILLION

What the Greater London Authority will receive in a settlement drawn from funding allocated last year and in the autumn statement to deliver 90,000 affordable homes

growth. “Making an up-todate housing land supply a condition for at least some of the funding would dangle the right carrot for authorities that currently only have the stick.”

The absence of details on the fund’s structure or deployment was another source of contention for Nexus Planning executive director Peter Tooher. He noted “frequently entrenched local objections to new homes” and the fund would benefit hugely from direct involvement from housebuilders and the community in making choices on how money is spent at a local level”.

T H E PL AN N E R \ D EC E MB E R 2 0 1 6

p06_07_news.indd 6

25/11/2016 17:16

PLAN UPFRONT

Barwell lifts direction on Birmingham development plan The government has lifted its holding direction on Birmingham City Council’s Development Plan, allowing the authority to deliver thousands of homes and jobs.

Planning and housing minister Gavin Barwell lifted the direction, the first made under section 145(5) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which prevented the plan from progressing pending investigation into proposals to earmark land in the Sutton Coldfield green belt for housing and jobs.

A holding notice was issued in May following a complaint by local MP Andrew Mitchell. Barwell said the scale of unmet housing demand in Birmingham was “exceptional and possibly unique”, and saw no reason to disagree with a planning inspector’s view that the plan was consistent with national planning policy.

The plan aims to build 51,000 homes, including up to 6,000 at Langley in Sutton Coldfield. The council had promised the new homes will be supported by exemplar infrastructure and facilities plus the “highest standards of design and sustainability” as well as being integrated with the existing community. The plan is expected to be formally adopted early next year.

Birmingham had concluded that 89,000 homes are needed in the next 15 years to tackle the city’s housing shortage and growing population. All brownfield land in Birmingham with potential for housing development had been considered under the council’s strategic housing land availability assessment.

Birmingham’s strategic director of economy, Waheed Nazir, welcomed the government’s move. "Removing the holding direction is an important decision both for the city and the wider UK in terms of our ability to deliver housing growth,” he said.

In October, the government issued a similar direction against Bradford Metropolitan District Council on the adoption of its core strategy amid concerns over the proposed release of green belt.

Call for more detail in delayed Housing White Paper Commentators have called for a range of policies in the much-anticipated Housing White Paper, yet to be published as The Planner went to press.

The White Paper, which had been expected on the same day as the Autumn Statement, has been touted as the document that will provide what communities secretary Sajid Javid described as a "coherent strategy for how we can get this country building the homes we need”.

Housing minister Gavin Barwell has hinted at a move away from an emphasis on home-ownership and towards support for a range of housing tenures. The Autumn Statement's £1.3 billion for “alternative” providers to develop affordable housing, seems to bear this out.

Industry commentators offering I M AG E S | G E T T Y

p06_07_news.indd 7

thoughts to The Planner called for specific policies to unlock housing.

The RTPI’s head of policy and research Richard Blyth referred to the Institute’s '16 Ways to Address the Housing Crisis' article as the basis for its ‘asks’ for England. These include a fiscal regime encouraging buildto-rent housing, innovative ways to fund affordable housing, making housing plans a central plank of devolution deals and aligning transport infrastructure with housing delivery. “The main thing is rethinking the approach to the location of housing,” said Blyth.

Hugh Ellis, interim chief executive of the TCPA, stressed the need for housing delivery focused on quality of place, design and affordability. The current system with its “greater emphasis on deregulation and putting power in house

builders has not worked”, he said.

“We really hope that it will reconsider trying the new towns programme…

Currently, house builders deliver 150,000 homes a year. If you want to build the missing 100,000, you need a new idea.”

Roy Pinnock, planning partner at law firm Dentons, agreed. “The lack of fiscal measures for new settlements [in the Autumn Statement] – incentivising forward funding of major infrastructure that can unlock delivery at real scale – is disappointing.

“There is also still a wait to see how the NPPF is going to be reshaped and in particular how housing land supply and local plan duties will be re-set following expert advice on accelerating delivery.”

The Planner will carry analysis of the Housing White Paper when it is published.

D EC E MB ER 2 016 / THE PLA NNER

7

25/11/2016 17:16

NEWS

Analysis { THE AUTUMN STATEMENT

Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure – but is it enough? where the economic benefits of infrastructure investment were not understood by the A big message to come from the Autumn Treasury.”

Statement is that the government But Owen was unclear sees investment in infrastructure as about how the government fundamental to productivity and growth. had arrived at its 1-1.2 per cent Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip figure, suggesting it felt like Hammond referred repeatedly to the they had stuck a finger in the UK's need to invest in “innovation air. “We need to do better than and infrastructure” as a platform for that in terms of how they have increasing economic productivity. arrived at that figure. Some In the context of rising national debt developed countries are spending up to 2 and a Brexit-tinged economic forecast per cent.” from the Office for Budget Responsibility, There is perhaps a clue in the this was no surprise – and Hammond chancellor’s remit letter to the NIC. Noting duly committed cash to a variety of the “challenging fiscal and economic infrastructure, with an emphasis on environment”, he stresses that the NIC “unlocking” growth. must have regard to “value for money” in Perhaps most significant, though, all of its recommendations. was the extension of a ‘fiscal remit’ “[…] it is to the National important Infrastructure to recognise Commission (NIC).

“THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO This instructs the CREATE THE BEST CLIMATE FOR that much infrastructure NIC to recommend PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT is funded by infrastructure IN INFRASTRUCTURE” consumers and investment to billpayers,” government on the Hammond writes. In straitened times, understanding that 1-1.2 per cent of GDP even the chancellor’s bold step away from will be spent on infrastructure annually his predecessor’s rigid austerity is heavily from 2020-2050. This is both an increase tempered by caution. on current spending (0.8 per cent of GDP) The chancellor’s commitments lacked and a shift in thinking towards stable, detail, though there was some reference long-term infrastructure planning to specific projects, and Owen welcomed There is “a lot to be positive about”, the £27 million commitment for the Robbie Owen, head of infrastructure East West Expressway along the Oxfordplanning and government affairs for Cambridge growth corridor. The Housing law firm Pinsent Masons told The Infrastructure Fund might also be inching Planner. Owen, a founder of the National towards viewing housing as infrastructure Infrastructure Planning Association, said – something the NIC has argued for. the Autumn Statement marked a sea “A lot of us who do this day in, day out change in government thinking. see that the current planning system for “The government’s overall approach major housing is just not delivering,” is absolutely to be welcomed,” he said. said Owen. “We think that government “It’s a very different world now than it has a leadership role in planning for big used to be when infrastructure seemed housing and that it can be best delivered a cost as opposed to an investment,

By Simon Wicks

8

T H E PL AN N E R \ D EC E MB E R 2 0 1 6

p08_09_news.indd 8

through the NSIP (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) scheme.

“We need to confront this. They [government] have had their head in the sand for years that the local planning regime is the way forward for big housing schemes. It’s been political dogma that’s prevented housing-led schemes coming forward under the NSIP regime to date.”

Owen went on to draw attention to the absence of measures in the Autumn Statement to direct private sector investment into UK infrastructure.

“There’s no shortage of capital out there,” he said, noting the desire of insurance and pension funds for assets offering long-term returns. “The government needs to think about how to create the best climate for private sector investment in infrastructure.”

Owen’s comments were echoed by Martha Grekos, head of planning at law firm Howard Kennedy, who was broadly positive, but felt the lack of detail reduced the Autumn Statement’s impact. “He has not listed what these infrastructure projects are and by how much each will be funded (apart from the £110m for East West Rail) and how these infrastructure projects are to be prioritised,” she said.

Grekos added: “Given the fact that UK infrastructure challenges are increasingly front page news, […] practical solutions for new roads, rail, bridges, airports and other assets are needed to regenerate I M AG E S | G E T T Y / I STO C K

28/11/2016 12:30

PLAN UPFRONT

Autumn Statement: the infrastructure promise • A ‘fiscal remit’ for the National Infrastructure Commission to set out recommendations on the assumption that spending on infrastructure will lie between 1 per cent and 1.2 per cent of GDP annually from 2020 to 2050 • A £2.4 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund, for local authorities to bid for and invest in the infrastructure platform for housing development of up to 100,000 homes • £1.8 billion to Local Enterprise Partnerships across England in a third round of Growth Deals with the emphasis on spending on local infrastructure.

• New borrowing powers for metro mayors to invest in economically productive infrastructure.

• As part of the £23 billion National Productivity Investment Fund: • £1.1 billion to reduce congestion and upgrade local roads and public transport • £220 million to tackle road safety and congestion on Highways England roads • £27 million to develop an expressway connecting Oxford and Cambridge • £100m to accelerate construction of the East-West Rail line western section • £1 billion for full-fibre broadband and trailing 5G networks.

areas and unlock land for housing.”

John Hicks, director and head of government at AECOM, also questioned the absence of measures to stimulate private investment. “More could be done to give confidence to private investment for infrastructure.

Municipal bonds, enhanced borrowing powers for cities and tax incremental financing are possibilities that should be further explored, particularly given the government’s increased support for devolution,” he said.

Hicks went on to challenge the wisdom of waiting for the NIC to produce a list of projects when investment was needed as soon as possible. “The missing component in the Autumn Statement was a new pipeline of transparent, viable projects for much heralded high-value investment,” he said.

Overall, the Autumn Statement was a step in the right direction, but perhaps not the confident stride that some would have liked. But a threshold has been crossed. As Robbie Owen put it: “It’s a very different world now than it used to be.” n Read about the National Infrastructure Needs Assessment on pages 20-23

City deals for Scotland and Wales, billions for affordable housing in London

By Laura Edgar Chancellor Philip Hammond announced deals for cities in Scotland and Wales, extra funding for Local Enterprise Partnerships and a £3 billion boost for affordable housing in London.

Hammond declared that the government will work with local partners and the Scottish Government towards a city deal for Stirling and is also “making progress” towards a deal with Edinburgh.

Proposals for a deal with the Tay cities will also be considered – which would mean that all Scottish cities would have a city deal.

The Autumn Statement document notes that the government is also making good progress in discussions with local partners and the Welsh Government on a city deal for the Swansea Bay City Region and will consider a growth deal in North Wales.

Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in England will receive £1.8 billion through a third round of Growth Deals. Of this, £556 million will go to the North, £392 million to the Midlands, £151 million to the East, £492 million to London and the South East, and £191 million to the South West.

This cash is intended to fund local infrastructure that would improve transport connections, unlock house building, boost skills and enhance digital connectivity.

Mayoral combined authorities will be given powers to borrow for new functions, subject to a borrowing cap, which “will allow them to invest in economically productive infrastructure”.

A second devolution deal with the West Midlands Combined Authority is under discussion, while the government is set to begin talks with Greater Manchester on transport funding.

The Greater London Authority will receive £3.15 billion to deliver more than 90,000 affordable housing starts by 2020-21. Additionally, the government said it would continue to work with London to explore further devolution of powers.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan described the deal as “The first step in our journey to give the capital a greater voice so we can protect jobs, wealth and prosperity and provide an extra incentive for economic growth.”

RTPI chief executive Trudi Elliott welcomed the continued emphasis on regional devolution, saying more local decision-making and coordination would be needed if the UK is to meet its housing requirements.

“Devolution plays a key role in incentivising a whole wider range of issues within planning and development,” she said. “The announcements today that give greater incentives for city regions and counties to cooperate in meeting housing need across their areas, as well as additional support for LEPs to help unlock more housing, are in the right direction and need to be rolled out across more areas.”

D EC EMB E R 2 01 6 / THE PLA NNER p08_09_news.indd 9

9

28/11/2016 12:30

NEWS

Analysis { RTPI NORTHERN IRELAND CONFERENCE

Northern Ireland planning system ‘in a better place’ since 2015 changes Coming 18 months after major reform to Northern Ireland’s planning system and the transfer of planning functions to 11 new local authorities, Autumn 2016 was always going to be a good time for the inaugural RTPI Northern Ireland planning conference.

System settling Although the man in charge of planning for the province was not present as advertised, Peter May, permanent secretary at Northern Ireland’s Department for Infrastructure proved an able deputy for minister Chris Hazzard.

For May, planning in Northern Ireland has never had a greater opportunity to “demonstrate its value to local communities, delivering for councils and to wider society”.

Although application processing times may currently be short of Northern Ireland’s 30-week target, the number of enforcement cases continues to rise and each of the 11 newly defined councils has been pushing ahead with its local development plans. May accepted that the new system was still bedding down, but believed that planning in Northern Ireland “is in a far better place now”.

May spoke of the introduction last September of Northern Ireland’s regional strategic planning policy statement (SPPS) – “an essential component in the reform of the planning system, one destined to create a better environment and stronger economy”.

May also revealed that Hazzard is to review planning policy related to renewable energy and the countryside while also looking at permitted development rights for oil and gas with a view to subjecting applications to “more rigourous environmental assessment”.

Increasing confidence RTPI president Phil Williams, director of planning and place for Belfast, spoke of how the devolution of powers back

10

Riddel Hall at the University of Belfast, hosted the inaugural RTPI Northern Ireland conference

to local planning departments had increased confidence in the country’s planning system. The institute’s chief executive Trudi Elliott, fresh from Habitat III, spoke of 2016 being a “really interesting moment” for planning globally, and “no more so than in Northern Ireland with the degree of changes you've had in the last 19 months”.

Of Habitat III’s New Urban Agenda, Elliott promised it would “encourage you about the relevance of planning”, while those arguing that planning is a barrier to growth were guilty of “a fundamental misunderstanding of the role”.

“We need to take on the economic arguments on our terms. Governments need to consider the resources needed for better (planning) outcomes.”

(See more from Trudi Elliott in our interview, page 24).

Good design’s role Urbanist Rob Cowan presented on tools for assessing quality development designs, amusing with examples of some extraordinary building design.

Cowan singled out paragraph 65 of the NPPF as doing a cumbersome job of describing “good design’s role” in sustainable developments. Good design comes down to seven components, ranging from fitness for purpose to adaptability, efficiency and appearance.

One thing not listed is character, said Cowan – the coming together of all these elements. Cowan argued that often no one looks in the totality at what they’re trying to achieve. As a result, some truly astonishing buildings are constructed.

It is all too easy to take decisions on design that are out of context to the area they’re designed for.

Another speaker encouraging planners to reflect more often on their work was Kevin Murray, of Kevin Murray Associates.‘Who leads Planning?’ he asked. Is it planners? The slow chipping away at the size and scope of planning teams hasn’t helped there. Is it politicians? Ah, but their principal task is to get re-elected every four years, so it’s hard for them to look 20 years ahead and instead default to what is easier because they are democratically accountable.

Lawyers are a key part in defining what planning is, but only in terms of the present, not the future. Developers?

It can be hard for them to look beyond the economic cycle. From communities to land owners and infrastructure planners, the answer, says Murray, is all of the above. Contemporary focuses on health and well-being depend not only on the government and the individual, but on “all the organisations interfacing with people in their everyday lives.

Planning should take its place here”.

T H E PL AN N E R \ D EC E MB E R 2 0 1 6

p10_11_news.indd 10

25/11/2016 16:03

PLAN UPFRONT

Routes unveiled for Shannon to Dublin water supply project Public chooses Aberaeron as Wales’s Best Place RTPI president Phil Williams says the impact of planning is obvious in the town voted No.1 in Wales by the public.

Nearly 5,500 people voted on a shortlist of 10 places for their favourite in the RTPI’s Wales’s Best Place competition.

Tenby, a walled coastal town in the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park was voted into second places, while Gower, the first Area of Outstanding National Beauty (AONB) in Britain, came third.

The nationwide competition celebrates the places protected, carefully planned or improved by the planning system for communities.

Presenting the award to Rhys Davies, the Mayor of Aberaeron, RTPI president Phil Williams said the impact of planning is obvious in the town, “which has been carefully planned in the Georgian style around the harbour”.

Davies said maintaining Aberaeron as a popular visitor destination takes “hard work”.

“We of course will make full use of the recognition we have been given by all who voted for us and by further promoting our town on a national and international stage, which not only benefits Aberaeron but Ceredigion as a whole.”

Peter Lloyd, chair of RTPI Cymru, said: “Aberaeron is one of Wales’s first planned towns and since then has been developed and managed by the planning system to be a popular tourist destination and providing services to communities in its large rural hinterland. The planning of the town, by Colonel Alban Gwynne and architect Edward Haycock, earned it the reputation of being “one of the best examples of a planned township of small scale in Wales”.

I M AG E S | A L A M Y

p10_11_news.indd 11

Irish Water has published more details of the preferred route of its ambitious €1.2 billion Shannon to Dublin water supply project.

The scheme is designed to provide a new source of water supply for its Eastern and Midlands Region and deliver secure and sustainable water for over 40 per cent of the country’s population, up to 2050.

It will also facilitate new development across the region.

The water company expects to lodge a planning application with An Bord Pleanála in late 2017.

The scheme will involve abstraction of water on the eastern shore of Parteen Basin

in County Tipperary, with water treatment nearby at Birdhill.

Treated water would then be piped 170 kilometres to a termination point reservoir at Peamount in South County Dublin.

Supplies of treated water would be made available to Midland communities along the route from Parteen Basin to Dublin.

The project is the first major new water source upgrade for the Eastern and Midlands Region in more than 60 years.

Irish Water examined a number of other options before proposing the current scheme, including desalination of seawater from the Irish Sea in Fingal.

The money is to help accelerate delivery of up to 800,000 homes and infrastructure across large sites of 1,500 or more units in England.

Barwell also announced further measures to increase the number of “much-needed” homes in local areas, including creating six new Housing Zones to support development on brownfield land to deliver 10,000 homes.

The new Housing Zones are:

Barwell puts forth plan for capacity fund Housing minister Gavin Barwell has announced a new £18 million fund aimed at speeding up house building on large sites.

He said this would provide “thousands of new homes” where people want to live.

Councils can now bid for a share of a “capacity fund” intended to tackle planning issues that can cause delays and stop builders getting on site and starting work quickly.

• Sheffield Housing Zone, South Yorkshire • North East Lincolnshire Urban Housing Zone, with sites in Grimsby and Cleethorpes • Hoyland-Wobwell Strategic Housing Zone, Barnsley, South Yorkshire • Sandwell Housing Zone, Sandwell, West Midlands • Pennine-Lancashire Housing Zone, with sites in Blackburn and Burnley • Wirral Water Housing Zone, Merseyside Another measure would see the government provide support and funding for a new locally led garden town at Otterpool Park in Shepway, Kent.

This is expected to deliver up to 12,000 homes.

D EC E MB ER 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

11

25/11/2016 16:03

NEWS

Analysis { RETAIL PLANNING

How do we manage the proliferation of betting shops? terminals because of their effect on health and well-being. Ninety-two local authority supporters have joined Newham Borough Council to take up this cause.

On 20th October 2016 the council adopted the Detailed Sites and Policies Development Plan Document (DSPDPD) after it was ruled sound by an inspector.

The council will use it in conjunction with the borough’s local plan. The document comprises policies for five major themes, including recognising and managing cumulative impact.

Sustainable development

By Laura Edgar

The focus on betting shops reflects a broader council campaign under the Sustainable Communities Act to place greater restrictions on fixed odds betting

The SP10 - Managing Cumulative Impact policy seeks to ensure that sustainable development is achieved through the management of existing identified problems of cumulative impact relating to specific uses. Development proposals “will help to create healthy and sustainable places”.

The policy means proposals must support that 70 per cent of units within Primary Shopping Frontages should be in A1 use. Additionally, 67 per cent of units in class D2, A4 or A3 use should be quality leisure uses, while Class A5 uses, including and betting shops and amusement arcades, should not account for more than 33 per cent.

The spokesperson explained that there should be no more than two of the same specified uses in a row and a separation distance of at least two units between clusters of two or more units in the same specified uses.

There should also be no more than three of the same uses in a 400-metre area.

Malcolm Sharp, chair of the National

T H E PL AN N E R \ D EC E MB E R 2 0 1 6

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

Wandering down some high streets today, it is hard to miss the number of betting shops and hot food takeaways. But what can be done to ensure that the number of such establishments does not unbalance the make-up of town centres?

The Planner spoke to Newham Borough Council about its high streets.

A spokesperson said both residents and local members have cited the “excessive number” of betting shops and hot-food takeaways as a key planning issue for some time.

And there are many London boroughs and other councils across the country that have similar issues, often in areas suffering from high levels of deprivation, obesity and regeneration challenges.

Newham takes action

12

p12_13_news.indd 6

Retail Planning Forum (NRPF) told The Planner that policies introduced by Newham Borough Council “seem to be a renewed nod in the direction of a more interventionist approach in respect of concentrations of uses”, something he thought had fallen out of fashion following adoption of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Sharp said it would be interesting to see if another council can convince an inspector that the problem is so severe in particular centres that this approach could be replicated elsewhere.

He suspects that in the face of the changing retail context and economic background, “it will perhaps be as important for local authorities to take a pro-active approach to investment and regeneration as it is to set an appropriate policy framework”.

“Certainly, one of the NRPF’s current priorities is focused on the health of town centres as a whole and mixed use within which the remaining retail activity can prosper,” he said.

Newham councillor Ken Clark, cabinet member for planning and regeneration, said: “We are confident this extra power will give us the justification we need to try to block new betting shops and takeaways through the planning process.”

Groundbreaking policy However, Clark said the council also recognises that the policy can’t address existing levels of betting shops and takeaways in the borough, as it doesn’t apply retrospectively.

“This groundbreaking policy allows us to say conclusively that three or more betting shops or takeaways within a five-minute walk is too many, and refuse planning permission for additional premises accordingly,” he said.

“We continue to hope the government listens to local authorities from across the country and takes quick action to tackle betting shop clustering following the conclusion of their current review.” n More information can be found here: The DSPDPD can be found here: tinyurl.com/planner1216-newhamlp

21/11/2016 11:39

PLAN UPFRONT

NI Department for Infrastructure bangs drum on enforcement Scottish Government publishes an unusual oil and gas study The Scottish Government that says formal consultation on unconventional oil and gas development (UOG) will start early in the new year.

Currently, there is a moratorium on any such development, including fracking and coal bed methane extraction.

Confirmation came as the administration published a package of six research reports that will inform its stance on whether or not to allow any UOG development in Scotland.

The research covers public health, economic and climate change impacts as well as traffic, decommissioning and site restoration issues.

Precautionary approach Energy minister Paul Wheelhouse said the studies are a vital contribution to the examination of the potential impacts of UOG technologies, including fracking and coal bed methane extraction, and that they underline the Scottish Government’s “precautionary, robust and evidence-based approach to UOG”.

“We are mindful that those areas of Scotland across which it has been suggested industry wishes to deploy either fracking or coal bed methane extraction are located across the central belt of Scotland – one of the most densely populated areas of the country,” said Wheelhouse.

“Those communities would be directly affected by any unconventional oil and gas development, and must be given genuine opportunities to explore and discuss the evidence in depth and at length.”

The Department for Infrastructure has published an overview of planning enforcement responsibilities in Northern Ireland and the latest guidance following the transfer of most planning functions to district councils.

The guidance highlights the powers and responsibilities of a council and the reserve powers of the department, strategic policy relevant to planning enforcement and the requirement to comply with European Union legislation and associated enforcement regulations.

The department has also issued four enforcement Practice Notes.

These are designed to guide planning officers and relevant users through planning enforcement processes and deal primarily with procedures as well as good practice.

The department stressed: “A fundamental element of the planning system is the range of powers available to councils to enforce planning control.

“However, such powers are only useful if they are used effectively by planning authorities.

“Effective enforcement is therefore essential to ensure that the credibility and integrity of the planning system is not undermined.”

RTPI: Greenfield and green belts can help provide homes Greenfield sites in England, including green belt sites, need to be considered alongside brownfield land as locations for new housing, says the RTPI. In November, the institute’s policy statement – Where Should We Build New Homes – was put together and established after it canvassed members’ views across England and Wales.

The policy statement calls on the government to use a “fresh approach” for directing where new housing should be located.

According to the statement, “green belt boundaries may well need to change, but only through careful reviews over wider areas than single local authorities, and where safeguards are put in place to ensure that development is sustainable, affordable and deliverable in a timely manner, and without prejudice to the renewal of brownfield land”.

But the statement also reaffirms that brownfield land in built-up areas must continue to play a “vital role” for a range of

purposes, including housing.

The RTPI statement notes that a ‘brownfield first’ policy will fail to deliver the land’s full potential if there is insufficient funding for the treatment and assembly of land.

“New proactive remedial programmes are needed to remove constraints on development and to make places where people want to live which are accessible by sustainable modes of transport.” n The RTPI’s policy statements can be found here: tinyurl.com/1216-rtpipolicy

D EC E MB ER 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER p12_13_news.indd 7

13

21/11/2016 11:40

CORRESPONDENCE

I Inbox

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

Two minutes with Sarah Chilcott

Bryan Wolsey — When I was 10 I had a ‘Painting by Numbers’ set as a birthday present. I remember opening the tub marked ‘18’ and applying the cadmium yellow to all the shapes marked 18, followed

by Prussian blue (No 37) etc, until all had been coloured in.

The result was more Moaning Freda than the Mona Lisa.

I now find that Painting by Numbers has morphed into ‘planning by numbers’ – the only difference is that the outcome is worse and affects considerably more people.

I refer to the five-year housing land supply. Thanks to the NPPF (the National Paint Pot Framework) and pot (or paragraph) 49. This is dependent upon whether, in the words of our legal colleagues, it is “engaged” or not. If engaged, it means that an authority does not have a five-year supply of housing and thus housing development can happen anywhere. If not engaged – and therefore a five-year supply can be shown to exist – then all housing applications (not in the plan) are refused.

So “Engaged” = bad = two legs = permission; “Not engaged” = good = four legs = refusal.

I hear you cry that is too simplistic and it is necessary to factor in all the nuances in the development plan and the rest of the Paint Pot Framework, including that other god of “Sustainable Development”.

Leaving aside what that is, I find it odd that developments that occur in authorities with a 4.9-year supply of housing are judged to be sustainable when the same development on the same site and in the same

14

SARAH CHILCOTT is managing director of PortalPlanQuest Ltd, the joint venture - between land referencing service provider TerraQuest and the Department for Communities and Local Government - which has run the Planning Portal service since 2015.

Give us the background to Planning Portal “The Planning Portal has hosted the national planning application service and its associated content and guidance since 2002. We started as part of the Planning Inspectorate, then moved through various iterations of the DCLG until March 2015 when government decided it was time to move the Planning Portal into the private sector.

“At that point a joint venture was set up between DCLG and TerraQuest. Terraquest helps local authorities by providing capacity services in planning and other areas when they have shortfalls in resources.”

“The joint venture was set up to run indefinitely but there are break points when DCLG will review its position.”

So how have things changed?

“We committed early on to keep the planning application service, and the content and guidance that we provide on the site, free of charge - and we continue to keep these up to date and authoritative.

“But our business plan is designed to take us to self-

authority but now with a 5.1year supply suddenly become non-sustainable. It is the same with ‘Valued Landscape”.

I wonder how much has been spent by councils and appellants on consultants to prove that some bit of agricultural land is valued or

sufficiency over the course of the next few years. We’ve had to learn to run our own office and finance more like a business, which has been quite a change.

What elements of the service are changing?

“The new site has given us the platform not only to provide a much better application service, but also to introduce new services.

“A key element of the site is the interactive house, an easy navigation tool to help members of the public understand whether or not they need planning permission. We’ve given that a new look and feel, also introducing advertising so that users see contextually relevant adverts relating to the query and the area they are in. And we’ve made it mobile responsive along with the rest of the site.”

And what's next?

“Many people don’t understand that planning and building are two separate things, and that they need to apply for building regulations as well as planning

not (using the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment).

The conclusion on this also seems to follow the two legs bad, four legs good conclusion on five-year supply.

I do not know if anyone has done any work to judge whether five years is too long,

permission - so we’ve introduced a Building Control Applications service. This is of use to anyone submitting an application that will then go on to be built. Citizens, architects, planners – anyone can now submit their building control applications through Planning Portal, as well as their planning applications.

“We are signing up local authorities to use the service and approving inspectors.

The building control side of the service is a deregulated process in the sense that anyone can apply for their building regulations through the local authority or an approved private organisation; our service caters for both elements of that.

“Another thing we are working on is an enhanced application service for professionals which will give them a more efficient way to assemble and submit applications. It’s about giving them all of the tools they need to get their application submitted to the local authority as quickly and efficiently as possible. We hope to have this up and running in the first half of 2017.

Any other message to readers of The Planner?

“It’s a really exciting time to be part of the Planning Portal.

The team almost feels like a startup – but one with a 16-year track record. There’s a renewed sense of energy in the team, which is fantastic.

We haven’t changed, it’s just that we’re thinking more about how we can provide a service that adds value rather than just makes money.” n www.planningportal.co.uk

too short or if there should be different targets set based to the make-up of the authority.

I turn 65 next year, so along with my pipe, slippers (and reading The Planner), I may return to some painting.

Bryan Wolsey (Planning) Ltd

T H E PL AN N E R \ D EC E MB E R 2 0 1 6

p14_Q&A_CorrespondenceA.indd 14

21/11/2016 18:10

Your trusted partner since 2002, now at www.planningportal.co.uk

Transforming planning and building

Get the MOST From your

Read by the RTPI’s 23,000 members, The Planner reaches in excess of 8,000 more planners than its nearest competitor.

training Budget

From £199 per place

Save up to 50% on delegate places with the Season Ticket Scheme.

ABCted i Aud

Our features and editorial coverage reflect the views and concerns of the UK’s leading town planning professionals.

How will you benefit?

Places from as little as £199 Access to over 60 events An account manager to help manage your bookings and reduce paperwork

CONTACT How to purchase a Season Ticket If you want to reach the valuable audience, please contact: james.brunt@redactive.co.uk or call 020 7880 6230

020 3122 0138 | rtpiconferences.co.uk/seasonticket Season Ticket valid until 31st December 2017

D EC E MB ER 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER p15_PLN.DEC16.indd 15

15

17/11/2016 17:00

CHRIS SHEPLEY

O Opinion No one comes out a winner in the blame game It has been a feature of my planning life that the blame for many of society’s problems has been laid at our doors. I’ve argued that we should receive a ‘carrying the can’ bonus, but this has never found favour with the powers that be.

For years it has been claimed that it has been our recalcitrance, our negativity, our incompetence that has stopped this great country building sufficient housing.

But the blame is now pointing elsewhere, some of the facts of the matter having seeped through to those in power.

The house building industry itself is now the prime target.

(Well, they started it).

A study by Civitas indicated that permission had been granted for 2,035,835 houses between 2006 and 2015, but that only 1,261,350 starts had been recorded in government statistics during the same period. A pretty big gap, even allowing for generous margins of error, and one that Civitas says has been getting bigger.

In 2016 is says there were 261,644 homes permitted but only 139,680 recorded starts.

No doubt we shall see a Brexit-style repudiation of the statistics, and a fashionable dismissal of ‘experts’. But ministers seem convinced, and a chap called Gavin Barwell, who’s the minister and seems nice, says he wants to crack down on developers who have a “habit of putting in planning applications, getting permission, getting uplift in their land value and then not doing anything”.

Sajid Javid, who’s the actual secretary of state, has quoted similar figures and

16

“WHERE DOES THIS BLAME CULTURE GET US? CLEARLY HAVING A GO AT THE PLANNING SYSTEM HAS NOT WORKED” made similar remarks. “… my message is very clear: it’s time to get building. The big developers must release their stranglehold on supply.

Time to stop sitting on land banks, delaying build-out: the homebuyers must come first.”

He went further and seemed to blame the government for at least part of the problem – something many of us have been doing for some time. He said that despite the magnificence of Sir Eric Pickles, the administration had not done enough. Which is welcome,

T H E P L AN N E R \ D EC E MB E R 2 0 1 6

p16_17_shepley_quoteunquote.indd 16

though the various recipes he put forward to rectify the situation seemed inadequate and/or irrelevant to me.

Other targets for blame are available. The Farmer Report talked about the construction industry – blighted by low productivity, an ageing workforce, lack of innovation and collaboration, and non-existent research and development.

And in the House of Lords, Lord Borwick blamed newts, saying protestors had “introduced the species at sites earmarked by developers in a bid to get the work halted on environmental grounds” – a tactic foreshadowed in the seminal Grotton Revisited, which contained an ad for newtsfornimbies. co.uk (“discreetly delivered to the site just in time for the inspector’s visit”).

Where does this blame

culture get us? Clearly having a go at the planning system has not worked; years of altering the rules to satisfy the critical have had little effect on the build rate. Seeing the house builders now getting a taste of this medicine may be satisfying, but is probably based on some of the same misconceptions and misinformation that made planners such an inviting target, and is unlikely to get any more houses built.

The housing crisis is too important for all this.

People are suffering. It’s not impossible to solve but we have to move on from blame.

It needs a bit of sophisticated, co-operative, and strategic thought, not just about numbers but about what kind of houses we need and can provide (sale, rent, private, public, big, small, affordable, unaffordable); who should build them (we don’t only need mass-market housing); where they should be, and how that relates to infrastructure, services, and sustainability. The data is available; we have the skills; I wish we could just be allowed to get on with it.

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

21/11/2016 11:41

Quote unquote FROM THE RTPI AND THE WEB “If we don’t look at the intergenerational piece at scale, we’re never going to get near our targets” JOHN NORDON OF PEGASUS LIFE CONSIDERS A ‘WHOLE LIFE’ APPROACH TO PLANNING FOR HOUSING

When we talk about affordability at City Hall, we mean it should include levels of rent around social rent levels, we mean shared ownership, and we mean the living rent” JAMES MURRAY, DEPUTY MAYOR FOR HOUSING, RTPI LONDON PLANNING SUMMIT

“The ‘one size fits all’ approach [to solving the housing ousing i crisis] has passed its sell-by date… A flexible approach, underpinned by government working with business, will enable us to deliver the homes we sorely need” JOSH HARDIE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, CONFEDERATION OF BRITISH INDUSTRY

“Imagine a world in which we had a full w suite of local plans consistent with the NPPF planning to meet housing needs” JOHN RHODES, DIRECTOR OF QUOD AND MEMBER OF LOCAL PLANS EXPERT GROUP

“Why are we talking about 55?

I’m 82. It’s not just three ages of living, there’s a fourth age now. I know am much healthier than my parents were at a similar age”

“It’s interesting to see the NPPF analysed comma by colon through the courts, because it was meant to be a simple statement in plain English” PAUL SHADAREVIAN, BARRISTER AT CORNERSTONE BARRISTERS

“We’re running out of time for this tidal wave that’s coming towards us.

I’d like to see [London Mayor] Sadiq Khan say that 10 per cent of new development is given over to co-housing.

We need exemplars for others to follow” ANGELA BRADY, DIRECTOR, BRADY MALLALEU AND FORMER RIBA PRESIDENT PROMOTES THE CO HOUSING AGENDA

AUDIENCE MEMBER AT HOUSING FOR THE THIRD AGE, AN NLA / PEGASUS LIFE BREAKFAST SEMINAR

I M AG E S | S H U T T E RSTO C K / I STO C K / G E T T Y

p16_17_shepley_quoteunquote.indd 17

D EC O CTO E MB B ER 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

1177

21/11/2016 11:41

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

O Opinion

1

Toby Lloyd is head of housing development at Shelter

More power to planners will ease Britain’s housing woes

It might disappoint readers of The Pla Planner as much as us at Shelter to know that planning is rarely thought of with much enthusiasm. It’s a legislative hurdle for large developers or a destructive bureaucratic force among Nimbys. Rarely is it thought of as it should be – a chance for civic engagement with a local community to build the towns and cities of the future.

Despite being the most dominant, groups with a negative perception of planning by no means reflect public sentiment.

Our research shows that 69 per cent of the public are positive about having more homes in their area, compared with 11 per cent who strongly oppose development. So why are people who want to block development more effective?

One reason is that it is far harder for a community to see through an ambitious neighbourhood plan than it is for others to block it. Neighbourhood and local plans carry little legislative clout and are easily overcome by well-equipped legal teams of large developers. Commitments to public space and affordable homes can be circumvented and treated as luxuries instead of necessary elements.

What’s needed is not less planning, but stronger mechanisms to ensure that what gets planned gets built.

The Neighbourhood Planning

Bill going through Parliament could solve such problems by strengthening neighbourhood plans and clarifying the rules on compulsory purchase. The proposals could go further, particularly by giving councils stronger CPO powers to incentivise landowners to release land for development at prices that allow the plan’s vision to be realised.

Such reforms would allow communities to positively shape the vision. This could help ensure that plans are adhered to and would open up the possibility for the community to capture the uplift in land value to deliver civic value rather than just financial value for the landowner.

This isn’t ‘pie in the sky’. Nansledan is a 4,000-home urban extension to Newquay (with 30 per cent affordable homes) based on long-term civic goals shared by the community and the landowner (the Duchy of Cornwall).

Church Grove in Lewisham has its land held in a trust that has allowed for a focus on affordability and quality. These examples show what can be achieved when good planning is matched with good delivery.

We must continue to speak about planning eloquently and passionately, and encourage people to be romantic about planning and the opportunities it can bring to build affordable homes and communities that work.

“WHAT’S NEEDED IS NOT LESS PLANNING, BUT STRONGER MECHANISMS TO ENSURE THAT WHAT GETS PLANNED, GETS BUILT”

18

2 BLOG

BLOG

Naomi LuhdeThompson is planning and policy adviser at Friends of the Earth

Heathrow expansion is not a done deal

This [pro [proposal for a third runway] is not th the final decision on Heathrow. That’s why transport secretary Chris Grayling shouldn’t have pre-empted the outcome before a nationally debated and tested national planning policy statement on aviation is made.

Hurdles remain, such as objections from a large, well-resourced community and a legal challenge from local authorities, but Parliament and planning policy will be key. The plan must be considered on its individual merits, and those affected have a right to be heard, particularly if there are site-specific implications.

Environmental impacts have been identified; noise and air quality both have proven and damaging effects on health. There’s also the impact on greenhouse gas emissions; if a third runway is built, Heathrow will overtake the Drax power station as the UK’s single biggest climate polluter. Social impacts, too, are profound. None of these issues can be put to one side in advance.

If a matter is relevant to the detail of the consent, it is also relevant to the principle of the consent.

A national policy statement on aviation will be drafted, and will undergo a Strategic Environmental Assessment. This considers significant effects, and alternatives. It will be open to challenge if alternatives are not properly considered during drafting.

The duties of the secretary of

state when the National Policy Statement on Aviation is being prepared under the Planning Act 2008 are significant: “(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) the Secretary of State must (in particular) have regard to the desirability of – (a) mitigating, and adapting to, climate change; (b) achieving good design.”

Friends of the Earth cannot see how airport expansion mitigates impacts on climate change. Each time fossil fuel power stations, roads or new airport runways are considered, the greenhouse gas emissions increases that result are ignored or set aside for reductions elsewhere.

But if reductions are continually set aside emissions will continue to rise, or fail to fall, so we won’t meet legally prescribed national budgets.

Parliamentary oversight of the National Policy Statement. Section 9 of the Planning Act 2008 requires the secretary of state to lay the proposal before both Houses of Parliament. Either can make a resolution on the proposal. Committees can also recommend changes, so government can’t jump the gun.

The way the Heathrow development consent is handled, alongside community and political opposition, parliamentary scrutiny and legal challenges, will determine whether the government’s announcement is anything more than words.

“THE PROPOSAL MUST BE CONSIDERED ON ITS INDIVIDUAL MERITS, AND THOSE AFFECTED HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD”

T H E P L AN N E R \ D EC E M B E R 2 0 1 6

p18_19_blogs.indd 18

21/11/2016 11:47

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

3

Laurie Handcock is director of Iceni Projects

Understanding heritage can unlock housing growth in London

Sadiq Khan Kh is clear; developing on Lond London’s green belt is not on the cards. Indeed, as James Murray (deputy mayor for housing), made clear at the RTPI’s recent London Planning Summit, the idea is not even open for consultation.

So if London is to grow to be a city of 10 million people by 2030, it is going to have to do it within its current boundaries. In short, every square inch of the city is going to be forced to work harder than ever before.

This has huge implications, with pressure on facilities, transport, open space and leisure provision, and countless other issues arising from each densifying and intensifying development.

High on the agenda is the fact that this will need to take place within what is arguably one of the most sensitive historic cities on the planet. London contains some 43,500 listed buildings and 1,000 conservation areas. Indeed, 50 to 70 per cent of some boroughs – including Camden, Islington, Westminster, and Kensington & Chelsea – stand within conservation areas.

All of these heritage assets are regarded to have ‘considerable importance and weight’ in the planning process by virtue of recent case law. This is no mere material consideration; harm to the significance of any one could be sufficient to bring down an entire permission.

4 BLOG

BLOG

So any plan for high-density development in London must take heritage into account.

London, fortunately, benefits from a branch of Historic England with a realistic view of the wider problems facing the city, and a strategic understanding of how the city needs to develop. There is an understanding that London remains a relatively low-rise city in global terms, and that there is capacity for new tall buildings.

What is clear is that a strategic plan is required for their location and design. The Eastern Cluster, in the City of London, is a case in point. Its location is drawn together through restrictions placed upon the City by the London View Management Framework, the location of conservation areas, and the setting of the Tower of London World Heritage Site, among other issues. But it sits within a single authority that can shape its development without preventing growth. How would a London-wide plan work, if it effectively became a means of imposing control on the options for growth in different boroughs?

For bodies like Historic England, the intensification of London and changes to its skyline are not incompatible with the overarching aim of protecting our valuable heritage.

What is less clear is how 33 different authorities can reach an agreement about how this growth is managed.

“EVERY SQUARE INCH OF THE CITY IS GOING TO BE FORCED TO WORK HARDER THAN EVER BEFORE”

Hannah David is director of the Planning Futures think tank

More planning required to overcome Nimbyism

Reports of angry individuals reacting to a planning application are commonplace in our local and national media. Anyone attending a planning committee meeting is almost guaranteed to witness local objectors vociferously arguing their objections.

Objectors most often fit into two categories – those with a genuine concern that the proposed development is not for the good of the wider community and location, and those who are there to protect their own interests – Nimbys.

Retaining the democratic character of planning is fundamental, but there is an urgent need to address the distortion of the process by the Nimby. If self-interested objections take priority over big-picture planning, there will be few winners.

We need to get communities onside when it comes to development. Planners, decision-makers and developers must take part of the blame for the rise of antidevelopment attitudes.

Heavy-handed approaches to development (questionable planning decisions that deliver poor-quality and inappropriate schemes; tick-box consultation processes; and a lack of emphasis on design) have engendered a culture of distrust in the system, and resentment in communities.

Working with communities to garner support for development would go a long way to countering the fears these objectors

sustain. Good, well-mediated processes produce consensual planning outcomes and collaborative working will require all stakeholders to move beyond the individual interests towards a common goal.

Selfish concern about the perceived impact on property values and amenities is trickier to deal with. It is often unjustified and not a planning consideration. What this more importantly highlights is the desperation that some objectors reach.

Educating our communities about the advantages development can bring and re-looking at the direct benefits that can be delivered through planning gain is a step that local planning authorities can take.

The problem that Nimbyism presents is one that requires us to get behind the planning system as a driver of economic development and a mechanism for excellence in placemaking.

We must equip cash-strapped local planning authorities with the resources that they need to engage in proper consultation.

We must produce plans that draw on the views of local people and project a vision for the future.

Well-informed local plans – drawing on a deep knowledge of what people want – should be enforced rigorously through the development process and act as a bulwark against the sectional interests of Nimbys.

“GOOD, WELL­ MEDIATED PROCESSES PRODUCE CONSENSUAL PLANNING”

D EC EMB E R 2 0 1 6 / THE PLA NNER p18_19_blogs.indd 19

19

21/11/2016 11:47

20

T H E PL AN N E R \ D EC E MB E R 2 0 1 6

p20_23_infrastructure_.indd 20

21/11/2016 11:48

N AT I O N A L I N F R A S T R U C T U R E

FUTURE FOUNDATIONS IT’S GENERALLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE U UK’S K’S INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS UPGRADING TO OP ROVIDE PROVIDE A FOUNDATION FOR FUTURE SOCIAL, EECONOMIC CONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. AN N AASSESSMENT SSESSMENT OF THE NATION’S NEEDS POINTSS TTHE HE WAY FORWARD, AS MARK SMULIAN DISC COVERS DISCOVERS

It’s a vexed question that dominates considerations of long-term planning: how do we cope with a UK population projected to be 75 million by 2050 when there has been historic underinvestment in the infrastructure that could support such a population?

Seeking solutions, the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) assembled an expert panel to “set out the steps that are needed for a national infrastructure system that is efficient, affordable and sustainable”.

Its National Needs Assessment – A Vision For UK Infrastructure is the result, and panel member Robbie Owen, head of infrastructure

I L L U S T R A T I O N | S A M FA L C O N E R

planning and government affairs at law firm Pinsent Masons, says: “Don’ “Don’t make the mistake of thinking this is like past pa reviews. It looks much longer term, to 2050, looks to interdependency and treats housing as infrastructure.”

This assessment is intended inte to provide the National Infrastructure Commission Co (NIC) with a blueprint for its separa separate exercise to recomSince NIC mend infrastructure development. de also chaired the deputy chair Sir John Armitt A ICE’s panel, it seems likely lik to be accepted.

The panel concluded that t “the UK is a long way from having the moder modern infrastructure networks that are required by a world-leading economy”, in international qualbeing ranked merely 24th 2 ity.

Climate change, roa road and rail congestion, population growth and o overloaded digital networks were among infras infrastructure-related problems identified, but the rreport shuns a ‘shopping list’ approach, apart fro from backing HS2 and airport expansion.

Panel member R Richard Threlfall, KPMG’s UK infrastructure, building and construchead of infrastruc tion, explains: “We “W had a debate about whether to call for an uplift up in spending. We felt that wrong, even though the country has would be wrong historically underspent unde on infrastructure, and we needed ded to plan in a more holistic way and not

D EC EMB E R 2 0 1 6 / THE PLA NNER p20_23_infrastructure_.indd 21

21

21/11/2016 11:48

WHAT DOES THE NATIONAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT RECOMMEND? just invest in some major pieces of kit.”

What marks this report out from similar exercises is as national i i that th t it treats t t housing h i ti l infrastructure. Threlfall explains: “Successive governments have refused to adopt housing as a national policy and have looked to local solutions, but it’s the biggest infrastructure issue.

“We need 300,000 new homes a year and we have not built that since the 1970s and that decline has followed the decline in public involvement in house building.

“The lesson of the past 30 years is that at relying on local planning and private house builders does not work and it needs public ic sector involvement, including the governmentt creating the conditions in which investors have ave more confidence to invest in offsite manufacturing turing for new homes.”

Owen says: “We were looking really to garden villages and urban extensions and there here was some debate, but 5,000 homes seemed eemed a reasonable threshold.

“We concluded these developments were not happening because of politicians putting ting their heads in the sand and leaving this to local ocal planning, when it’s too big for that. Using the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) process would allow central government to show leadership, while the detailed conditions would still be agreed locally and housing and infrastructure can be considered together.”

New technology Another noticeable theme is that instead of listing desirable projects, the assessment looks at how technological change might alter demand for infrastructure.

One result is an emphasis on encouraging renewable energy and not simply a mass building of power stations. Another is concern about demand management on roads and the prospect of electric-powered automated vehicles, which would reduce pollution and probably necessitate changes to highway design.

Threlfall says this could change the traditional approach of building roads to match predicted traffic.

“The government needs to wake up to the potential revolution in transport from electric and autono“Successive mous cars which may now be governments have coming very much faster than refused to adopt housing as a national appeared to be the case even a year policy and have ago,” he says. looked to local “It will be an almost wholly posisolutions, but it’s the tive change, but what is the role for biggest infrastructure the public sector?” issue”

Housing The panel’s decision to treat housing as infrastructure led it to conclude that the present model of delivery does not and cannot work.

The panel largely dismissed claims that the planning system causes delays in house building, noting that applications processed by local authorities within the required time were “an all-time high with a record 81 per cent decided”.

Instead,, the UK had “become increasingly reliant on private developers to deliver housing” priv and the experi experience of the past 30 years “suggests that private se sector provision is only able to meet around half the th UK’s total housing demand”. found to inhibit house building were: Factors foun • Chronically under-resourced council planning departments; departm Skill that limit house builders’ • Sk S Skil kil ill shortages shorta capacity; capa ca apa pac city; Smaller developers’ difficulty accessing • Sm S aller de nance; fin fi n ance; and transport, schools and amenities • Lack of tra in some areas. prevented development d The panel concluded: “Relying wholly on local planning processes and private housing is not delivering enough development, either via greenfield construction or through densification of existing urban areas.”

Uncertainty over where homes would be built in turn “undermines our capacity to plan infrastructure services for the future”, it added.

Despite the panel’s admiration for local planning, it said housing applications for in excess of 5,000 units should come under the NSIP regimes because “housing development will always require a balance between local and national objectives… at the moment national needs are not being met by the local planning system”.

Once approved, developers could negotiate details and associated infrastructure with local planners, it said.

Energy Meeting energy needs is as much a matter of managing demand as building power plants, the panel said.

It called for a government commitment to low-carbon electricity generation capacity based on a mix of nuclear, renewables, gas and interconnectors.

The NIC should propose strategies for technologies such as carbon capture and electricity storage, and the government should seek to reduce energy demand.

22 THE PLANNER \ DECEMBER 2016 p20_23_infrastructure_.indd 22

21/11/2016 11:48

N AT I O N A L I N F R A S T R U C T U R E

Transport The panel shunned a shopping-list approach and called instead for investment in the busiest siest parts of the highway network coupled upled with more efficient use of roads through demand management and support pport for the uptake of driverless vans and cars.

Electrification of the he vehicle fleet would help to reduce e air pollution and carbon emissions, it said.

The panel called for the completion of the High Speed 2 rail line and the development of business cases for high-speed rail links to Scotland, the South-West and across the Northern Powerhouse, and increased investment in commuter rail networks and urban public transport, with transport funding devolved to local authorities.

Water Risks of serious water shortages driven by climate change should be met by “vigorous action to manage demand and continued work to reduce leakage”, with new supplies provided where these measures would be insufficient.

As flooding is estimated to cost £1 billion a year in economic damage,, the government should establish largeescale experiments to quantify the benefits of catchment-based flood management.

Road pricing should be reconsidered d to enable users to “make informed choices about their travel patterns”.

Skills Adequate growth in infrastructure investment would require nearly construction 100,000 additional additio 2020, and much of the workers by 2020 existing workforce workfor would need new skills.

The report said use of offsite manufacturing ffor site assembly of and of construction components, com Information Modelling for Business Inform design, would alter the skills improved design ills offer better and needed but potentially pote nd cheaper ways to build.

n Download Nat National Needs Assessment ent – A Vision For UK Infrastructure: tinyurl.com/plann tinyurl.com/planner1216-icevision

Hannah Budnitz, cchair of the RTPI’s transport planning network, th thinks the panel paid too little attention to new technologies. tech “Opportunities are ar there, for example, for electric elec el e tr ec tric vehicles vehicles in the th shared economy but they d n do not ot q quite uite link ui uite link them the together,” she says.

“If you change ch han ange ge transport, tran that changes demand fforr iin fo infrastructure nfr f as a tructure and if people have autonomous cars tthey hey he y will not w want to keep them in their driveway but use them the as needed, so it becomes than ownership.” an issue of access rather rat The panel gave re relatively little attention to local infrastructure, and Threlfall admits: “I’m nervous that government may say a lot of infrastructure should be provided at local level but that local government will not have the capacity to deliver.”

Budnitz says: “I can understand why the report focuses on things like HS2 and Heathrow, but there should be more attention paid to local infrastructure, as these very big projects speak for themselves.”

Professor Ian Wray, of the University of Liverpool’s department of geography and planning, is also concerned.

“With the exception of the new “The UK is a long towns British infrastructure planning way from having the modern has all been led by local government, or infrastructure the private sector or landed estates, it is are networks that a not top-down and that does not work,” worldrequired by a w he says. leading economy” econom “They should recognise this will be done at local level, use bodies such as Transport for the North and restore strategic planning to county level.”

He adds that privatisation of utilities has meant that “much of the UK’s infrastructure is now in private hands and there will be an inevitable tendency to cut back on investment and sweat the assets. There’s not a lot government can do about that.”

Even with few specific spending proposals, can the panel’s conclusions be afforded?

Threlfall says the Brexit vote could affect infrastructure investment inv as “the fall in sterling’s value will bring in inflation and lower tax revenues so the governmen government will be less able to spend on infrastructure. that the government has “But I’m encouraged encou said it will go ahead ahea with Hinkley Point, HS2 and Heathrow, and Philip Hammond told the Conservative conference conf that he would spend on infrastructure.”

Calls to “build infrastructure” may sound familiar. But with the government seeking ways to kickstart the economy in an era of cheap may fall on fewer borrowing this assessment a deaf d de af ears than did some similar exercises.

D EC E MB ER 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

p20_23_infrastructure_.indd 23

23

21/11/2016 11:49

I N T E R V I E W T R U D I E LLI O T T

WORLD OF POSSIBILITY THE RTPI’S CHIEF EXECUTIVE TRUDI ELLIOTT TELLS SIMON WICKS HOW THE HABITAT III CONFERENCE HAS GIVEN HER A FRESH BELIEF IN PLANNING’S ABILITY TO TACKLE GLOBAL CHALLENGES “I don’t really like things being about me,” protests Trudi Elliott. It’s just as well then that the RTPI chief executive and I have met to talk about October’s Habitat III conference in Quito, Ecuador, which she attended with the RTPI's president Phil Williams and international officer Marion Frederiksen.

But it’s hard to ignore the fact that she’s just reached the end of her fifth year in the job.

Moreover, with positive noises about planning coming from the new regime at the Department for Communities and Local Government, there is no lack of RTPI business to chat about, too.

We start with Habitat III, however. As trailed in The Planner in September, this was the third iteration of the United Nations’ conference on housing and sustainable urban development.

The event takes place every 20 years only, and each time reconfigures the international approach to tackling the challenges – and opportunities – presented by human settlements around the world.

PHOTOGRAPHY | JON ENOCH

24

At its heart this time is the New Urban Agenda (NUA), a blueprint for sustainable development over the next 20 years agreed by states worldwide.

Unlike the Paris climate agreement, however, the NUA is not legally binding, leading to suggestions that Habitat III was little more than a talking shop.

If so, with 35,000 attendees from politics, academia, business, the professions, civil society and the media, it was a significant talking shop.

“It was amazing in terms of the scale,” says Elliott. “For someone who’s interested in planning, urbanism and global challenges there were so many things you could go to. What do you pick?”

The biggest “take home”, she says, was the sheer variety of people who attended the conference and took part in myriad side events looking at the issues around urbanisation and sustainable development.

“You would be sitting at something and you might have someone representing slum-dwellers on one side and a tech expert on the other,” she continues.

T H E P L AN N E R \ D EC E MB E R 2 0 1 6

p24_27_Trudiv.indd 24

21/11/2016 18:14

D EC EMB E R 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER p24_27_Trudiv.indd 25

25

21/11/2016 18:14

I N T E R V I E W T R U D I E LLI O T T

Attracting new planners Notably, she says, there was significant business presence – a sign that commerce is taking conference themes seriously.

“This was about us collectively looking at global challenges, comparing and contrasting and coming to a shared agenda about what needs to be addressed.”

Collectively, that is, except for a significant missing group – UK politicians. Although the UK was well represented by civil society, academia, professional bodies and private business – including a delegation of civil servants from the Department for International Development – there were no ministers or city mayors that Elliott was aware of. This brings the sole downbeat note from Elliott.

Attendance would have been an excellent chance for senior politicians to promote the UK’s international development and built environment expertise post-Brexit.

Tactfully, she suggests this may be because the event came too soon for the fledgling May government. She also notes a change in attitudes towards planning at the Department of Communities and Local Government under the new regime.

"It’s always interesting to see what other people are doing. It’s reassuring to note that some of the issues we are grappling with, it’s not just us. We found comparing and contrasting with sister institutions really quite helpful.

“In every session we felt we had something to offer and something to learn. It’s a shame there wasn’t more political engagement," she says, adding: “We cannot adopt the ‘not invented here’ approach."

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT “We are absolutely clear that the interplay between politics and planning is significant, so we invest quite a lot of time in working with politicians from PIPA (the Politicans in Planning Network),” Elliott stresses. “We support politicians in planning locally and nationally, of all party persuasions.

“There’s a fundamental shift it seems to us since the change of government, particularly around housing and the housing crisis. Government focus is now on homes and not just home ownership.

“I don’t think that reflects a reduction in importance to Government of home ownership, but I think they understand you can’t improve home ownership unless you do something about all tenures.

“It became apparent at the first meeting we had with [housing and planning minister] Garvin Barwell that they were taking a fresh look and they really think that politically they have got to address the housing challenge.”

26

T H E PL AN N E R \ D EC E M B E R 2 0 1 6

p24_27_Trudiv.indd 26

“You would be sitting at something and you might have someone representing slumdwellers on one side and a tech expert on the other”

“It’s a global challenge,” says Trudi Elliott of another theme that emerged from Habitat III. “People are finding it difficult to recruit. We don’t have brand recognition [as a profession]. That’s why we started our bursaries. Apart from giving a little bit of support to people, it showcases planning as a potential postgraduate career.

“If we are going to meet demand globally we need more people studying undergraduate degrees and more people converting to planning.

The multifaceted nature of planning means that it can be appealing to people from variety of different academic disciplines, she notes. “We’re trying to attract people with a whole range of degrees.

“Economics, for example. Understanding the economic context in which planning operates is one of the elements that you have to demonstrate in the APC (assessment of Professional Competence).

You’ve got to understand the context in which you are operating, in the same way you have to understand the environmental and social context.

“We have got much more work to do on creating the narrative that shows the breadth and depth of the work you can do in this sector. We have got to expand the pool of people interested in place-shaping.”

Cities for all So what issues struck Elliott most forcefully? In a world with an expanding population and the greater proportion of people moving to towns and cities, the availability of land in the right places for good quality and affordable development is critical.

“In some places it’s the sheer quantum [of housing required], in some it’s the location.

There’s formal settlement versus informal settlement, the community implications of massive redevelopment.”

Then there is the “link between housing and infrastructure, housing and jobs” and the related issues of land and tenure, and what patterns of land ownership mean for land price and assembly. “The land question came up in lots of different ways. In some places the land tenure and land valuation issues were as a big a challenge as planning.”

It’s a worldwide challenge that, Elliott stresses, links to viability and the economic and fiscal models that are used to unlock development. Are they fair? Do they privilege one set of people over another? Who benefits the most from development?

We grapple with these challenges in the UK but, says Elliott, “they manifest themselves in different ways all over the world”. Inspiration comes from seeing how different states try to resolve the conundrum. She was particularly impressed with a scheme on Mexico’s stand.

“They’re doing a really interesting piece of I M AG E S | JON E N O C H

21/11/2016 18:14

work involving unions, developers, housing associations and the government to provide homes.

The fact that unions were involved was interesting – and they’d thought about how you make the “I start from the position of being financial model stack up for the individual and an optimist and for the lending organisation.” thinking that The threat of climate change was ever-present. planning is part of “It’s inextricably linked now to the quality of life the solution, not the issue and resilience. It’s fundamental to how you problem” make places where people want to live.

“It's also about how to prepare for and rebuild communities after disaster, which is why we launched the UK Built Environment Advisory Group with RIBA and the Institution of Structural Engineers at Habitat III, to give built environment support to the humanitarian sector.”

The RTPI also successfully argued for the inclusion of statements about the linked issue of air quality in the final NUA, Elliott points out, adding: “There were things I wasn’t expecting, too. I didn’t expect the gender issue to keep coming up – the issue about how safe women feel in cities.”

Indeed, she suggests, the conference could almost be distilled into the single question: “How do you create a city that works for everybody?”. To answer this means tackling a deep structural issue that afflicts countries around the world, says Elliott. We are trying to resolve 21st century problems with 20th century – even 19th century –governance frameworks.

Above all, the administrative architecture of our societies, including planning systems, needs to be updated to work in tune with the modern world. How do we manage such a transition smoothly and to the benefit of the planet and the widest number of people?

The case for planning Political and community engagement are critical to enable this evolution to happen, says Elliott. From a planning perspective, she is adamant that the profession needs to sell its benefits more purposefully and

coherently, by stressing the value of good strategic planning and by taking ownership of planning’s core principles once again.

“In some places the challenge for planning is that it’s seen as too vested in the past. In others it’s associated with adverse impacts on existing communities. What most of the planning organisations came away with was a renewed sense of purpose about articulating the reach and purpose of planning in creating places.”

Elliott talks about planning not in opposition to markets and commerce, but as a force that can shape markets and make them work more effectively for communities and businesses.

The argument has been articulated in two RTPI reports published in 2016 (The Value Of Planning and Delivering The Value Of Planning), which mark a more dynamic approach from the institute to answering sceptics who blame planning alone for problems associated with the built environment.

In 2017, Elliott explains, the institute will build on this work by focusing on ‘better planning’ via professional development. There will also be three themes of activity in research, campaigning and lobbying: affordable housing, climate change and making city regions work for all. All, she says, are “underlying themes of Habitat III”.

She adds: “Our wider work is ensuring we have enough skilled planning professionals and wider communities that feel they can understand and engage with planning.”

Which brings us, finally, to Elliott’s own career. A law and economics graduate, she encountered planning as a practising lawyer. “A really interesting job came up in a local authority doing planning law and it seemed to me about shaping the place rather than just the law. Over the years what becomes more exciting to you, the planning bit or the legal bit?”

There's a knock at the door. Elliott is late for her next meeting and we have to call it a day.

Ironically, it means she has avoided talking about herself. There’s just time for a last word.

“I start from the position of being an optimist and thinking that planning is part of the solution, not the problem. For me, the future must be better for planning. That doesn’t mean we haven’t got to constantly justify our existence and we don’t have massively under-resourced systems everywhere. But things that we have been saying as planners people are now realising – that we are an answer to grappling with the complexities of today, and of growth.

“We've got to engage in the economic debates around it, the social and environmental debates. We can't just focus on one. We have got to keep telling the story about the excitement of planning and what planning can do.”

D EC E MB ER 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

p24_27_Trudiv.indd 27

27

21/11/2016 18:14

T H E P O LI T I C S O F P L A N N I N G

STRIPPED OF RESOURCES AND ATTACKED AS THE PROBLEM RATHER THAN THE SOLUTION, PLANNING HAS RARELY BEEN UNDER SUCH PRESSURE. IN THE FIRST OF A SERIES ABOUT PLANNING AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POLITICS, DAVID BLACKMAN CONSIDERS HOW THINGS GOT TO THIS POINT

I

t’s hard to recall a time when planning has been under as much pressure as it is today, at least since the modern system was founded by the postSecond World War Labour government.

Resources at local planning authorities get tighter by the year. Meanwhile, the very value of planning is increasingly under question by policymakers.

Cliff Hague, emeritus professor of planning at Edinburgh’s Heriot Watt University, has been a keen observer of politics and planning since the late 1960s when he was a rookie planner.

“The only equivalent was the early years of the Thatcher government when there was a lot of

28

anxiety in the profession about enterprise zones and development corporations usurping the functions of local planning authorities.”

The former RTPI president is referring to the then Conservative government’s introduction of fast-track planning enterprise zones and development corporations, the most prominent of which oversaw the regeneration of East London’s docklands. Michael Heseltine, environment secretary at the time, famously summed up this approach with his remark that planners were “locking jobs up in filing cabinets”.

Dr Mike Harris, deputy head of policy and research at the RTPI, believes that it is too crude to see planner-bashing as a purely Tory indulgence.

Throughout the past three decades, the assumption in government about planning is that it has been “too bureaucratic and slow,” he says.

“Even under centre-left governments, the debate around planning has still been about how to make the system more efficient and streamline it, that planning is part of the problem rather than critical to more and better development.”

The New Labour governments saw tensions between the Treasury and the various departments that were successively responsible for planning.

One notable flashpoint was consultancy McKinsey’s report, commissioned in the late

T H E PL AN N E R \ D EC E MB E R 2 0 1 6

p28_31_Under Pressure.indd 28

21/11/2016 11:49

T H E P O LI T I C S O F P L A N N I N G

CONSENTS VS COMPLETIONS

475,647

Homes with planning permission yet to be built at the end of 2015, according to a study by the Local Government Association and Glenigan

275,516

Approvals in England in the year to June 2016 – a 14% increase on a year earlier 1990s, which branded planning as one of the key obstacles to improving the productivity of the UK economy.

But few would dispute that the pressure on the planning system has been ratcheted up since the return of the Conservatives to government in 2010.

“It wasn’t as intense as it is now,” says Hague.

Tony Burton, executive chair of Sustainable Homes, says criticism of planning has become “more systemic across government”.

Hugh Ellis, interim chief executive of the Town and Country Planning Association, recalls being recently told by a government policy adviser that planning was part of a post-war socialist conspiracy.

This description is totally at odds with the history of how the Town and Country Planning Act came into being, he says: “The authors of the 1948 planning act were three card-carrying Conservatives and it was commissioned by the wartime Conservative government.”

Planning as an obstacle Although the Thatcher government deregulated in certain areas, the past five years have seen a more full-fronted assault on the planning system.

All local planning authorities’ ability to influence development have been curbed by a series of reforms, such as the easing of rules on office conversions and small sites to name just two.

The queue of critics is headed by two think tanks, the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) and the Institute of Economic affairs, both of which are

“PLANNING IS THE POLICY INSTRUMENT THAT IS CHIEFLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HOUSING CRISIS”

144,280

Housing starts in the year to June 2016 – a 2% increase on a year earlier, but 130,000 fewer starts than approvals Sources: The Guardian January 2016, Glenigan/ HBF Housing pipeline report Sep 2016, DCLG Housing statistical release, August 2016

products of the late 1970s ideological ferment that helped to create the conditions for the Thatcher government.

Sam Bowman, executive director of the ASI, argues that Britain’s planning regime is holding back the country’s economy.

“We have very liberal labour market laws and reasonably flexible business regulations. The one thing we really don’t have is liberal laws about how we can use land. To a large extent the productivity problem in the UK can be attributed to the difficulties businesses have in converting buildings to new uses.”

He pins the blame for the country’s failure to deliver enough housing on planning, too.

“Planning is the policy instrument that is chiefly responsible for the housing crisis.”

His prescription is to abolish the post-war Town and Country Planning Act, including the green belt.

“It’s certainly a relic of a bygone era and doesn’t reflect the needs of today.”

A planning system that boosts the UK’s competitiveness will become more important once the UK withdraws from the European Union, he adds: “If we are going to succeed after Brexit, planning is going to be one of the things that we are going to have to deal with.”

But many in the planning world see this analysis,

D EC E MB ER 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER p28_31_Under Pressure.indd 29

29

21/11/2016 11:49

T H E P O LI T I C S O F P L A N N I N G

PLANNING SERVICES UNDER PRESSURE however popular it may be in government circles, as too simplistic. Harris describes the analysis of planning as “quite partial”.

“It tends to be based on a very simple view of the market, which is that the more freedom markets are given, the more efficiently they will operate and deliver development. You can see how that’s not the case.”

Hague agrees: “It’s a neo-classical model of how markets would be in equilibrium if the market was perfect, but we all know there isn’t a perfect market.”

Although this vision may work in textbooks, he says it doesn’t take account of the practicalities of development, such as availability of materials and ensuring a sufficient pipeline of labour over the lifetime of a project.

“No builder with a consent for 500 homes on a site will start building 500 homes the next morning. Just reducing it to planners stopping things is a nonsense.”

Access to house purchase finance is another factor that the neo-classical economic models fail to factor in, says Burton: “If people can’t afford housing, increasing the supply of land won’t solve the problem.”

46%

Change in budgeted spend for planning and development in single-tier authorities and country councils from 2010-11 to 2013-14

24%

Change in budgeted spend for planning and development in district councils from 2010-11 to 2013-14

4%

Planning and development as a share of total local authority spend in 2010

14%

Share of savings in local government from 20102014 – proportionally higher than any other service Source: National Audit Office Local Government Report November 2014

The impact of reform The evidence of the past few years backs up the case that planning reform alone cannot be the silver bullet for remedying the country’s housing undersupply.

There has been an increase in the volume of planning consents since the introduction of reforms, notably the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2012. Ministers have been left scratching their heads, though, by figures that have shown a widening mismatch between the

“NO BUILDER WITH A CONSENT FOR 500 HOMES ON A SITE WILL START BUILDING 500 HOMES THE NEXT MORNING. JUST REDUCING IT TO PLANNERS STOPPING THINGS IS A NONSENSE”

30

number of consents delivered and the volume of homes actually built (see box).

Moreover, the number of houses built stubbornly refuses to go much above 140,000 a year, no matter what policies and reforms the government has introduced to date.

“We have had deregulation and a declining role for positive planning in bringing forward development and the housing crisis has just got worse,” says Harris.

The ASI’s Bowman agrees. “The NPPF hasn’t had a substantial impact. There wasn’t any major uptick in building after the NPPF streamlined processes.”

Speaking at the Bristol Planning Law and Policy conference in November, former Labour housing minister Nick Raynsford said the planning system was simply one part of a broad mix of forces that held back house building, however.

Policies that have removed social housing from the mix, the caution of institutional investors, the domination of the market by a small number of volume house builders, a focus on homes for owner-occupation rather than a broad range of tenures, and a failure to invest in construction skills were also limiting house building, he said.

Quod founder John Rhodes, speaking at a

T H E P LA NNER \ D EC E M B E R 2 0 1 6

p28_31_Under Pressure.indd 30

21/11/2016 11:50

T H E P O LI T I C S O F P L A N N I N G

Cornerstone Barristers planning day in early November, defended the NPPF for its “simplicity” but said ministers had undermined it with a swathe of policies at odds with the provisions of the NPPF itself. Proper enforcement of the NPPF would make a significant difference, he added.

One of the reasons why governments resort to planning reforms is that regulation is one of the few levers that a government can pull these days to increase housing supply, says Burton. “They can be seen to be doing something in a world where politicians have increasingly little power because the forces of change are not subject to national government or state intervention. They want to be seen pushing buttons even if the evidence shows that planning is marginal.”

The urge to ‘get something done’ is often compounded by most planning ministers’ desire to use the brief as a stepping-stone to more glamorous roles, observes Hague.

Not many MPs, with a few exceptions like Raynsford, enter the House of Commons with a burning ambition to hold what has traditionally been one of Whitehall’s backwater briefs, says Hague. “Most people in that portfolio are hoping to move into something else and like to be a bit macho and show they can deliver something. Most move on by the time the legislation they initiate is on the books.”

Bowman is unapologetic, though, about insisting that the government should make use of the levers at its command. “The government’s job is to do things about the things it has control over. I wish it would do more.”

The case for planning Planning authorities haven’t always made the best case for the existing system, says Clive Betts, chair of the House of Commons communities and local government select committee.

“Planners haven’t necessarily helped themselves in the years up to 2010 when there were resources around and so many local authorities didn’t get on with their local plans.”

But the profession is entitled to feel that it has had a raw deal over the last few years, he says: “They are struggling with a lot of change and not many resources.”

The planning profession has increasingly

“THE GOVERNMENT’S JOB IS TO DO THINGS ABOUT THE THINGS IT HAS CONTROL OVER. I WISH IT WOULD DO MORE”

recognised though that it’s not just good enough to indulge in what Boris Johnson would no doubt label a ‘whingorama’.

Planners haven’t traditionally been that good at speaking up for themselves, says Betts: “Planners are sometimes not very good at coming forward and making a case that they are there to create a better world.”

This where the RTPI has recently stepped into with its programme of research designed to show the value of planning in helping to shape markets and promote growth.

Harris says: “We think it’s important to build up an evidence base for policymakers and practitioners about the contribution planning can make.”

“Planning can strengthen markets for developers to produce better outcomes and better quality development,” he says, such as providing developers with certainty that they can build in a certain location.

Planning can also cut the risks for developers embarking on projects in potentially marginal locations, such as by finding ways to lay on public transport that will make them more accessible. He gives as an example the Birmingham Municipal Housing Trust, an initiative by the city council that develops in parts of the UK’s second city that private developers normally shun.

But getting this message across in the current political climate is an uphill struggle. But there may be hopeful signs.

Both the RTPI’s chief executive Trudi Elliott (interviewed elsewhere in this issue) and the TCPA’s interim chief executive Hugh Ellis have hinted that positive noises about planning are coming out of Theresa May’s government.

As this piece was written, both were hopeful that the forthcoming housing white paper would mark an advance in positive, planning-friendly policies to resolve the housing crisis.

It would be a step forward, perhaps, but there is still a very long way to go before planning can be considered to be rehabilitated.

D EC EMB E R 2 0 1 6 / THE PLA NNER p28_31_Under Pressure.indd 31

31

21/11/2016 11:50

E N V I R O N M E N TA L A S S E S S M E N T

CHANGE? p32-35 Sea1.indd 32

21/11/2016 11:51

CONTROVERSIAL REFORMS SUGGESTED BY A GOVERNMENT PANEL TO SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISALS AND STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS ARE PROVOKING A BACKLASH FROM EXPERTS, FINDS HUW MORRIS

I

IMAGE | ALAMY

p32-35 Sea1.indd 33

t was created by the government with the remit to make local plans more efficient and effective. With less than a third of England with an up-to-date plan, the Local Plans Expert Group’s (LPEG’s) inquiry into local plan-making offered a compelling description of the planning system’s problems. The RTPI praised its overall recommendations for providing greater certainty to planners, particularly “allowing for judgements to be made on simpler evidence bases, and being subject to more flexible tests of soundness” by the Planning Inspectorate.

Yet nine months on, a key aspect of the LPEG’s work, on sustainability appraisal and strategic environmental assessment (SA/SEA), is under fierce challenge from a group of consultants specialising in this field. And in the light of Brexit and uncertainty over the long-term future of environmental legislation and its role in the planning system, that challenge is becoming more acute.

LPEG lambasted SA/SEA as “one of the most time-consuming aspects of plan-making”, “an industry in its own right”, “self-serving”, “capable of being adapted to any outcome”, and providing “little genuine assistance to decision-making”.

Controversially, LPEG proposed splitting SA and SEA. It said SA should be a separate audit of local plans against the National Planning Policy Framework, recommending a new test of environmental capacity while planning authorities should screen plans more robustly for SEA. Alarmed at the proposals, eight consultancies have now issued a robust rebuke to LPEG. The consultancies – AECOM, Amec Foster Wheeler, CEP, Levett-Therivel, LUC, Ramboll Environ, Steve Lees Planning and TRL supported by Oxford Brookes University – are heavyweights and have developed their own reforms (see box).

Between them they have prepared all the key English SA/SEA guidance, carried out appraisals and assessments for hundreds of national, regional, local and neighbourhood plans and run specialist courses for the RTPI. They were neither consulted on the LPEG report before

D EC E MB ER 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

33

21/11/2016 11:51

E N V I R O N M E N TA L A S S E S S M E N T

SEA is “not a panacea for ineffective planning”

its publication, nor were their responses published on relevant websites.

Riki Therivel, partner at consultants Levett-Therivel, sees a long-term threat if LPEG’s proposals gain credence. “Under the combined impact of Brexit, LPEG and the political appetite for environmental deregulation, SEA could be repealed and SA significantly watered down.

This risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”

SEA as a scapegoat The experts agree that SA/SEA has become overly cumbersome and weighted down by fear of legal challenge, but the real problem

“I WOULD NOT WANT TO JUST RELY ON SA. WHAT IS IN PLACE POST­BREXIT MUST PROVIDE A LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AT LEAST AS GOOD AS WHAT IT REPLACES”

concerns money and the nature of local plan-making.

“We need to bear in mind two things,” says AECOM associate director Alexander White. “SEA is ultimately an impact assessment tool, measuring the impact that plans have against a future baseline. It is not a panacea for ineffective planning.

“It would also be a useful exercise to actually look ‘under the hood’ at the local plan-making process to discover where the true delays and costs come from. Staff turnover, skills gaps, lack of resources and failure to cooperate between authorities and so on all contribute to an ineffective planmaking process. SA/SEA is being used as a convenient scapegoat for failures elsewhere in the planning system.”

Indeed interested parties, the consultancies point out, hire expensive lawyers to challenge all decisions that hit their bottom line. Planning authorities ensure their plans and supporting documents can repel any potential challenge, which leads to a merry-go-round of challenge and then pre-emptive paperwork.

LPEG’s move to split SA and SEA, assess SA against the NPPF and introduce an environmental capacity test will create more of the very problems it lambasts.

“No planner will want to carry out three appraisals,” says Therivel. “This would lead to more bureaucracy, not less, and create a whole new self-serving industry in its own right.”

AECOM’s White argues that sustainable development is a much discussed and contested concept with numerous definitions emerging over time. Just because a plan is deemed to comply with the NPPF does not mean it is truly sustainable given the focus of sustainable development on reducing resource use, protecting nature, and planning for long-term climate change, among other issues.

“The NPPF defines sustainable development for the

REFORMING SA/SEA: HOW SPECIALIST CONSULTANTS WOULD DO IT

Better scoping SA/SEA should focus on those effects of plans that are likely to be significant, explaining why other effects – educational standards, waste produced per capita – are not “significant”. This means not that they do not matter, but only that the plan being appraised cannot significantly influence them. The SA/SEA should clearly state what issues are scoped in and out, what the method of approach to the SA/SEA will be, and what range of options should be considered.

Strengthen the focus on reasonable alternatives This envisages a more strategic approach to considering alternatives. The focus should be on key decisions facing the planning authority. The SA/SEA should be used to identify the significant effects of the options in order to inform the decision-making process with the aim of

34

T H E PL AN N E R \ D EC E M B E R 2 0 1 6

p32-35 Sea1.indd 34

delivering the most sustainable plan. Alternatives will often need to go beyond “taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan”, a particular issue with the “duty to cooperate”.

Focus on standards, targets and cumulative impacts Many SA/SEAs are limited to assessing the impacts of individual sites and policies, without considering the impacts of the plan as a whole. Testing against environmental and social standards – for example, air and water quality or greenhouse gas reduction – would make SA/SEA more rigorous.

Standard approach A standard, agreed approach that could be adapted by plan-makers to their local conditions would help reduce the reinvention of wheels and help consultees concentrate

IMAGE | ALAMY

21/11/2016 18:09

SEA case law

purposes of planning policy based on the government of the day’s interpretation of what constitutes sustainable development Save Historic Newmarket v Forest Heath District Council, March 2011 in a planning context,” he adds.

In one of the first cases to consider the SEA Directive, Forest The consultants highlight two crucial Heath’s core strategy allocated a 1,200-home urban extension in pieces of research in support of SA/SEA. north-east Newmarket. The claimants said the extension would In the first, Amec reviewed the 18 core seriously undermine Newmarket’s status as a world-class centre strategies submitted to the government of racing excellence. They claimed the core strategy breached in 2015 and which were subject to the Directive, particularly the duty for the environmental report examination. accompanying a draft plan or programme to explain what Thirteen hearings included sessions reasonable alternatives to the proposed policies have been that considered the satisfactory considered and why they have been rejected. completion of the SA/SEA with particular The High Court found this principle was not followed, ruling it attention given to reasonable alternatives was not possible from the environmental report accompanying the draft plan for the public to know the reasons for rejecting and site selection. In one instance, in any alternatives to the urban extension or to the amount of Cornwall, the inspector asked for the core development proposed. The court backed the claimants. strategy to be withdrawn because of the SA and the consideration of significant adverse landscape effects. Of the remaining five core strategies, three were specifically asked to criticise appraisal and assessments. withdrawn owing to concerns raised over Objectively Simon Marsh, head of sustainability for the Royal Assessed Needs and housing provision. In the remaining Society for the Protection of Birds comments: “We all two cases no information could be found. agree that there are some problems with the practice of Hence, Amec found in 13 out of 16 core strategies SA/SEA, but I don’t agree with LPEG’s remedy, especially SEA/SA was considered at examination and was a on just relying on an audit against the NPPF. I much prefer substantial matter in 25 per cent of cases. Similarly, an the consultants’ solution and agree that guidance should Oxford Brookes University survey in 2008 of all UK local be updated. planning authorities showed that SA/SEA had led to plan “I have always thought it was unnecessary to invent changes in 79 per cent of cases, and that 50 per cent of SA, as SEA is a flexible tool. SEA is one of those pieces respondents felt that SA/SEA was an effective use of time of environmental legislation with an uncertain future and resources, with 28 per cent disagreeing and 21 per in the light of Brexit, but I would not want to just rely cent indifferent. on SA. What is in place post-Brexit must provide a level In a similar survey carried out this summer, of environmental protection at least as good as what it 67 per cent of respondents said that the benefits of SA/ replaces.”

SEA outweighed its costs, even when planners were

limited resources on the points that are distinctive and specific to each plan.

Require planners to respond to SA/SEA Draft SA/SEA reports should make clear recommendations that planners must respond to in writing in the final SA/SEA report.

Require inspectors to robustly review SA/SEA Making clear what inspectors should look for in a “sound plan” will influence practice. This should include checking that the SA/SEA provides an appropriate set of meaningful alternatives to the plan’s most important provisions, and show how these alternatives perform against appropriate standards. Inspectors should conclude whether the plan will achieve sustainability standards and be within environmental capacities, make clear recommendations

for how sustainability performance could be improved, and record whether these have been properly considered by the planning authority and either adopted, or valid reasons clearly stated why not.

A robust review will show how the plan has been changed in response to the SA/SEA and whether it has sufficient background information, data and reasoning.

Strengthen monitoring and feedback The government must reinstate the publication of annual monitoring reports which test the achievement of environmental and social standards and targets.

Updated guidance The government’s SEA guidance has not been updated since its publication in 2005.

D EC EMB E R 2 0 1 6 / THE PLA NNER

p32-35 Sea1.indd 35

35

21/11/2016 11:51

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 HOUSING XXXXXXX

Horley homes do not prejudice housing aims or strategic gap ( SUMMARY Forty-six homes have been allowed at Horley in Surrey, after an inspector judged that the scheme would not negatively impact the separation of Horley from Gatwick Airport, or prejudice Reigate and Banstead Borough Council’s ‘urban area first’ development strategy.

Plans to redevelop part of a central London underground car park into a hotel have been judged environmentally sound

COMMERCIAL

‘Underground’ London hotel is not precluded by air quality concerns ( SUMMARY Central London Investments Limited has been given the go-ahead for the change of use of part of an underground car park to a 166-room hotel on Great Russell Street in London, despite concerns about the hotel’s ventilation scheme. ( CASE DETAILS The London Borough of Camden Council’s chief concern related to the air

36

quality of the scheme. The whole of Camden borough has been declared an Air Quality Management Zone.

Inspector David Prentis noted that being underground, the proposed hotel would be entirely reliant on a mechanical ventilation system, which would ideally draw in air intake from a high level where air quality is likely to be better. But this is not an option in this case, and air intake is proposed to be taken from street level.

Despite the council’s concerns relating to the NO2 level of the available air and the need to evacuate in the event of a system failure, Prentis judged that the scheme would provide adequate environmental conditions

T H E PL AN N E R \ D EC E MB E R 2 0 1 6

p36_39_dif.indd 36

for future occupiers. He also found that the proposed impact of night-time noise from the ventilation system on the living conditions of local residents, as well as any affect on the amenity of the public realm, could be suitably managed by conditions and measures in the unilateral undertaking. ( CONCLUSION REACHED Prentis concluded that the scheme would “make effective use of an underused building in a highly accessible location”, and allowed the appeal.

Appeal Refs: APP/X5210/W/16/3147078

( CASE DETAILS While inspector John Gray accepted the merits of maintaining some form of separation between the settlement and the airport, he posited that this was something “more readily seen on a map than on the ground”.

The M23 road, a significant area of woodland and an area of open space were all said to provide visual separation, and development to the east of the appeal site was judged to prevent the scheme from constituting a significant encroachment into open countryside. Gray judged that the proposal would not undermine policy in this case.

Gray noted that the council is able to demonstrate a five-

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

28/11/2016 15:25

The communities secretary has approved two controversial housing schemes in Cheshire because of a shortfall in homes

Chapel, despite their conflict with two neighbourhood plans (NPs) ‘made’ in April.

year supply of deliverable housing land “or at least very close to it”. But he added that the core strategy housing requirement would leave a shortfall at the end of the plan period compared with the full objectively assessed need (FOAN), and that the appeal scheme would go some way to lessening this shortfall. ( CONCLUSION REACHED Although the location of the scheme would not strictly fit with the council’s “very clear ‘urban area first’ strategy” for housing delivery, Gray found that the houses provided would amount to less than four months’ supply “which is certainly not enough to prejudice the strategy”.

Satisfied with these aspects, Gray approved the appeal.

Appeal Ref: APP/L3625/W/15/3141260

HOUSING

Reporter rejects parking concerns about Stirling student scheme ( SUMMARY A 165-unit student accommodation scheme has been given the go-ahead for

the Forthside area of Stirling, after a reporter found that the sustainable location of the appeal site could justify a reduced parking provision. ( CASE DETAILS Despite recommendation for the scheme’s approval, the council’s planning and regulation panel had refused permission on the grounds that the development was of an unsuitable scale for the site, and would only supply six car parking spaces for its 208 students.

Reporter Andrew Sikes said that as the appeal site is highly accessible by car and given the perceived insufficient on-site parking, he fully appreciated the council’s concerns that the scheme could lead to on-street parking difficulties for residents, noting also that the site lies beyond the city’s controlled parking zone.

But Sikes agreed with the appellant that the site is in a highly sustainable location, being within walking and cycling distance of local amenities and with good access to public transport.

He was also satisfied that through development design and property management, including the use of tenancy agreements, the appellant would be able to exercise control over car ownership to the extent that the development

can be described as being occupied by non-car owning households. He therefore ruled the council’s requirement for 37 car parking spaces to be unnecessary. ( CONCLUSION REACHED In terms of the massing of the building, Sikes noted that planning permission is extant on the site for a seven-storey residential block. From drawings supplied by the appellant, Sikes agreed that there would be a marginal difference in height between the two schemes, and that the overall scale of the proposal had due regard for the characteristics of the site and its surroundings.

Appeal Refs: PPA-390-2049

HOUSING

NP-conflicting homes allowed to ease Cheshire East’s housing shortfall ( SUMMARY Communities secretary Sajid Javid has approved 165 homes for Sandbach and a mixed-use scheme including 190 homes for Holmes

( CASE DETAILS The Holmes Chapel appeal, made by Gladman Developments, was judged to be in conflict with the local plan and the Brereton NP chiefly because the appeal site is outside of the defined settlement limits for Holmes Chapel. But Cheshire East Council’s lack of a five-year housing land supply reduced the weight that could be given to this policy conflict.

Javid shared the inspector’s concerns about the undoubted frustration of the Brereton community should this appeal succeed, but said that “if the local plan were delivering what national policy requires, the planning balance would have been different”. He judged the scheme to have limited adverse landscape and visual impact that would be far outweighed by the sustainability of the scheme, its contribution to the “pressing need for housing” (including 30 per cent affordable homes), and the economic and social benefits of the 350 square metres of employment use.

Javid met similar issues in the Sandbach appeal, made

by Fox Strategic Land and Property Land. Despite the Abbey Road appeal site being outside of the settlement boundaries as defined in the Sandbach NP, the lack of five-year housing supply again rendered relevant housing policies out of date.

While Javid acknowledged that Sandbach is likely to provide the level of housing to 2030 currently allocated in the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, he said that this did not excuse Sandbach from its part in providing more homes in light of the current

DECEMBER 2016 / THE PLANNER p36_39_dif.indd 37

37

21/11/2016 11:52

INSIGHT

DiF { D severe shortage of housing in the district. The secretary of state judged that the housing scheme would result in limited change to the wider area and have a positive impact on a strategic gap through the inclusion of a community park, and again found the economic and social benefits of the scheme to be decisive. ( CONCLUSION REACHED But Javid refused permission for a different 200-home development at Crewe Road in Sandbach, after concluding that the scheme’s location within the Ettiley Heath and Wheelock/Sandbach strategic gap would erode the strategic gap to the extent that it would have the effect of increasing the perception of the settlements beginning to merge. He found that the configuration of the site, its extent, relationship to existing landscape features and topography were such that there would be material conflict with objectives in the Sandbach NP, and judged this to outweigh the benefits to housing supply and choice.

DECISIONS IN FOCUS ( CASE DETAILS The proposal sought to build a cinema and restaurant/café unit on top of an irregularshaped area at roof level of the Frenchgate Centre.

While inspector Jonathan Hockley accepted that the setting of train station’s listed booking hall has already been affected by the Trafford Way (a major link road), the “array of street furniture” in the vicinity and the existing shopping centre, he contended that the centre and the link road had been designed in such a way that the dominance of the station remains and can be appreciated.

By contrast, he found that the height of the proposed multiplex would erode appreciation of the symmetry of the building and erode the “laudable design” of the

current centre in relation to the station buildings.

Similarly, he judged that the cinema would further confuse the already “limited views” available of the Grand Theatre.

Hockley gave reduced weight to the council’s policies relating to heritage protection as he found they do not reflect the criteria reflected in the NPPF concerning impacts on heritage assets, but still judged that the multiplex had not be designed in such a way that respected the settings of the heritage assets. ( CONCLUSION REACHED Although he accepted that the scheme would result in a “substantial investment” into the local economy of between £10million and £15 million as well as generating 200 jobs in a very

sustainable location, Hockley judged that these public benefits did not outweigh the identified harm.

Appeal Refs: APP/F4410/W/16/3146851

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Leswalt wind farm allowed despite effect on coastal scene ( SUMMARY The development of eight wind turbines has been allowed on an area of coastal farmland east of Leswalt and west of Stranraer in Scotland, despite a reporter finding

A proposal for a roof-level cinema at Doncaster’s Frenchgate Centre has been rejected because it would erode the symmetry of the existing building

Appeal Refs: APP/R0660/W/15/3100555 / APP/ R0660/W/15/3128707 / APP/ R0660/W/15/3129235

HOUSING

Cinema refused because of listed buildings impact ( SUMMARY Permission has been refused for a multiplex cinema at the Frenchgate shopping centre in Doncaster because of the impact the building would have on the settings of Doncaster train station and an 18th-century theatre.

38

T H E PL AN N E R \ D EC E M B E R 2 0 1 6

p36_39_dif.indd 38

I M AG E S | I STO C K / A L A M Y

21/11/2016 11:53

A development of eight wind turbines has been allowed on coastal farmland west of Stranraer

that the scheme would fail to conserve the natural heritage of the area. ( CASE DETAILS Reporter David Buylla noted that Dumfries and Galloway Council was dissatisfied with the visual impact of the development from a number of locations including core paths, the Southern Upland Way, minor roads and residential properties.

It expressed particular concern about harm to views from the sea and from Killantringan lighthouse.

Bullya agreed that the scale of the proposal is incompatible with the local landscape and would result in significant adverse effects on landscape character and visual amenity. Although he also noted that it would conflict with the council’s policy IN2, which deals with wind energy development, he

found that this policy could be deemed as overly restrictive as it expects significant adverse effects to be avoided – a feat that “would be difficult for any commercial-scale wind energy proposal”.

Bullya further argued that the proposal only appears out of scale with, and harmful to, the receiving landscape in the “relatively few” locations where it can be seen, as the scheme would be largely obscured by the topography of the landscape and existing vegetation. ( CONCLUSION REACHED The visual impact of the proposal was consequently considered to be limited, and clearly outweighed by the benefits of the proposal.

These include renewable energy sufficient to power 15,500 homes, and its contribution to government targets on renewable energy.

Appeal Refs: PPA-170-2105

HOUSING

Retention of historic factory façade is ‘financially unviable’

since 2014. after it was vacated by the appellant. It was built in 1906 for the Co-operative Wholesale Society, and is considered a locally significant non-designated heritage asset.

In a previous appeal for development on this site, the inspector concluded that the conversion of the buildings for business uses would be unviable and the retention of the frontage for residential purposes would be challenging. But he found that the loss of the buildings as heritage assets was not justified owing to lack of evidence that at least part of the buildings could not be viably retained.

In the current appeal, inspector Mike Hayden accepted the appellant’s evidence that retaining just part of the building’s façade would cost £140,000, which when factored into the appellant’s viability assessment would render the residential development unviable.

As all detailed matters would be reserved, Hayden was satisfied that a suitable design could be agreed to protect the character and appearance of the area. He found that – and harm caused by the loss of the buildings – would be compensated for by the “positive contribution which could be made by a sensitively designed replacement residential development”.

( SUMMARY A 90-home scheme has been approved for Huthwaite, Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, after an inspector concluded that the retention of the façade of a former textile factory complex would be ‘financially unviable’.

( CONCLUSION REACHED Pending the imposition of planning conditions, including measures to protect species including bats, badgers and nesting birds, Hayden ruled the scheme to be acceptable.

( CASE DETAILS The factory has been disused

Appeal Refs: APP/W3005/W/16/3153990

DECEMBER 2016 / THE PLANNER p36_39_dif.indd 39

39

21/11/2016 11:53

INSIGHT

Career { D E V E L O P M E N T MOVING ON UP: HOW TO ACHIEVE PROMOTION

Everyone wants to progress within their career. But when it comes to being recognised for promotion, what are the most important attributes a planner should demonstrate?

Martha Harris asks the experts Time is of the essence Dr Wei Yang, founder of Wei Yang & Partners, says that time management was essential to building a good reputation when she began her career.

“I always kept my promises to other team members, project managers, directors and clients. Whenever I had a task, big or small, and I agreed a time scale, I always delivered good-quality work within the time agreed.”

Being a team player also demonstrates commitment to the bigger picture, says Yang. “If I finished my task on time, I would offer to help others so that we had a good overall outcome for a project.”

Be enthusiastic Andrew Close, the RTPI’s head of careers, education and professional development, says planners should possess skills that include “being proactive, problem solving, seeing the bigger picture and summarising complex issues in an easier-tounderstand way”.

Beyond these, “enthusiasm and interest always shine through”.

Yang agrees that maintaining a personal interest in the profession is key. “It is important to be aware of the bigger picture beyond your day-to-day job – then it is possible to identify the gaps [in your company’s provision] and suggest where you could make an additional contribution.”

Keep on the learning curve Demonstrating a hunger for learning will show that you are keen to progress, 40

T H E P L AN N E R \ D EC E M B E R 2 0 1 6

p40_41_career_dev.indd 40

says Close. “Don’t be afraid to ask questions of your employer, as university can’t be expected to teach you everything you’ll need to know about a planning application.”

The RTPI has a number of resources to help boost planners’ knowledge: “Keep up to speed with policy changes by subscribing to RTPI bulletins and networks. Local CPD events are also a great source of information, and an opportunity to network with other planners.”

Trust your judgement It can be tempting to be amenable when you are trying to endear yourself to colleagues and clients, but maintaining your professional integrity is more important, according to Yang.

“Having the client’s trust helps a lot – but I make sure to honour my own judgement. If I disagree with a client, I tell them, and justify my reasons why.”

She continues: “Don’t be afraid of your clients; in the end, they will appreciate your honesty.”

Soft skills vs hard skills How important is workplace etiquette in aiding promotion?

Andrew Close says that for early career planners, good soft skills are essential. “Basic office skills such as getting to work on time and having a good telephone manner should be at the top of a graduate’s list of things to demonstrate on a CV or at interview, alongside knowing the technical detail and being able to produce succinct reports,” he stresses.

I M AG E S | I STO C K

21/11/2016 11:53

+

Q&A: ADELE MAHER Adele Maher is strategic planning manager and director of development and renewal at the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

Q: Any tips for novice planners?

A: Know your value and be bold in your requests. There are many opportunities out there for planners in the early to mid-stages of their career, and having good planners in place is worth its weight in gold to an organisation. If they want to keep you and your knowledge you could use this in negotiations with management, where reasonable, to secure the role in the project you want, to secure training, or to help secure a promotion.

Q: How did you achieve promotion?

A: It helps to be goal-focused.

Identify an important project you want to be involved in, ideally one that can successfully be achieved within a two-year window. Your involvement provides a great example of your commitment and

“Seeking out work experience as part of a planning course can be a good way to observe and practice these employability skills.”

Don’t worry about the short term Yang, who was promoted four times in seven years at a major planning consultancy before starting her own practice, says planners shouldn’t worry about chasing short-term gains.

“When you become an invaluable member of an organisation, promotion will come to you,” she says.

“I never worried about short-term promotions – I just did my job properly, to the best quality I could.”

But, she says, having a long-term career plan is very important.

“Don’t be afraid to show your ambition, as it is important for people to be aware of what you are striving for professionally. But be very patient, and do even the simplest jobs properly.

People need to see your commitment.”

Yang urges planners to make the most of their company’s annual review,

motivation to see a project through from start to finish.

Put yourself forward. Be open and enthusiastic to try new things and get involved. Early in your career there are benefits of taking a ‘why not’ attitude, including putting yourself forward to support colleagues or teams in or outside your service.

Q: Any advice you’ve been given that helped you? · Don’t be afraid to take calculated risks. You have room early in your career to try different things. · If you have a specific career path in mind but currently have gaps in your skills and experience, target shorter-term projects that can help you fill these deficits. · Being out of your depth sometimes is the best way to learn; embrace the challenge. Show innovation, show drive, show leadership, but also ask for help and advice from your more experienced colleagues to help guide your way. practical.

“A LOT CAN BE LEARNT FROM ARCHITECTS, ECOLOGISTS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, ARCHAEOLOGISTS, TRANSPORT ENGINEERS, AND EVEN POLITICIANS”

which is “a great opportunity to review your professional development plan”.

“Think about the additional training that you want to do or conferences that you want to attend, agree them with your manager, and make sure you have these in writing.”

How early on should you specialise?

It depends on you, but gaining varied experience at the beginning of your career will “stand you in good stead”, says Close.

“It will help you consider what area you may want to specialise in, whether additional training would help, and

Andrew Close is head of careers, education and professional development at the RTPI, leading its education, accreditation, careers, lifelong learning and professional ethics functions Adele Maher is strategic planning manager & director of development & renewal at the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and a freelance urban design consultant Wei Yang is founder of Wei Yang & Partners, which handles an international portfolio of town and country planning, master planning, urban design and architectural projects

even open up opportunities to move between private and public sectors.”

Yang says that new planners should also make an effort to learn from other professions.

“A lot can be learnt from architects, ecologists, landscape architects, archaeologists, transport engineers, and even politicians.

“Planning deals with all these aspects, so it is important to appreciate their point of view so that you can develop good communication, and can reflect everybody’s interests within your own judgement.” n RTPI resources Advice on CV writing, job hunting and professional development can be found here: www.rtpi.org.uk/careers The RTPI’s report on employability can be found here: tinyurl.com/planner1216RTPIemployability More careers advice can be found on the Planner Jobs website: jobs.theplanner.co.uk/careers/

D EC E MB ER 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER p40_41_career_dev.indd 41

41

21/11/2016 11:54

INSIGHT

LLegal landscape HEATHROW EXPANSION: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? The government’s approval of a proposal for a third runway at Heathrow is just the start of a lengthy planning process in which little can be taken for granted, says Bond Dickinson’s Kevin Gibbs The lengthy debate around airport expansion in the South-East has finally moved on with the government giving the go-ahead to build an additional third runway at Heathrow, the second busiest airport in the world.

The decision has triggered many reactions and has left many questions unanswered, including what happens next?

The answer lies, in part, in the Planning Act 2008. This legislation was approved by the Labour administration following the 17 years it took to give Heathrow’s Terminal 5 the go-ahead in the 1990s.

The act’s purpose is to provide a robust but speedy system to grant all the consents and land rights needed to implement Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs).

Consents for such projects are determined by independent planning inspectors based on designated National Policy Statements (NPSs). NPSs are designated by Parliament following statutory consultation that can take up to a year, or possibly longer.

On 25 October, the government released an announcement to confirm that a draft NPS will be published next year, which would set

42

out the reasons why the government believes that the third runway for the scheme is needed and is the right one for the UK. The draft NPS is likely to highlight the benefits this would have on the economy, employment and tourism.

Critically, the NPS will also provide the detailed guidance against which an airport NSIP will be determined. The announcement also confirmed that there will be public consultation on the draft NPS proposals as required by law.

In addition, a ‘Statement of Principles’ between Heathrow Airport and the transport secretary indicates that the government could designate the NPS “by 31 July 2017”.

But following designation, all National Policy Statements are subject to a six-week

Kevin Gibbs period during which a legal challenge may be brought.

If this was to happen here, a challenge would unlikely be disposed of before the end of 2017/early 2018. But the government is likely to have already factored into the timetable any potential challenges.

All being well (and absent further challenge) this would then allow Heathrow Airport to bring forward its application for the development consent order (DCO) from 2018.

Allowing for about 18 months for approval to be achieved then, if all goes well, the scheme could be approved by 2020/2021, and therefore in

“IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE DRAFT NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENT WILL COMPLETELY CLOSE THE DOOR ON OTHER AIRPORTS, SUCH AS GATWICK, TO PROMOTE A DCO”

line with the operator’s target to deliver by 2026. The next general election is in 2020, so one can expect that it is likely to be the transport secretary in the next Parliament who will determine the DCO. Until the NPS is drafted, there remains a degree of uncertainty. But it is unlikely that the draft will completely close the door on other airports, such as Gatwick, to promote a DCO in accordance with the finally designated NPS. Although it is the government that provides guidance, it will be the market that responds.

We know, for instance, that Gatwick Airport has had early pre-application meetings with the Planning Inspectorate. Also Gatwick’s CEO Stuart Wingate has spoken out recently on the issue, stating that Gatwick is at least 15 years ahead of the Airports Commission’s forecast of where they would be. He also strongly reaffirmed its commitment to the expansion of Gatwick Airport, stating that a new runway at Gatwick is needed regardless to what happens at Heathrow.

In the months and years ahead parliamentary, legal and planning challenges can be expected, although the formation of the Planning Court in 2014 should mean that these challenges are heard fairly swiftly given the significance of any dispute.

Opposition from MPs can also be expected during Parliamentary scrutiny of the draft NPS. The government will need to be vigilant in defending the scheme to receive the final stamp of approval.

Kevin Gibbs is planning and infrastructure partner at law firm Bond Dickinson LLP, which is a member of the Airport Operators Association

T H E P L AN N E R \ D EC E MB E R 2 0 1 6

p42-43_LegalLandscape.indd 42

21/11/2016 11:54

LATEST POSTS FROM THEPLANNER.CO.UK/BLOGS

B LO G S Speakers at the Bristol Planning Law and Policy Conference discussed the housing white paper and agreed that a new era of house building is needed – one that overcomes past mistakes

HIGH COURT: ST IVES SECOND H O M E P O LI C Y L A W F U L

Mix of tenures needed to reboot house building, says Raynsford Simon Wicks

A “broad-based” programme of house building accommodating a range of tenures and incomes is necessary to solve the housing crisis, says Nick Raynsford, former Labour housing and planning minister.

Speaking at the Bristol Planning Law and Policy Conference, Raynsford and other speakers from across the built environment outlined measures they would like to see implemented.

In particular, there was broad agreement that the government’s new housing white paper should address: • The need to look beyond owneroccupation to enable investment in a range of tenures; • Investment in construction skills; • Land value capture so communities can benefit from development; • Large-scale development, ideally new towns; • Better mechanisms for land release and assembly; and • Local planning and NPPF issues that can delay development – particularly the failure of the duty to cooperate.

In a keynote speech, Raynsford outlined

a century of house building to identify why the volume of homes built had declined so badly.

The big fall was due to government policies that had switched off local authority building and promoted homes as investments, he said.

Ironically, this had led to a decline in owneroccupation by creating an “army” of small landlords who turned owner-occupied homes into privately rented homes.

While supporting a return to social house building, Raynsford said lessons from the past had to be learned to avoid the social segregation that characterised an earlier era of council house building. “It’s a curious irony that at the time we were building the most homes, we were doing it in ways that reinforced social segregation… There was rarely a mix of tenure and this was a curious aberration from the pattern of history.”

Raynsford wanted a focus on: • Mixed tenures in schemes, especially via build to rent; • The restoration of the grant to housing associations, • Urban densification; • Investment in construction skills; • New settlements with local support; • Some green belt redesignation; and • A return to strategic planning.

“It’s about planning in the proper sense… for

the needs of the future and communities, and not just development control,” he said.

The TCPA’s interim CEO Hugh Ellis argued for fresh new towns legislation in the white paper, calling for new development corporations to manage the process.

He suggested that they could deliver what the NPPF could not.

“It deals more effectively with issues such as land assembly than the private sector can,” he said.

Ellis hoped the white paper would mark a total shift in thinking on housing and community building.

“What we need is an entirely different narrative, not purely about economics… that engages people about their future.

Cristina Howick, partner of Peter Brett Associates, said she hoped the white paper would signal a return to larger-than-local planning. The NPPF was working well in terms of allocating land, but the journey from allocation to delivery was too long.

She called for “faster, better local planning”, leading to everywhere having a post-NPPF local plan.

Howick wanted local government reform and a two-tier system of strategic and local planning, as there were too many councils in England. She also said reform of land and property taxation was necessary to remove the incentive to “overconsume” housing.

The High Court has found a policy in the St Ives Neighbourhood Plan that prohibits new dwellings being used as second homes to be lawful.

The town’s neighbourhood plan will be the first in the UK to require new homes to be occupied as a person’s ‘principal residence’, a measure designed to decrease the proportion of holiday homes in St Ives, according to Cornerstone Barristers, which defended the plan on behalf of Cornwall Council.

In May, residents in St Ives voted to ban the building of second homes through a policy in its neighbourhood plan.

The plan states that the aim of the proposal is to “safeguard the sustainability of the settlements in the St Ives Neighbourhood Development Plan area, whose communities are being eroded through the amount of properties that are not occupied on a permanent basis”.

Mr Justice Hickinbottom heard that the claimant, private developer RLT Built Environment Ltd, sought to challenge the making of the neighbourhood plan on the basis that there had been inadequate consideration of reasonable alternatives to the plan’s policies, contrary to the Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) Directive.

The developer argued that increasing the amount of available market housing for local people to buy was a “reasonable alternative” to the proposal in the plan.

The High Court rejected this because the policy “was not merely to make more housing available to local people but rather to reduce the proportion of second homes” in the town, said Cornerstone.

The developer also argued that the “principal residence requirement” was an unjustified interference with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), that being the right to a home, which would be enjoyed by future occupiers of dwellings subject to restriction.

It was noted that while the Article 8 rights of a future occupier of a dwelling subject to the second home proposal might be interfered with (if for example, unforeseen circumstance meant the occupier had to move away from St Ives), this did not mean that the policies themselves breached Article 8 ECHR. Justice Hickinbottom said he considered the policy to be in “pursuit of legitimate public interests identified in Article 8, namely the interests of the economic well-being of the country, and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

He therefore granted permission to proceed with the policy.

Edwina Hannaford, cabinet member for planning, Cornwall Council, said: “This is a hugely important judgement for Cornwall, St Ives Town Council, and for the residents of St Ives who wanted to ensure that any new homes in the town would be the resident’s sole or main residence.”

RLT Built Environment Ltd v Cornwall Council [2016] EWHC 2817 (Admin) can be found on the Cornerstone Barristers website (pdf) here: tinyurl.com/planner1216-cornerstone-stives

D EC EMB E R 2 0 1 6 / THE PLA NNER

p42-43_LegalLandscape.indd 43

43

21/11/2016 11:54

NEWS

RTPI {

RTPI news pages are edited

by Josh Rule at the RTPI, 41 Botolph Lane, London EC3R 8DL

Enforcement officers ‘unsung heroes’, conference hears NAPE ANNUAL REPORT 2016

Planning enforcement is one of the “most effective” services that councils provide, and enforcement officers are the “unsung heroes” of the planning system, delegates were told at a planning enforcement conference.

The annual National Association for Planning Enforcement (NAPE) conference heard from a range of experts who delivered advice to improve the effectiveness of planning enforcement.

The event marked the network’s 10th anniversary. Dave Westhead, NAPE chair, spoke about the history of the network and planning enforcement. He told delegates: “Planning enforcement is as complicated as ever, but this conference provides a valuable update and enables officers to have more confidence carrying out their day-to-day role.”

Janet Askew, RTPI immediate past president, said: “Planning enforcement officers are the unsung heroes of the planning system.”

She stressed that integrity in and credibility of the planning system needed to be maintained through enforcement, which officers underpin.

‘Good planning means good regulation’ was a theme explored by Leanne Buckley-Thomson of 12 College Place Barristers, who presented the wellknown Kestrel Hydro case. She touched upon the use of “dual use” in this case at the Court of Appeal and discussed the

44

importance of considering the public interest as well as the landowner’s interest when legal actions are looked at.

Kristen Read and Stephen Humphreys, both from Burges Salmon, told delegates that conversations between development management and enforcement “need to be had”, while Alex Greaves of Francis Taylor Building provided a detailed session on objecting to the grant of Lawful Development Certificates (LDCs) and their particularisation.

Charles Streeten of Francis Taylor Building discussed the impact of Brexit on planning enforcement. He said there would be a shift in emphasis with regard to environmental law, which could put the onus on planning enforcement officers when considering expediency.

During the workshops Felicity Thomas, 12 College Place, and Neil Whitaker, Ivy Legal, spoke about getting planning enforcement right and direct action, respectively.

The sold-out event was sponsored by 12 College Place Barristers, Francis Taylor Building, and Burges Salmon, which hosted the conference at its Bristol offices.

RTPI NAPE members can hear for free the experts’ advice on improving the effectiveness of planning enforcement. n For information about NAPE and presentations from the conference: tinyurl.com/planner1216-nape

Enforcement officers are the front line of the planning service and are often the public face balancing the expectations of councillors and the public against the reality of what we can do – often in challenging situations.

This year we celebrate 10 years of NAPE. From small beginnings, NAPE has grown into one of the RTPI’s most active networks with a membership of more than 800, leading on and responding to consultations and dealing directly with the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and other government departments.

In that time the changes in enforcement have been massive; gone are documents like PPG18 and 10/97, replaced by the Framework and guides. It is thanks to NAPE that enforcement was included in the Framework and it has worked with DCLG to produce the guide to enforcement as well as contributing to others.

The past 10 years have seen the introduction of new powers including Planning Enforcement Orders in England, and across the nations enforcement has been at the forefront of change – from the review in Wales and the introduction of new powers in Scotland to the devolution of enforcement from the Department of Environment to councils in Northern Ireland. All this has been done against a backdrop of reduced local government spending.

Enforcement officers have taken these changes in their stride while still providing an effective service.

NAPE will continue to raise the profile of those in enforcement and make sure that its role and responsibility are recognised.

This is an edited version of the NAPE Annual Report presented at the annual conference

T H E P L AN N E R \ D EC E M B E R 2 0 1 6

p44_47_RTPI_news.indd 44

21/11/2016 11:55

Editorial E: rtpinews@rtpi.org.uk

RTPI (switchboard) T: 020 7929 9494

Registered charity no.

262865 Registered charity in Scotland SCO37841

3 POINT PLAN A planner explains how they would change the Scottish planning system

Pam Ewen SENIOR MANAGER PLANNING FIFE COUNCIL How we truly integrate new development with new infrastructure is one of the most talked-about issues, but as a country we still ‘ooh and aah’ at what planners achieve in countries such as the Netherlands and Germany. The need for new infrastructure is understood within planning, but we need to have more delivery through the planning system to achieve defined outcomes.

Development plans should provide more certainty to communities and investors. They should be much more of a corporate plan linked with community planning. Legislative change is needed to simplify, streamline and strengthen development plans. Scotland’s National Planning Framework should be enhanced identifying housing land requirements and where change is needed. Separate plans and strategies for planning, transportation and economy should be a thing of the past.

Scottish planning fees with a maximum of £20k (exc. minerals/waste apps) need to be increased to better reflect the cost of determining applications. An increase could be phased, but an increase is needed quickly to assist in properly resourcing planning authorities.

YOUR INSTITUTE, YOUR QUESTIONS We are keen to encourage non-member planners to apply for Chartered membership.

What options will they have from next year?

JANE JONES TECHRTPI, RTPI CYMRU MANAGEMENT BOARD MEMBER

KEITH THOMAS FRTPI, MEMBER OF THE ROUTES TO MEMBERSHIP PROJECT WORKING GROUP

1 Integrate infrastructure delivery timeously with new development to achieve outcomes

2 Development plans which have a long­ term strategy, simplified, strengthened and corporate prepared and delivered through increased collaboration

3 In Scotland, increase planning fees substantially to better reflect the cost of assessing and determining applications

POSITION POINTS

CLOSER TO HOME IPPR North’s report Closer To Home sets out the big housing challenges facing the new wave of ‘metro mayors’ set to be elected for the first time in May 2017.

The RTPI argues that devolution can play a key role in incentivising a whole wider range of issues within planning and development as we have recommended in our Strategic Planning Paper and to the Local Plans Expert Group. It would provide a much greater incentive for city regions and counties to cooperate in meeting housing need across their areas and would unlock greater housing delivery as local residents could assure themselves that critical infrastructure would actually be delivered to support housing.

From January 2017 there will be three routes to Chartered membership.

While the destination is the same for all routes, the choice of route depends on candidates’ educational background (including those without a degree) and experience. For consistency all routes are competency-based. They are: b Licentiate Assessment of Professional Competence (L-APC): existing route. For those who graduated from an RTPI-accredited degree in 2005 or later. b Associate Assessment of Professional Competence (A-APC): for Associates to progress to Chartered membership. b Experienced Practitioner Assessment of Professional Competence (EP-APC): for experienced planners to apply directly for Chartered membership.

The New Urban Agenda is an action-oriented document that will set global standards of achievement in sustainable urban development, rethinking the way cities are built, managed, and lived in through cooperation with committed partners, relevant stakeholders, and urban actors at all levels of government as well as the private sector. At the Habitat III conference the RTPI made it clear that none of this will be achieved without planning. This document goes to the heart of what it is to be a planner. The institute has argued that if we don’t sufficiently invest in planning to implement it and the climate change agreements, then the global consequences will be severe.

n www.rtpi.org.uk/routes-to-membership/

n https://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda

n Report: tinyurl.com/planner1216-ipprnorth

THE NEW URBAN AGENDA

D EC E MB ER 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER p44_47_RTPI_news.indd 45

45

21/11/2016 11:55

n

NEWS

RTPI {

NEW MEMBERS

CHARTERED MEMBERS ELECTED JULY­SEPTEMBER 2016

RTPI BRANCH TOASTS PAST Congratulations to our newly elected Chartered Members between July-September 2016

RTPI Yorkshire celebrates 50 years since its creation STAN DRIVER, HON TREASURER, RTPI YORKSHIRE What happened in 1966? b b b b b b

England won the World Cup Miniskirts were in fashion Chairman Mao launched China’s Cultural Revolution The first episode of Star Trek was shown The Beatles were top of the charts The Yorkshire Branch of the RTPI was created Halifax in 1966

The Yorkshire Branch of the then Town Planning Institute was one of three branches formed when the North of England Division was broken up to form more manageable areas corresponding with the government’s standard regions.

The first chairman was Richard Bellhouse, city engineer and planning officer of the City of York, while the West Riding provided the vice-chairman, Leslie Fraser, the honorary secretary, Ken Whincup, and the honorary treasurer, Phil Robinson.

Although few records of the branch’s early years remain in existence, it is known that seminars, social events and an annual dinner were held in most years, together with a weekend school at Grantley Hall near Ripon. Unfortunately, the latter ended in 1973 after a late returner from the local village pub succeeded in pulling down the ivy on the hall in trying to climb up to his room, resulting in the RTPI being banned.

In the late 1960s an unprecedented surge in planning projects resulted in cooperation between planners across the county. Pedestrianisation and motorways, shopping centres, housing and industrial estates were planned and built. Lifelong friendships were created and instead of being part of an amorphous conglomeration for administrative convenience, planners hereabouts loudly and proudly proclaimed, “We are Yorkshire!”

Membership grew further on local government reorganisation in 1974 and the branch boundary changed in 1975 to correspond to the revised Yorkshire and Humber Region. By 1976 there were 755 members of the branch, compared with 1,400 today.

46

“Many congratulations to all of our new Chartered Members. Employers rightly recognise the hallmark of professional expertise and integrity conferred by charter status. Being a chartered member of the RTPI makes you part of a community at the forefront of planning” – Phil Williams, RTPI president.

Darren Abberley Lorna Aird Papiya Alam Alexis Anderson-Jones Laura Archer Dean Atwell Duncan Ayles Shane Baker Chloe Ballantine Julie Barrow Harriet Beattie Nicholas Beedie Jonathon Behan Nigel Blazeby Adam Brennan Christopher Brown Karsten Brussk Niall Byrne Timothy Byrne Richard Carruthers Michael Chao-Jung Chang Victoria Chase Eimear Jane Cheetham Chui Ying Cheung Giuseppe Cifaldi Kelsey Collins Alison Conmee Mark Cooke Helen Courtney Jessica Crellen Christine Dadswell Alicia Dawson Adam Day Marthinus Arnoldus de Lange Viral Desai Naomi Doughty Conor Doyle Camilla Duckworth Kathryn Dunne Benjamin Eiser Tanja El Sanadidy Jade Ellis Fiona Elton Rachael Evans Thérèse Finn Sheron French Jenny Fryer Carla Fulgoni Shaun Gaffey Trudy Gallagher Nicola Gandy

James Gibbs Naomi Gibson Emma Gladstone Hannah Godley Alice Goodall Max Goode Christopher Gowlett David Grimshaw James Guthrie Christopher Hall Lauren Hawksworth Hannah Hayden Luke Herring Dominic Holding Lucy Howes Charlotte Hutchison Daniel Ingram Sarah Isherwood Isobel Jackson Craig Jardine Stephen Jay Clare Johnson Virginia Evelyn Johnson Sarah Jones Eilian Wyn Jones Lauren Judson William Kennedy Hamish Lampp Julian Ling Sophie Locke Edwin Wei Jung Loo Sarah Lowe Hannah Lucitt Helen Lucocq Vincent Lynch Anne Lynch Sonia MacDonald Mairi Maciver Damian Manhertz Richard McBride Gavin McGill Phillip McIntosh Ross McMahon Jacqueline McParland Nina Miles James Millard Jon Millhouse Louise Moody Guy Munden Georgina Murray Tanusha Naidoo James Newton Graham Northern

Heather Overhead Charlotte Palmer Sneha Pankhania Rhiannon Parrett Rosie Peniston David Pickford Jonathan Pickthall Robert Piggott Henry Primarolo Sarah Pyne Ian Radcliffe Marijke Ransom Natasha Rault Rebecca Redford Mared Rees Paul Reeves Richard Regan Harriet Richardson Craig Roberts Richard Robinson Charlotte Self Nina Sharp Adele Shaw Anna Sinnott Daniel Starkey David Stengel Jacob B Stentiford Lucy Sumner Eleanor Suttie Craig Swankie Ralph Taylor Iona Thomas Michelle Thomson Baljinder Tiwana Daniel Trundle Pui Lam Tse Jessica Voorn Kathryn Waldron Jenny Walters Rachael Watts James White Maria White Angharad Williams Elisabeth Williams David Wilson Evelyn Wilson Harriette Wood David Wright Agnieszka Aleksandra Zimnicka

T H E PL AN N E R \ D EC E MB E R 2 0 1 6

p44_47_RTPI_news.indd 46

21/11/2016 11:55

RTPI Y ACTIVIT E PIPELIN Current RTPI work – what the Institute is doing and how you can help us LAST CHANCE TO ENTER THE RTPI AWARDS FOR PLANNING EXCELLENCE 2017 The most sought-after accolades of the planning industry, the RTPI Awards for Planning Excellence continue to recognise and reward outstanding, cuttingedge achievements by the best in the profession. Choose from our 14 projects, teams and people categories and enter by Friday 9 December.

The winners will be announced to an audience of around 500 built environment professionals in London on 15 June 2017 in London.

For the first time, all categories are completely free to enter.

n Enter here: www.rtpi.org.uk/ape2017

SAVE THE DATE FOR FOR THE 2017 PLANNING CONVENTION: DELIVERING A STRONG, INCLUSIVE FUTURE The past 12 months have seen dramatic changes in the political climate. The government has a new agenda to tackle the escalating housing crisis and, on a global scale, Habitat 3’s New Urban Agenda readdresses the way we build, manage, and live in cities.

On 21 June 2017, expert speakers from around the world will come together at the Planning Convention to address the question ‘How can planners contribute to building a stronger, inclusive and sustainable future for all?’

From devolution and housing, to smart and sustainable planning, our packed programme will offer delegates the opportunity to hear from key influencers in the industry, learn from each other, network, discuss, debate and find creative solutions to the most pressing problems facing the profession.

n Pre-register at: www.planningconvention.co.uk

2017 SUBSCRIPTION DETAILS Members will now have received their RTPI subscription for 2016.

Subscriptions are due for renewal on 1 January annually. There will be no increase in rates next year. As Europe’s largest institute for the profession, the RTPI continually looks for ways to improve and enhance its value to members by providing an array of careers advice and guidance, support in gaining chartered status, events, conferences, awards and networking opportunities.

You can spread the cost by setting up a direct debit for payment in equal quarterly instalments. You can also opt to pay online by credit or debit card.

You may qualify for a reduced subscription fee if you are on a low income or if you started maternity leave during the previous calendar year.

n If you have any queries email subscriptions@rtpi.org.uk, or phone 020 7929 9463

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT GOVERNMENT POLICY ON TRANSPORT OR INCLUSIVE GROWTH The RTPI responds to government consultations throughout the year and is always interested to hear from members.

The Department for Transport is seeking views on proposed changes to the estimation of wider economic impacts in transport appraisal guidance (WebTAG). If you would like to help inform our response, please email james. harris@rtpi.org.uk by 12 December 2016, quoting your membership number.

The RSA Inclusive Growth Commission is seeking views on how to create more resilient, dynamic and inclusive local economies. If you would like to help inform our response, email joseph.kilroy@rtpi.org.uk by 14 December, quoting your membership number.

n More information about current and previous consultations: http://rtpi.org.uk/knowledge/consultations/

RTPI SHORTS

ISOBEL BRUUN­KIAER WINS RTPI GEORGE PEPLER INTERNATIONAL AWARD Isobel Bruun-Kiaer, climate change adviser for the Town and Country Planning Association, has been awarded the RTPI George Pepler International Award bursary grant of £2,000 towards a research trip in New Zealand.

Isobel’s submission on ‘Building the path to climate resilience in Tauranga, New Zealand: Exploring the role of spatial planning’ was selected from an extremely strong field of entries.

For the first time, the winner will be sharing observations during her trip in 2017 via social media in a live diary of the visit before publishing a report of her findings.

Isobel said: “I am delighted that my submission, ‘Building the path to climate resilience in Tauranga, New Zealand: Exploring the role of spatial planning’, was selected by the judges to win the George Pepler International Award. The challenge of reconciling rapid urban growth with planning for climate change is paramount to the future of cities around the world, and I am looking forward to exploring this issue in Tauranga and to sharing my findings with the RTPI network.”

Keep up to date with Isobel’s project by following #RTPIGeorgePepler

n For more information see: tinyurl.com/planner1216-pepleraward

CHIEF EXECUTIVE: 13 THINGS I LEARNED AT HABITAT III RTPI chief executive Trudi Elliott has written about the Habitat III Conference, which she attended as a part of the team from the institute. This is a condensed version of her blog on the 13 things she learned.

(1) We are all planners now (2) The reality of rapid urbanisation is even more dramatic in practice than in theory (3) We are dealing with 21st century challenges with 20th century governance and legal frameworks (indeed, 19th century sometimes) (4) ‘Smart cities’ is a contested concept (5) Genuinely affordable housing is a challenge for everyone – but the challenge varies greatly (6) Land and infrastructure are critical (7) Climate change is increasingly linked to quality of life and resilience (8) You cannot ignore finance and economic models and tools (9) Diversity matters (10) It matters that we engage with the humanitarian sector on supporting humanitarian action (11) The cumulative UK presence was effective (12) International planning organisations can get their act together (13) The future starts now and it is about all of us

n Read the full blog here: tinyurl.com/planner1216-habitat3

D EC E MB ER 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

p44_47_RTPI_news.indd 47

47

21/11/2016 11:56

ADVERTISEMENTS

Recruitment { Planning of·cer

Salary: Grade 7 to 8, £23,166 to £29,033 pa Location: Wake·eld

Planner or Senior Planner

Salary: £34000 £45000 pa Location: London

Assistant Chief Executive Division Planning Technician Salary: £17,891 £19,939 pa Location: Warwickshire

Heritage Specialist Planner Salary: £30000 £40000.00 pa + bene·ts Location: Manchester

Senior Planner (Major Apps) Experienced Planner Salary: £25,000 £30,000 pa Location: Cambridgeshire

Salary: Competitive Location: Essex

theplanner.co.uk/jobs 48

T H E P L AN N E R \ D EC E M B E R 2 0 1 6

PLANNER RECR December16.indd 48

21/11/2016 14:52

ADVERTISEMENTS

Nu-Clear Vision Copeland, is on the cusp of a massive programme of economic growth comparable with many of the UKs leading cities, but set in one of the most dramatic and beautiful locations, with two-thirds of our Borough being in the Lake District National Park.

Already established as the Centre of Nuclear Excellence and world leader in the nuclear sector, the Borough is currently the focal point for two Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects; the Moorside Nuclear Power Station and National Grid’s North West Coast Connections Project which together will create massive investment in local infrastructure, housing and community facilities.

The Moorside Power Station is set to provide energy for up to six million homes and will create thousands of skilled job opportunities through both the construction and operation of the plant. The North West Coast Connections Project will carry the power generated by Moorside and is the biggest infrastructure project ever undertaken by National Grid. Add to this the challenges presented by the on-going decommissioning of the Sellafield site, the proposals from United Utilities for their West Cumbria Water Supplies Project and plans from West Cumbria Mining for a new coking coal mine and it is clear to see that the next ten years will see massive opportunities for businesses and individuals to shape their futures.

Our growth plans are becoming our reality. We are now seeking talented and ambitious individuals who want to build their career at the same time as making a contribution to shaping the future of the Borough, and the UK.

Newark & Sherwood a Place to Grow Newark and Sherwood is located in central Noƫnghamshire, with excellent strategic transport links, making Noƫngham, Lincoln, London and the north easily accessible. The District is the largest in Noƫnghamshire and has a diverse range of planning issues, including progressing sustainable urban extensions, encouraging rural regeneraƟon, and protecƟng the area’s important heritage.

Newark & Sherwood District Council is a dynamic planning authority, with the Įrst Core Strategy and AllocaƟons DPDs in Noƫnghamshire, the Įrst Community Infrastructure Levy in England, and a programme to deliver growth in the context of a fantasƟc historic and natural environment.

PLANNER – DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PLANNER – ENFORCEMENT Permanent, Full Time. Part Time will be considered.

Previous applicants need not apply Salary NS11 - £29,854 to £31,288 p.a.

This is an opportunity to support and shape the delivery of our Development Management Business Unit within the District. The roles involve working on a range of planning applicaƟons and appeals including minor and major planning and pre-applicaƟon enquiries. This is likely to include housing schemes, renewable energy developments, and commercial/mixed use applicaƟons.

For informaƟon on the above post please contact MarƟn Russell on 01636 655837.

For full details of this vacancy and on-line applicaƟons please visit www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/vacancies or to request an applicaƟon pack e-mail personnel@nsdc.info or telephone 01636 655220.

Closing date is noon on 19 December 2016.

Interviews will be held in the week commencing 2 January 2017.

Current opportunities available: Senior Development Management Officer £30,480 – £34,196 Planning Enforcement Officer £22,434 - £25,694 Senior Planning Policy Officer £30,480 - £34,196 Nuclear Manager £37,858 – £41,551 Nuclear Officer £26,556 - £29,854 To complete an online application form and to view the job profile please visit http://www.copeland.gov.uk/content/ job-vacancies, alternatively please contact Catherine Little,, Copeland Borough Council, Catherine ne Street, Whitehaven, Cumbria, CA28 7SJ tel. 01946 598539.

539.

Closing Date for all roles: Noon 20th th January 2017

Put your signature on Hampshire

Planning Project Manager (Minerals and Waste Policy) Salary up to £43,320 pa Permanent, Full-time Location: Winchester, Hampshire

Ref: HCC2330941

We are one of the country’s leading local authorities and our ambition is to provide efficient, high quality and responsive services that meet the needs of our residents and businesses. We are taking advantage of the opportunities that a period of change can bring and building on our strong partnerships with other organisations to increase our flexibility and capacity.

The Role: As part of the Planning Policy team, you will help to manage the delivery of our statutory Minerals and Waste plan-making function and associated monitoring role, in conjunction with our partner authorities. You will also be integral in delivering our traded services contracts for other authorities. The role requires flexibility in supporting the Strategic Planning service as a whole, and creativity in exploring business opportunities and promoting partnership working.

About you: As a qualified planner, you will be able to demonstrate a strong knowledge of Minerals and Waste planning, supported by excellent communication and interpersonal skills to enable you to liaise with colleagues and Members alike.

Effective working in a political environment with the ability to identify the priorities for the service is essential, as is the ability to manage teams and projects effectively.

For an informal chat please contact Laura McCulloch (Strategic Manager – Planning) on 01962 846581 or email laura.mcculloch@hants.gov.uk The role is full-time but applications from individuals seeking flexible working arrangements are welcomed and will be considered on their merits.

To apply online, visit www.newjob.org.uk Closing Date: 6 January 2017 Diversity and inclusion form the basis of our success.

D EC E MB ER 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER PLANNER RECR December16.indd 49

49

21/11/2016 14:52

INSIGHT

Plan B P

Buildings for bikes. This isn’t going to end well.

WITH APOLOGIES TO STEVE QUARTERMAIN

I’M THE URBAN SPACE POLICEMAN

I M AG E | G E T T Y / S H U T T E RSTO C K / I STO C K

Plan B also collects interesting, unusual and absurd terminology. This month, for example, while chatting with an eminent urbanist, we heard the term “space policeman”. Our initial sense of dislocation – why had he switched topic from planning to Judge Dredd? – quickly gave way to the bemused realisation that he was talking about planners. Space policemen.

Policing space, like. Geddit?

This withering slang description at least has the virtue of some kind of wit and colour.

“Bikeitecture”, however, is an awkward portmanteau that does no favours to either cycling or architecture.

Does this word describe buildings designed to look like bicycles, or bicycles that look like buildings? Perhaps it’s buildings made of bicycles, which we’d definitely pay to see.

Alas, the truth is not so colourful: bikeitecture (or bikitecture or bik’itecture – there’s no official spelling so you can play fast and loose with this one) seems to refer to either architecture that caters specifically to the needs of cyclists, or the appreciation of architecture from the saddle of a bike (bikeitecture tours are available, apparently).

Bike-centred building doesn’t just mean, say, a bit of bike storage on the ground floor of an apartment block. Why, no. Bike part manufacturer SRAM, for example, p has internal bike lanes throughout its offi ffice in Chicago so staff can pedal from desk to desk and room to room.

There have been numerous ous proposals for apartment blocks built with h continuous

50

ramps so residents can cycle from the building entrance to their own front door. Architect and “bicycle urbanist” Steven Fleming has imagined entire neighbourhoods built on this principle for Copenhagen, a city that is to cycling what Los Angeles is to the car.

The latest addition to this flourishing genre is Cykelhuset in Malmö, Sweden (why are these things always in Scandinavia? Oh, wait – they live in the 21st century). Cykelhuset, or ‘bike house’ is opening this month and features a large bike-parking area, elevators, balconies and doors widened to accommodate bikes, a fleet of cargo bikes for the use of residents, and so on.

So there you have it. Bikeitecture: a lumpy neologism describing something that’s really quite utopian, progressive and, dare we say it, beautiful. We doubt it’ll last. “Bicycle urbanist”, on the other hand – now that’s a p profession that has legs (or wheels).

NOMINATIVE DETERMINISM PART RT 2 Some months ago, Plan B noted the occurrence of nominative determinism within planning and the other her built environment professions. ons.

It’s an abiding interest.

This month we draw your attention to the presence at a natural capital conference of Rebecca Badger of the Scottish Environment Protection

Agency, Charlotte Wood of the Environment Agency ((although E i tA lth h she ought to work for the Forestry Commission really) and Plan B’s favourites Ruth Waters and Martin Moss of Natural England.

T H E PL AN N E R \ D EC E MB E R 2 0 1 6

p50_Plan B.indd 50

A badger and some moss.

We’re really very literal here

Further F th investigation i ti ti reveals that Natural England also boasts a Tim Hill as its chief scientist.

This could be a rich seam we’ve struck. By all means send us your examples, too.

Noted screenwriter Hugh Ellis, currently moonlighting as interim chief exec of the Town and Country Planning Association, came up with the novel idea at the Bristol Planning Law and Policy Conference of appointing fellow writer Alan Bennett as chief planner for England.

His point was that, when shaping the built environment, policymakers, planners and developers had too little sensitivity to the “lived experience” of the folk who have to dwell there. Alan Bennett, on the e other hand, practically overflows with empathy and a nuanced understanding of the fine details (and disappointments) of the lives of ordinary folk.

We’re not sure what the current incumbent in the role, Steve Quartermain, thinks of the idea – but perhaps there’s a role for Bennett as a special adviser, particularly with reference to the Northern Powerhouse (or the Northern Infirmity Ward as Bennett might rename it).

Waxing loquacious as ever, the erudite Mr Ellis also referenced Thomas More’s Utopia as inspiration for planners and recalled feedback from a previous conference that simply said: “Hugh Ellis: Crap, but enthusiastic”. We beg to differ, Hugh.

n What's in a name? Tweet us - @ThePlanner_RTPI 21/11/2016 11:56

specialists in:

ώ Planning ώ Environmental ώ Property ώ Compulsory Purchase ώ Compensation

Our breadth of experience and quality at all levels equips us to deal with the full range of planning issues in the UK, including high-profile infrastructure and other nationally important projects.

Cornerstone’s planners are regularly instructed in major inquiries and to advise on developments of national importance as well as being often involved with both statutory challenges and judicial review claims.

Our clients include developers, infrastructure providers, landowners and more than 300 local authorities and public agencies. Our Cardiff office gives us a strong profile in Wales, where our work continues to develop and expand.

T: 020 7242 4986 E: clerks@cornerstonebarristers.com W: cornerstonebarristers.com

“Because of the size and wide level of experience available, you can’t go wrong.”

London: 2-3 Gray’s Inn Square, London, WC1R 5JH Cardiff : One Caspian Point, Cardiff Bay, CF10 4DQ - Planning, Chambers UK 2014

p51_PLN.DEC16.indd CornerstoneFP2.indd 22

21/11/2016 24/03/2014 14:19 10:04

HIGHLIGHTING EXCEPTIONAL EXAMPLES OF PLANNING AND CELEBRATING THE CONTRIBUTION THAT PLANNERS AND PLANNING MAKE TO SOCIETY

ALL CATEGORIES ARE FREE TO ENTER

INDIVIDUAL CATEGORIES

ENTER BY 9 DECEMBER

Young Planner of the @LHY ࠮ 9;70 =VS\U[LLY Planner of the Year

TEAMS CATEGORIES

RTPI.ORG.UK/APE2017 #RTPIAWARDS

:THSS 7SHUUPUN *VUZ\S[HUJ` ࠮ 7SHUUPUN *VUZ\S[HUJ` ࠮ 3VJHS (\[OVYP[` ;LHT ࠮ Employer Award for Excellence

PROJECT CATEGORIES 7SHUUPUN MVY /LYP[HNL ࠮ 7SHUUPUN MVY [OL 5H[\YHS ,U]PYVUTLU[ ࠮ 7SHUUPUN MVY >LSS ILPUN ࠮ 7SHUUPUN [V *YLH[L ,JVUVTPJHSS` :\JJLZZM\S 7SHJLZ ࠮ 7SHUUPUN [V +LSP]LY /V\ZPUN ࠮ 7SHUUPUN MVY [OL 0UUV]H[P]L +LSP]LY` VM 0UMYHZ[Y\J[\YL ࠮ 7SHU 4HRPUN 7YHJ[PJL ࠮ 0U[LYUH[PVUHS 7SHUUPUN (^HYK

:765:69:

border archaeology archaeology & built heritage

p52_PLN.DEC16.indd 2

17/11/2016 14:47