The Planner May 2016 by The Planner

MAY 2016 DEVELOPERS: WHY THE PLANNING SYSTEM LETS US DOWN // p.22 • WHAT’S THE HOLD UP ON HOUSE BUILDING? // p.26 • THE CULTURAL DIVIDE THAT SCUPPERS MASTERPLANS // p.30 • BREXIT A VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY INDUSTRY // p.32

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

THE

FASTER

BUILDER DEVELOPERS’ SPECIAL: BARRATT’S PHILIP BARNES EXPLAINS HOW THE UK CAN BUILD A MILLION HOMES BY 2020

01_cover_may.indd 1

25/04/2016 12:09

CONTENTS

PLANNER 08 18

THE

MAY

“HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS WILL NEED TO BUILD, COUNCILS WILL NEED TO BUILD AND SMALLER HOUSE BUILDERS HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY”

NEWS

6 CLG Committee calls for NPPF review

7 Industry launches Sustainable Development Commission

20 16

OPINION

8 Government suffers eight defeats 9 Contest launched to find Wales’s best place 10 The challenge of growth

14 Chris Shepley: The redevelopment of our beautiful launderettes 16 Alice Lester: A recipe for better development 16 Lisa Taylor: Creating workspace that works 17 Nicola Barclay: Fixing the perceptions of home building 17 Paul Campbell: More questions than answers with starter homes drive

15 QUOTE UNQUOTE

“PLANNERS ARE TIME TRAVELLERS, CONNECTING COMMUNITIES OF THE PRESENT WITH THE FUTURE” EMMA RIGG, CHAIR OF THE SCOTTISH YOUNG PLANNERS’ NETWORK STEERING GROUP IN 2015 16

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

INSIGHT

FEATURES 18 Barratt’s Philip Barnes tells Huw Morris he’s confident that the UK can build a million new homes by 2020 22 What do property developers think of the planning system? Martha Harris reports 26 The UK must build at least 240,000 homes a year. So why are we building barely half that amount? Roxane McKeeken investigates 30 Cultural differences between planners and developers can scupper even the best masterplans, finds Mark Smulian 34 Brexit – a view from the property industry

36 Decisions in focus: Development decisions, round-up and analysis

40 Legal landscape: Opinion, blogs, and news from the legal side of planning 42 Plan Ahead – our pick of upcoming events for the planning profession and beyond 44 RTPI round-up: News and interviews from the institute 50 Plan B: Plan B has gone AWOL this month, so we’ve had to go to Plan C instead

MAY 2 016 / THE PLA NNER

p.03_contents.indd 3

25/04/2016 11:06

PLAN UPFRONT

Leaderr Placemaking means we have to talk the same language – Ask any group of real estate professionals to discuss the barriers to development and one that will almost certainly produce nods of agreement and groans of recognition is “planning”. The perceived antagonism between developers and planners is made much of by both public and private sectors and, in many cases, by politicians too. The latter have been known to tweak and prod at the planning system incessantly in the hope that the system itself will somehow produce more development. There are customary complaints about council planners taking too long, disproportionate mounds of paperwork being requested, and seemingly endless conversations about rare species of bats and newts that have a tendency to inhabit future development sites. If that discussion is

Ghislaine Halpenny then taken a step further, and the developers in the room are asked whether this is always the case, it becomes clear that it isn’t. Relationships between developer and local authority planners do not have to be fractious and when push comes to shove, all parties agree that a planning system that stops bad decisions being made yields better results. How have we got to the stage at which it is widely perceived that the relationship has broken down? As

with all relationships, communication is key. It is vital that each party speaks the same language, and that not only they are able to communicate, but that they are willing to. Until this happens, it is stalemate. But both public and private sectors have the same aims. Developers are driven by the goals of improving and changing people’s jobs, homes and leisure time; local authority planners by the very same. From a developer’s perspective, this of course makes sense. By improving the wider environment for communities, the long-term ﬁnancial returns for the developer are similarly improved. The same applies to the

“RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DEVELOPER AND LOCAL AUTHORITY PLANNERS DO NOT HAVE TO BE FRACTIOUS”

local authority, which not only gains the immediate beneﬁts for public realm and infrastructure, but also the long-term increase in business rates revenue. This broader approach to development can be considered to be “placemaking”, the buzzword that inspires the development industry. Placemaking is really the product of a good marriage between local authority and private sector. That is when successful regeneration is born, when language barriers are broken down and the original aims and intentions of each have come to the fore – much more productive than pointscoring and paperwork. Ghislaine Halpenny is director of communications at the British Property Federation

(Having Ghislaine write the editorial comment is our way of introducing this, our special edition exploring the developers’ perspective on planning. We hope you enjoy it, and welcome your feedback – Ed.)

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

Consultant creative director Mark Parry EDITORIAL

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

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

Senior sales executive Lee-Anne Walsh – 020 7324 2753

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

Recruitment sales Sabmitar Bal – 020 7880 7665 PRODUCT ION

Consultant editor Huw Morris 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 PUBLISHING Publishing director Joanna Marsh ISSN 2053-7581

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

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

MAY 2 016 01 6 / THE PLA NNER

p.05_Leader.indd 5

25/04/2016 12:49

NEWS

Analysis { NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

CLG Committee calls for NPPF review By Laura Edgar The Communities and Local Government (CLG) Committee has recommended that a “comprehensive review” of the operation of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) should be carried out by the end of this Parliament. The recommendation comes as part of a report published on 1 April, following the CLG’s inquiry into the Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy. The CLG committee said it found that there has not been “sufficient robust, objective and evidence-based monitoring, evaluation or review of the NPPF since it was published in 2012”. Therefore, the committee called for a review of the operation of national planning policy to pull together a number of pieces of work that have been done in this area, such as the Local Plans Expert Group’s report and the Housing and Planning Bill. The government launched the consultation in December 2015. It was seeking views on specific changes to the NPPF, including broadening the definition of affordable housing to cover starter homes, encouraging development around new and existing commuter hubs and a “form of ‘presumption’ in favour of brownfield land”.

CLG committee chair Clive Betts, while welcoming some of the proposals in the consultation, said that at a time of “significant change” for the planning and housing sectors, “it’s important that people are reassured that the NPPF works effectively and that it supports sustainable development in their communities”. “The government needs to ensure there is confidence in the planning system by carrying out a comprehensive review of the NPPF by the end of this Parliament,” said Betts. The report says the committee is “disappointed” that four years after the publication of the NPPF, “17 per cent of local authorities have still not published local plans and 44 per cent have not yet adopted plans”. In response to the report, the committee expects the government to set out how it intends to use its powers of intervention in local authorities that do not have local plans in place by early 2017. It should also say how many local authorities it thinks will require intervention.

What else did the CLG Committee’s report include? The committee recommends that the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) should draw up an “authoritative deﬁnition of brownﬁeld sites to which the presumption in favour

of development proposed in the consultation will apply”. The consultation proposes introducing a housing delivery test. In order for the test to work, and housing supply to meet demand, the committee says there should be a combined carrot-and-stick approach. Local authorities must have a range of appropriate tools at their disposal for their circumstances. There should be a clearer set of criteria, which may be used to identify when a housing scheme has stalled. Regarding the deﬁnition of commuter hubs, the committee recommends that the DCLG should review the proposed deﬁnition of commuter hubs as a “matter of priority”, “with a view to removing the present ambiguity and providing greater clarity about which locations are included, and should therefore be expected to have higher levels of housing density”. The committee suggests that in the short term “the government should publish guidance for local authorities, setting clear guidelines on when and how it may be appropriate for a local authority to review its green belt boundary in order to deliver new homes to meet local need”. n Read the Department for Communities and Local Government’s consultation on proposed changes to national planning at: tinyurl.com/planner0516-nppf-consultation

TH E P L AN N E R \ MA Y 2 0 1 6

p06_07_news.indd 6

25/04/2016 12:50

PLAN UPFRONT

Industry launches Sustainable Development Commission

How did the industry respond to the CLG Committee’s report?

An industry-led Sustainable Development Commission has been launched with the aim of creating a “clear-cut” method of assessing sustainable development. It also aims to provide the industry with a working definition of sustainable development and offer a single voice for those who are “passionate” about it from the public, private and academic sectors. Organised by planning consultancy Iceni Projects, the commission includes representatives from commercial property company Land Securities, developer Crest Nicholson and law firm Dentons. Also on the panel are: Janet Askew, immediate past-president of the RTPI; Shaun Spiers, chief executive at the Campaign to Protect Rural England; Waheed Nazir, director of regeneration at Birmingham City Council; and Sue Smith, joint

chief executive at Cherwell District Council and South Northamptonshire Council. Nick Raynsford, former housing and planning minister and minister for London and a consultant at Iceni Projects, will chair the commission. The commission said it would look to deﬁne a practical method to evaluate the “sustainable credentials of development proposals, encompassing social, economic and environmental factors”. Operating within the context established by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), it is seeking to produce a “universal scorecard” that can be applied to development to demonstrate their sustainable credentials. Two large-scale, mixed-use projects will be considered to test the scorecard as it is developed.

n “There is quite a lot of unpicking to be done about what review actually means. “If review means changing the NPPF, that’s rather a different question. In changing policy, uncertainty goes on happening. n “We are interested in monitoring the NPPF and development” – Richard Blyth, head of policy, RTPI n “To get up-to-date local plans in place and deliver the housing needed, we need a sustained period of solid national policy guidance. A wholesale review of the NPPF will only lead to uncertainty and delays within the planning system and will most likely render recently adopted and well-advanced local plans out-of-date. n “We suspect that the threat of losing local control will be a prompt to force many councils into sufficiently progressing their plans by the deadline in order to avoid any government intervention” – Dominick Veasey, associate director, Nexus Planning n “The NPPF has been a robust document and while it makes sense to regularly monitor and review its impact, what the industry does not need is wholesale revisions. Developers and investors need an element of certainty, even now the NPPF is still bedding down and many local authorities still don’t have their local plans in place. n “The NPPF is the top tier, but there is a lot of supplementary guidance around how it is interpreted and the statistical base around it. It’s important that we can be nimble and proactive in fine-tuning the planning system when we need to.” – Vicky Fowler, partner, planning and environment team, Berwin Leighton Paisner n “The TCPA agrees that there needs to be a holistic review of the NPPF, taking into account legislation including the Housing and Planning Bill. n “We also need to ensure that local authorities have the skills and resources they need to produce local plans which will create high-quality places for future generations.” – Kate Henderson, chief executive, Town and Planning Country Association I M AG E S | A L A M Y

p06_07_news.indd 7

Water strategy highlights planning’s role in Northern Ireland A long-term water strategy for Northern Ireland, highlighting the need for planning authorities to “prevent inappropriate development in high ﬂood-risk areas and ensure that future development does not increase ﬂood risk”, has been unveiled. The strategy, by the Northern Ireland Executive, covers the period up to 2040, and says planning authorities should encourage measures such as grey water recycling and rainwater harvesting in new developments. The document also recommends that local authorities should consider zoning suitable land in their local development

plans for large surface water drainage scheme such as lakes, wetlands and wet woodland in a bid to meet the drainage needs of proposed new development. The strategy makes it clear that sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) should be the preferred option for managing surface water in new developments. However, the document recognises that long-term maintenance, ownership and liability for SuDS require further consideration. n The strategy document can be found here: tinyurl.com/planner0516-waterstrategy-ni

MAY 2 01 6 / THE PLA NNER

25/04/2016 12:50

NEWS

Analysis { HOUSING AND PLANNING BILL

Government suﬀers 8 defeats A “pay to stay” measure would, if implemented, see council house tenants charged market rates once a household earns £30,000-plus

By Laura Edgar In April, the House of Lords undertook the report stage of the Housing and Planning Bill. As we went to press, the Lords had voted through eight amendments following four of ﬁve report stage sessions. Here’s a summary of what’s happened thus far.

Stage one Crossbencher Lord Richard Best tabled an amendment that would mean the 20 per cent discount on starter homes is “subject to a restriction” if the property is sold. Backed by Labour’s front bench, the amendment, which will see the discount paid back upon sale (the discount’s value reducing 5 per cent a year for a period of 20 years) was adopted by 275 votes to 181. Originally, starter home-buyers would have been able to sell the home at full value after ﬁve years. In March, the government began a consultation on proposals for starter homes including a suggestion that one in ﬁve homes on sites of 10 or more dwellings would be a starter home. Crossbencher Lord Bob Kerslake, chair of the Peabody housing association, tabled an amendment – supported by Labour – to permit an English planning authority to “grant planning permission for a residential development having had regard to the provision of starter homes based on its own assessment of local housing need and viability”. Pushed to a vote, the amendment was passed by 280 votes to 194. A further amendment to exempt rural exception sites from the Starter Home initiative was passed without a vote.

Stage two The bill includes a proposal that could see councils having to sell their higher-value homes to fund the extension of right to buy to social housing tenants. During the

second reading of the bill in January, Kerslake said discounts for the right to buy would be picked up by the local authority rather than the government, “who, after all, are promoting the policy”. The Lords voted 279 to 203 for an amendment, tabled by crossbencher Lord Lisvane, that would require determinations by the secretary of state provided in the bill regarding payments made by local housing authorities in England be made by regulation. The government would also have to go back to Parliament before it could make changes to the regime.

Stage three The Lords considered “pay to stay” in the third report stage meeting, which would, if implemented, see social housing tenants charged market rates once a household earns over £30,000. The bill says the threshold would be over £40,000 in London and £30,000 in the rest of England. In February, housing charity Shelter, said that it was not in principle against “some social housing tenants paying slightly higher rents”, but felt that doing it in the way proposed in the bill “risks taking a sledgehammer to a nut and ﬁnding there is little of the nut left at the end”. Shelter estimates that 7.4 per cent of the 3.92 million social rented homes would be aﬀected by the proposal. The charity thinks it would weaken incentives to work and stop higher income tenants buying. The Lords voted 240 to 176 for allowing local authorities to decide whether or not to charge an increased rent for those on a

higher income, rather than it be made compulsory for them to do so. Following this, the Lords voted 281 to 178 to limit the amount tenants on a higher income could be charged. The rent should not equate to more than 10p for each pound of a tenant’s income above the minimum threshold. Another amendment would see the threshold for tenants considered to be on a high income raised to £50,000 in London and £40,000 outside. The Lords voted 266 to 175 in favour of this.

Stage four The Lords voted 251 to 194 to approve amendment 102ZA, which inserts a community right of appeal – parish councils or neighbourhood forums could appeal against a planning authority’s decision to grant planning permission in certain circumstances. The second amendment, 102C, was passed by 231 to 171 votes. This means that permission in principle will only be granted for housing-led schemes. n See Shelter’s ‘Five Big Concerns About Pay To Stay’ here: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-shelter-concerns

TH E P L AN N E R \ M A Y 2 0 1 6

p08_09_news.indd 8

25/04/2016 12:50

PLAN UPFRONT

Transport strategy for greater Dublin is approved A €10.3 billion plan for the development of transport infrastructure across the greater Dublin area for the next 20 years has been approved by the caretaker government and published by the area’s National Transport Authority. It covers the city of Dublin as well the surrounding counties (Dublin, Meath, Wicklow and Kildare). The strategy includes plans to build Luas lines to Bray, Finglas, Lucan and the Poolbeg peninsula, as well as the €2.4 billion Metro North line from Dublin city centre to Dublin Airport and Swords, approved for funding under the government’s capital plan published last year. The strategy sets out proposals for improving bus provision, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, as well as the road network. The Luas cross-city line, currently under construction from St Stephen’s Green to Broombridge in Cabra, would be extended to Finglas, north of Broombridge, under the strategy. The plan identiﬁes a new eastwest Luas line, running from Lucan, which is not served by any rail line, to the city centre. For bus development, the strategy identiﬁes a core network of 16 radial bus corridors coming from the suburbs into the city, three orbital bus corridors that would run between suburbs – avoiding the city centre, and six regional bus corridors serving the city from places such as Belfast, Donegal and Mayo.

Contest launched to ﬁnd Wales’s best place

The competition, the RTPI said, is designed to celebrate some of Wales’s “most attractive and inspiring places”. It was established to mark the centenary of the RTPI in 2014. That year, Dundee Waterfront was crowned Scotland’s Best Place, and last year Liverpool Waterfront was voted England’s Greatest Place. Peter Lloyd, chair of the RTPI Cymru, said: “Your best place could be a natural landscape, a historic town, perhaps a national park. It might be a vibrant and diverse community you are especially proud of, a special place within a city, a stunning cultural quarter or a neighbourhood. You could nominate an area that has undergone signiﬁcant regeneration and has been transformed by that process. Your nomination could be a place that has changed over time to

n Alternatively, email nominations to walesbestplace@rtpi.org.uk, or tweet/ instagram suggestions using @walesbestplace #walesbestplace

Ambitious campus plan unveiled for Glasgow’s West End Proposals have been revealed for an ambitious expansion of the University of Glasgow involving the redevelopment of the 5.6-hectare former Western Inﬁrmary hospital site into a new campus. The hospital buildings, cleared when services were transferred to the new Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, would be transformed to include a new large-scale teaching and research hub, public spaces and a new College of Arts building. The masterplan for the scheme includes a new central square that would link Byres Road to the up-and-coming cultural quarter for the West End, with new links to Kelvingrove and the newly

I M AG E S | A L A M Y / G E T T Y / H K R A RC H I T E C T S

p08_09_news.indd 9

meet the needs of its communities. There is no single deﬁnition of a ‘best place.’ We are leaving that up to you. We want your suggestions.” Any member of the public can put a nomination forward for Wales’s Best Place. Nominations can be made until 10 June, 2016. A panel of judges will come up with a shortlist of 10 from the list of nominations, before the public vote on their favourite. To nominate somewhere, use the online form on the RTPI website: English version or Welsh Version.

refurbished Kelvin Hall. New buildings for Social Sciences, the Institute of Health and Wellbeing, and the College of Science and Engineering are planned. Also proposed are a hotel, restaurant, bars and cafés, which would help to guarantee that the ﬁve listed buildings on the site enjoy a new lease of life. The campus project, one of the biggest educational developments in Scotland, would see an estimated investment of £1 billion over 10 years – higher than the public investment in the 2014 Commonwealth Games. Frank McAveety, leader of Glasgow City Council, said: “The university is an important

contributor to the economic, social and cultural future of Glasgow. These are ambitious plans to make this area of the West End even more vibrant, and I look forward to this site being transformed into one which enhances Glasgow’s international reputation.”

MAY 2 01 6 / THE PLA NNER

25/04/2016 12:50

NEWS

Analysis { RTPI PLANNING CONVENTION 2016

2016: The challenge of growth By Laura Edgar The UK population is projected to grow to more than 70 million by 2030, so how can planners deliver places that accommodate this growth? This is the theme for the 2016 RTPI Planning Convention: ‘Better planning solutions – the challenge of growth’, at which speakers will discuss the solutions that planners have devised to tackle infrastructure, housing and economic issues at a time when new policy frameworks are being adopted and resources limited. Tickets can be ontained from www.theplanningconvention.co.uk, while ahead of the event The Planner asked a number of convention speakers to explain what planning can do to secure economic growth.

What is the one big thing that planning can do to help the UK secure sustainable economic growth? Phil Williams, president, RTPI: Planning is the vehicle by which existing communities can be supported through creative

T H E PL AN N E R \ M A Y 2 0 1 6

p10_12_news.indd 10

regeneration powers, and new developments can be secured in sustainable locations. Without the influence of enabling planning tools, sustainable economic growth is more difficult to achieve. Joanna Averley, director, Bilfinger GVA: The planning system interacts with the economic vitality of the UK in how it delivers quality homes where they are needed, employment land (and thus jobs), a skilled workforce and the infrastructure that enables people to get to jobs and businesses to access markets and clients. But what is needed where is unique to each town and city. Planning has to find the right locations for development, which not only promote economic prosperity, but are also environmentally and socially sustainable. Paul Barnard, assistant director of strategic planning and infrastructure, Plymouth City Council: Properly resourced, democratically accountable planning departments – without commit-

ted, dedicated, professional staﬀ, planning and the planning system will fail to deliver sustainable development. Toby Lloyd, head of policy, Shelter: Strong, positive planning should set land values at a level that makes aﬀordable housing, infrastructure and high-quality places. Joris Scheers, visiting professor at KU Leuven and president, ECTP-CEU: Planning takes care of coherent and integrated solutions for new as well as transforming spatial developments. The right activities on the right spot, adequately connected with servicing networks and taking care of people’s quality of life. So, in a nutshell – coordinate and integrate. Steven Fidgett, head of planning, UK, WYG: Planning needs to plan more positively and more quickly. There are still too many authorities with pre-2012 local plans, or none at all, that appear either in denial or too slow to address the scale of I M AG E | G E T T Y

25/04/2016 12:51

PLAN UPFRONT

securing sustainable economic growth in the UK when investing in the homes and infrastructure needed to support future generations.

What is the challenge for planners with the housing crisis/shortage? Williams: Planners need to ensure engagement with political decisionmaking is central to their role, and that the housing crisis is, inter alia, dependent on a robust and responsive planning system.

What do you think is the most important ﬁnding of an RTPI study on the location of development, and why?

This year’s Planning Convention takes place at etc.venues 155 Bishopsgate in the City of London on Wednesday 28th June. Other key speakers include Lord Adonis, Dr Alfonso Vegara and John McNairney. For full programme details, and to book your place, visit www.planningconvention.co.uk

Averley: Linking to the issue raised in question 1, the report, The Location Of Development, shows a highly variable pattern of where homes are receiving planning permission and the current trains, trams or metro services and the proximity to major employment centres. It highlights the need for bespoke spatial strategies and plans that link economic and housing growth in our cities to sustainable transport systems.

What does a plan really need to be deliverable and to succeed? Barnard: Three things: A. Creating a plan that is driven by vision rather than regulation – creative solutions and a determination to succeed.

“THERE ARE STILL TOO MANY AUTHORITIES WITH PRE2012 LOCAL PLANS, OR NONE AT ALL, THAT APPEAR EITHER IN DENIAL OR TOO SLOW TO ADDRESS THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM AND URGENCY OF THE NEED FOR CHANGE”

infrastructure and get the most from the investment in new infrastructure that is, in many cases, inevitably required.

STEVEN FIDGETT, HEAD OF PLANNING, UK, WYG

Viral Desai, senior planner at Barton Willmore and RTPI Young Planner of the Year, 2015: To have a holistic outlook. Often we are bogged down with housing delivery, economic growth. There is a need to understand that we can’t achieve the aims of sustainable growth without looking holistically at society, the environment and economic growth to deliver sustainable economic growth.

the problem and urgency of the need for change. Housing is the number one issue, but poor infrastructure and employment space are not far behind in many areas. Planning should be about constantly reassessing needs, positively promoting sustainable development and providing for development in a manner that places least stress on transport and essential infrastructure. We must be looking at how towns, cities and our country can be best served by development in sustainable locations that minimise the call on new

Dr Hugh Ellis, head of policy, Town and Country Planning Association: Coordination and the creation of certainty so that investment leads to truly sustainable development.

Lucy Seymour-Bowdery, senior planner, West Sussex County Council: Planning can bring long-term strategic thinking to guide local decision making when shaping places. Strategic spatial planning is vital to

B. The key ingredients of a pioneering approach – securing political and stakeholder buy-in and the importance of proactively managing relationships. C. The key ingredients of a plan that everyone can feel they own – listening, building trust and having fun.

What do we need to change to make housing more accessible to a wider range of people? Lloyd: Allow local planning authorities to provide suﬃcient amounts of genuinely aﬀordable homes to rent.

What’s the one thing the UK could learn from overseas about land value capture? Scheers: Public authorities that acknowledge the importance of land value capture for the wellbeing of the community, put it at the centre of their urban development policy and create instruments to capture the beneﬁts.

MAY 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

p10_12_news.indd 11

25/04/2016 12:51

NEWS

Analysis { How do we make land more aﬀordable? Fidgett: Increase the supply of development land, simple as that. As any planning graduate will tell you, planning intervenes in the right of an individual to do what they wish with their land. It places a restriction on the availability of land for development and only in increasing supply will the cost of development be brought under control. Talk of market intervention, a modern development land tax, would be folly and does not address the fundamental supplydemand imbalance.

How signiﬁcant will district energy systems be in providing energy in the future? Ellis: Decentralised energy sources like district energy systems has the potential to deliver zero carbon, locally controlled energy supplies that can save money and provide for energy security for the future, is the ultimate win-win.

What are you going to be talking about at the convention? Why? Desai: I am going to be giving a presentation on what I think the future holds for planning and planners, in an attempt to be as creative as possible. Why? It’s important to understand as a Young Planner where the profession is going, what we can influence, but also to see our role in the wider arguments of delivering a more sustainable society. We have an important role in not only shaping the built environment but sustainability as a whole. Therefore, we need to understand and be reflective of what the future holds for town planners. Seymour-Bowdery: : As the RTPI Trustee for Young Planners, I will be presenting my views on what the future holds for planning and planners as part of a session with five of my peers. It is fantastic that the profession provides a platform for young planners to share their views and influence future thinking.

n The Location Of Development was carried out by Bilﬁnger GVA on behalf of the RTPI. The report can be found here: www.tinyurl.com/planner0516-locationstudy

Two minutes with… Ben Bolgar BEN BOLGAR is senior director for The Prince’s Foundation for Building Community. The foundation has recently launched Bimby (Beauty In My Back Yard), an online toolkit that enables communities to inﬂuence the siting and design of new housing

Ben will be participating in a panel discussion at this year’s RTPI Convention on the topic of Building quality into Design What is Bimby? “It’s a response to the awareness of nimbyism that has grown from The Prince’s Foundation’s experience in community-led planning. The foundation has seen that people don’t want to be Nimbys but it often becomes a default position when they feel disempowered by the way developments are planned and built. Bimby is “marriage guidance” for the community, planners, developers and landowners.” How is the “marriage guidance” delivered? “Via the Bimby Housing Toolkit at www.bimby.org.uk. It’s a free online resource that guides the user through three workshops. The content [generated from these] is dropped into existing templates that create a Bimby Housing Manual. The toolkit is simple to use and understand and the ﬁnal manual is bolstered with the technical information and understanding that the foundation has developed.” Who has designed it? “It’s based on 25 years of designing and implementing better places on the ground. We also tested it before it went live and during a community feedback phase. You could say that all those who gave us feedback have helped design it.” Isn’t there a risk that an initiative like this becomes a tool for a vocal minority people to impose a narrow idea of “beautiful” design on their communities? “We’re keen that any community’s Bimby Manual is truly representative of what a community wants to see built in their area. There are several elements built into the toolkit that help to involve as many people as possible. As long as a wide cross-section is involved, it would be hard for a subsection to push through what represents their idea of beauty. Bimby empowers communities to express a consensus of what they want to see built. What sorts of places have used the toolkit so far? Any urban areas? “Yes, although the website only came

out of community testing in February, we know it has application in all areas, urban and rural. Some of the Bimby Pioneer groups range from London to Liverpool. “Whilst there are added complications for neighbourhood plans in urban areas, that does not mean that their distinctiveness should be lost with new development. Bimby is an empowering way for communities to really prescribe what makes their place unique and how development could improve and enhance their area – whether surrounded by fields or bricks and mortar – as opposed to general guidance which has a lack of influence in the development process.” How do local authorities view BIMBY? “One of the main issues with neighbourhood planning so far has been officer time. Bimby has provided people with instructions on how to go about the process and where to approach your planning officers for help. Removing some of the need for officer facilitation has led to better working relationships between local authorities and their communities.” Are you having an effect on the problems you’re trying to solve? “It’s still in its infancy, but the fact that the process of creating a Bimby Housing Manual is quicker than other ways of creating a neighbourhood plan has definitely helped bring community groups together. “I think the country understands that we need more homes, but also that local planning authorities are doing their best to meet these needs. Planners’ time is increasingly valuable and by using Bimby, communities can undertake a lot of the work themselves. Additionally, more people can engage in the planning process and understand the elements planners have to consider when place making.” Find out more about Bimby at www.bimby.org.uk

T H E PL AN N E R \ MA Y 2 0 1 6

p10_12_news.indd 12

25/04/2016 12:51

CHRIS SHEPLEY

O Opinion The redevelopment of our beautiful launderettes Back in the launderette, Mr Khan relaxed. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2016 lay on Machine No 4, open at Article 6. Despite a small Persil spillage, he slowly forced some semblance of meaning from it and concluded that United Wash Houses’ application to change it to a small ﬂat could happen only if there were “adequate provision” nearby. The application was being dealt with not by the council, but by an “Alternative Provider”, the Cayman Islands Planning & Money Laundering Company, which, entirely coincidentally, shared an address with United Wash Houses. But even they would struggle to argue that the launderette over in Cloggley, 20 miles away, was a suitable alternative. Mrs Braithwaite set the dryer spinning merrily. But there was little time for a party because the torrent of consultation from DCLG continued unabated. They turned their attention to the Consultation on Upward Extensions in London. Even though London was some distance away, their experience showed that these little ideas usually spill out to other places, so they had all done their homework. “Is it”, asked Mr Khan cautiously, “as ridiculous as I think it is?” They all agreed that it was. They noted that London was a “dynamic world city” (para 1.3), and also that it was a “vibrant world city” (ﬁve

T H E P L AN N E R \ M A Y 2 0 1 6

p14_15_shepley_quoteunquote.indd 14

“THEY NOTED THAT LONDON WAS A ‘DYNAMIC WORLD CITY’ (PARA 1.3), AND ALSO THAT IT WAS A ‘VIBRANT WORLD CITY’ (FIVE LINES LATER IN PARA 1.4)” lines later in para 1.4). They ploughed through the usual introductory bilge about the need for new houses, the protection of the green belt, and the marvellousness of the government. Then they came to the nub, which was, by one means or another, to allow extra storeys on buildings, up to the height of an adjoining rooﬂine. This was not necessarily a problem. Some diﬃculties would undoubtedly ensue from the requirement to

make sure this created separate dwellings, but no doubt pretty new ﬁre escapes could be provided, and the people downstairs would be delighted to have company above. Mr Khan questioned the need for the policy, the council having shown little resistance to such developments, on the rare occasions they might occur. Mrs Braithwaite wondered about that old pledge to reduce planning guidance to 50 pages, there being a further 21 on this topic alone. But the comedy really arose when the document began to go into ludicrous amounts of detail. This was a matter that could have been dealt with by a single line in the planning guidance encouraging authorities to permit such extensions in suitable circumstances. But no.

Here, in para 3.8, was a series of drawings of the type that Mrs McTavish’s granddaughter might have produced. Under each example were instructions such as the following: “In the terrace in example 2 above, B, C D and E could build up to two additional storeys, no higher than the roofline of A and F, if works are carried out at the same time as the result of a single application. B, B and C, or B, C and D could build two additional storeys alongside A, no higher than the roofline of A, if works are carried out at the same time as the result of a single application. E, E and D, or E, D and C could build two additional storeys, no higher than the roofline of F, if works are carried out at the same time as the result of a single prior approval application. C and D could not build up at a later time than B or E, or if B and E had not built up.” “Is this really how expensive people in Whitehall should be spending their time?” asked Mr Khan. “Could a local authority get away with such amateur publunch dribblings?” Persil filled the room. Laughter rang from the building. Planning could be fun after all

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

22/04/2016 14:01

Quote unquote

FROM THE RTPI AND THE WEB “58 per cent of councils think the New Homes Bonus will not incentivise building new homes” KATE HENDERSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ASSOCIATION

“Planners are time travellers, connecting communities of the present with the future” EMMA RIGG, CHAIR OF THE SCOTTISH YOUNG PLANNERS’ NETWORK STEERING GROUP IN 2015 16

“Old Oak North is unashamedly high-density. We’re not afraid of it” MICHAEL MULHERN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING OLD OAK & PARK ROYAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

“Green belt acts as too much of a comfort blanket for certain local planning authorities” PAUL CAMPBELL, JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR, RICHBOROUGH ESTATES

“Perhaps we repeal all planning acts as soon as we create an industry of property developers who are representative, responsible, caring and care about history. At that point we will solve the housing crisis and planners can become developers” RICHARD UPTON, DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE, U + I

“We have to get back to some kind of healthy balance of empowerment for planners to innovate, and gaining that sense of freedom, without overloading the whole system with so much precedent and complexity, and so many rules, that actually it strangles it” LUCIAN SMITHERS, DIRECTOR OF SALES AND MARKETING, POCKET

“Planners are uniquely placed to work with landowners, infrastructure providers, developers and the local community to deliver a vision for these strategic locations” JAMES HARRIS, POLICY OFFICER, RTPI, ON RAILWAY DEVELOPMENT I M AG E S | I STO C K / A L A M Y

p14_15_shepley_quoteunquote.indd 15

MAY 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

22/04/2016 14:54

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

O Opinion

Alice Lester is programme manager for the Planning Advisory Service

Planner Planners and developers: partners o or adversaries? Both, of course. But from our work at PAS with English planning authorities we’ve seen an increasing commitment from planners to be constructive. Oﬃcers and councillors recognise that to get the best for their communities they need to have a productive relationship with those investing in their places. In fact, substitute the word ‘applicant’ (or developer) for ‘investor’, and it changes your mindset. It’s not all easy and there will be disagreements, over viability and contributions to aﬀordable housing or infrastructure, but a constructive relationship focused on meeting the needs of the authority and developer makes for a greater chance of success. Here are my tips for constructive working between planners and developers. • Understand, and set out early, what is wanted from the development. As far as possible, understand “red line” areas and where there is scope for change. • Talk early, talk often. Early engagement between councils, developers and communities while local plans are being developed is the best time to set the direction and scale of development. With clear policies in the plan, appropriate proposals can be brought forward more quickly, and meet fewer obstacles.

Lisa Taylor is director of independent policy network Future of London

Creating workspace that works

A recipe for better development

• Pre-application discussions. Discussions between interested parties, including councillors, help shape better quality developments and make them more likely to receive support. Active involvement of communities and councillors provides opportunity to inform the community, as well as seeking views on local needs. Planning performance agreements can help set out what happens, when and why. • Commitment. Work together to make implementation happen. For the council, that might mean helping with site assembly, using CPO powers, investing in infrastructure or preparing a local development order. Incentivise development by creating conﬁdence and certainty. Think hard about the need for conditions; integrate considerations for non-planning consents and ensure developer contributions are agreed. • Look to elected members for leadership. Councillors, whose job is to voice the aspirations for their area, are central to successful partnership working. Early discussion and engagement helps to shape schemes, provide a steer on what is likely to be acceptable to the community, resolve problems and raise extra opportunities. • Don’t forget the applicant as customer. Provide a service they want.

“WITH CLEAR POLICIES IN THE PLAN, APPROPRIATE PROPOSALS CAN BE BROUGHT FORWARD MORE QUICKLY, AND MEET FEWER OBSTACLES”

2 BLOG

BLOG

Employm Employment space is being eroded by what feels like a ‘take no prisoners’ prioritisation of housing. The most zero-sum element is office-to-home conversions under permitted development rights, with threats from opportunity areas like Old Kent Road, growing awareness of back-of-high-street value, and high-level murmurs about reclassifying strategic industrial land. The market is no help. Rising rents are driving big-floorplate employers from Barnet to Basingstoke, and artists’ studios from Bermondsey to Bristol. Commercial operators have arrived, with shiny, higher-rent offers like The Collective and WeWork challenging the scrappy ethos of operators like Bootstrap Company or the Hackney Wick and Fish Island clusters. Big serviced-office providers like Workspace Group are lambasted by small outfits for converting property to residential use, and for, well, being big and commercial. There are glimmers of hope. Recognising the risks, local enterprise partnerships, EU funds and the Greater London Authority are all directing regeneration grants to workspace provision. Councils like Islington are using planning powers to resist indiscriminate office-to-homes conversion, and there is growing appetite for flexible space at all tenures and rates. Future of London has been delivering workspace programming since 2014, and in 2016 is

producing visits, case studies and a matching event on “workspace that works” for our members. This group of councils, housing associations, the GLA, Transport for London and development trusts owns and/or manages thousands of properties. They pick partners to serve priorities from economic development and employment to area regeneration and place marketing – rarely on purely commercial terms. While willing to use public assets and engage with operators, these groups often don’t know much about workspace options. The developers they work with are also in the dark; they want the buzz of tech or creative SMEs in their premises, but aren’t sure where to turn. Both host groups need clear mechanisms for finding and installing workspace operators, and confidence that those operators will be reliable and add value. Broader factors are also being explored: location (access, population), planning (how will the council use its assets, or talk with developers to prioritise affordable workspace?), design, and cost-effectiveness (rates relief? Services provision?). Reports of the death of affordable workspace are exaggerated. There are opportunities if operators, occupiers, councils and developers talk can build trust. To learn more about Future of London, contact Alexei Schwab at alexei@futureoflondon.org.uk.

“RISING RENTS ARE DRIVING BIGFLOORPLATE EMPLOYERS FROM BARNET TO BASINGSTOKE”

T H E PL AN N E R \ MA Y 2 0 1 6

p16_17_blogs.indd 16

22/04/2016 14:02

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

Nicola Barclay is chief executive of Homes for Scotland

Fixing the perceptions of home building

One day, I hope to get a pre-election lea leaflet through my door that says: “Vote for me – I got 1,000 new homes built in our area! I helped create a new community, improved education and life chances for 2,000 kids and supported local shops and businesses!” That’s what more housing does – provides a warm home and enables kids to make new friendships at schools. It creates more sustainable communities, which can improve local economies. So why is it vilified? I guarantee that leaflets coming through my door before next year’s local elections will seek votes on the basis that the candidate opposed development and stopped developers making huge profits at our expense. All private enterprise has to make a profit. It’s what businesses use to raise finance, to protect against the unexpected and to fund growth. What is it about home building that raises hackles? Both industry and planning authorities must accept responsibility for past mistakes. Homes have been built with no community facilities or access to public transport, many with the lowest common denominator of building design. This hasn’t given communities confidence that developers or planners act in the interests of those living with the results of their decisions.

4 BLOG

BLOG

But I see examples now of well-designed masterplans that create a sense of place, incorporating community facilities, cycleways and bus routes. So how do we change community perceptions of home building? Why should we expect an existing community to act in the best interests of those yet to arrive? I believe we have to ask more from our local politicians. They must recognise that, while many constituents don’t like change, as politicians they should have the interests of the whole community in mind (those who live there now and in the future). They could also consider the real impact of new homes – where they have been built, have there really been the dire consequences that some predicted? I believe not. If we’re going to fix the perception of home building, we need to focus on the end user and not the producer. Yes, builders make a profit, but they also create homes for people to live in – and that benefits us all. Next time you get a flyer, ask the politician why they are so proud to have opposed new development while a generation is locked out of home ownership. Better still; ask him what he is doing to help resolve the housing crisis. Only if they hear the voices of those in need will they ever consider change.

“WHERE NEW HOMES HAVE BEEN BUILT, HAVE THERE REALLY BEEN THE DIRE CONSEQUENCES THAT SOME IN THE COMMUNITY PREDICTED?”

Paul Campbell is joint managing director of Richborough Estates

More questions than answers with starter homes drive

On 23rd March the Department for Communities Com and Local Government launched a consultation on the details for the regulations to support the starter homes clauses in the Housing and Planning Bill, presenting a chance to comment on the percentage and definition of this latest incentive to assist first-time buyers. Starter homes began life as a manifesto pledge, with an original target of 200,000 to be delivered in the term – an election promise that reached out to the rising number of people struggling to get on the housing ladder. The more cynical might suggest that the Tories weren’t expecting a general election win at the time, which might explain why, a year on, there is still no real clarity on how starter homes will work. Regardless, they are now committed to deliver on the pledge. But even though the consultation is ongoing, there are a number of questions around the initiative. The new bill has a whole chapter dedicated to qualifying what constitutes a starter home, but what we are lacking is definition and clarity on how they will sit alongside other products already on the market. Are starter homes designed to be complementary and provide

a greater range of options to firsttime buyers? Or will they run in competition with other initiatives such as Help to Buy or shared ownership tenures, replacing homes rather than providing a net increase? There could be a financial knock-on effect, as the classification and application of a starter home could result in there being more or less value in affordable housing on a site which could lead landowners and house builders to sit and wait for clarity on a bill that won’t be ratified until the summer. If it were to undermine the viability of sites, it will also trigger protracted negotiations with local planning authorities to reduce levels of affordable housing. On a more fundamental level, is the issue that a centrally prescribed target for starter homes seems to somewhat fly in the face of the local evidence-based approach of the NPPF that, up until now, has allowed local authorities to assess the requirements and location for affordable housing provision. While we understand the aim of the policy, it is difficult not to question its impact, especially in the short term and particularly as we are facing a period of significant uncertainty between now and the summer.

“WHAT WE ARE LACKING IS DEFINITION AND CLARITY ON HOW STARTER HOMES WILL SIT ALONGSIDE OTHER PRODUCTS ALREADY ON THE MARKET”

MAY 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

p16_17_blogs.indd 17

22/04/2016 14:02

I N T E R V I E W P H I LI P B A R N E S

PHILIP BARNES readily admits that two words dominate his job as group land and planning director for Barratt Developments: housing crisis. For a two-word issue, it’s a many-headed hydra and one he has grappled with in a career spanning local government, private planning consultancy, and even more so in his current role at the UK’s most prolific house builder. Like all crises, many responses need to be applied; design quality, detailed research, partnerships, government policy, all sectors working in tandem, listening to communities, and more planners are among the answers provided by Barnes. The first task, though, is “to convince people of the merits of development – that works better than forcing it on them”. The impetus behind development from the Housing and Planning Bill means it’s now Barratt’s role to “make sure development is the right quality and in the right places”. This in turn means a “big push” for the company on design quality. Each of its developments meet CABE Design Council’s Building for Life standard, the industry benchmark that aims to achieve attractive, functional and sustainable housing. “Central to building up confidence in development among communities is that they won’t see something like what was built in the 1970s and 1980s,” Barnes points out. Research is crucial to making the case. Last year Barratt and the National House Building Council commissioned the London School of Economics to study house prices in areas where

{

T H E PL AN N E R \ M A Y 2 0 1 6

p18_21_interview_barnes.indd 18

22/04/2016 14:03

LAY OF THE LAND PHILIP BARNES IS IN THE VANGUARD OF TACKLING THE NATION’S HOUSING SHORTAGES. THE GROUP LAND AND PLANNING DIRECTOR OF BARRATT DEVELOPMENTS TELLS HUW MORRIS WHY HE’S CONFIDENT THAT HOUSING TARGETS CAN BE MET

PHOTOGRAPHY PETER SEARLE

MAY 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

p18_21_interview_barnes.indd 19

22/04/2016 14:03

I N T E R V I E W P H I LI P B A R N E S

large-scale new developments had taken place. The research found that new properties had “little discernible and consistent impact” on “Central to building the value of existing homes, undermining one up confidence in development among of the major fears cited by anti-development communities is campaigners. Indeed, new development may that they won’t see stabilise or even increase prices in immediate something like what areas. was built in the Barnes admits he was initially surprised at 1970s and 1980s” the findings. “Coming from a consultancy background, I know better data leads to better business decisions,” he says. “If you have an issue, it’s good for the business to research it. We do it when we see there is a commercial benefit to do so.” Similarly, a separate Barratt paper unveiled last November showed that private sector-led garden villages of up to 5,000 homes could help tackle housing shortages. Such developments could be funded entirely without public sector cash, depending on viability and the cost of local land assembly. The planning system itself favours smaller-scale development ahead of larger new towns because such schemes are more likely to secure public and local authority support. Barnes adds one caveat. “Garden villages must be additional to the housing requirement of an area,” he says. “You can’t not release other sites.”

Partnerships are critical In all of this, the role of partnerships is critical, particularly as a major part of Barnes’s job is supporting Barratt’s 27 UK divisions. “Planning works best when it’s through cross-sector partnerships,” he notes. “We look for them [partners] to share our passion and commitment to make the place happen. It’s a willingness to share costs, risks and beneﬁts. That’s what makes a true partnership. “You are never going to remove the adversarial nature of planning,”

C V

HIG HL IG HT S

P HI LI P B A R NE S Education: BA(Hons) and Masters in Town Planning, Manchester University, 1985 Timeline:

1986

1993

1988 Senior

2003

Planner, Derby City Council

planner, Fairhurst

1993

Senior planner, Nathaniel Lichﬁeld & Partners

Appointed director, NLP

Seconded to lead the StocktonMiddlesbrough Initiative, a major regeneration programme

2006

Appointed to head NLP’s northern regional oﬃce

2013

Group land and planning director, Barratt Developments Plc

Barnes continues. “Your role as a planner is to mediate between environmental protection and economic development. But you have to work in partnership to mediate these crucial objectives.” Pragmatically, partnerships with communities affected by development are also essential, he says. “While households were not the most enthusiastic proponents of localism six to eight years ago, the reality is if community engagement is done well it’s easier to mediate development. Yes, its an adversarial process, but the more you talk to communities, members and planners, everybody has a better understanding and works towards a better outcome. “If you talk to people early and you have shared objectives and you get issues out on the table, there is an appetite to make a development happen.” Indeed, Barnes is proud of the fact that of the 16,477 homes his company negotiated through the planning system last year, 95 per cent of them did not need to go to appeal. “Our commitment is to listen to communities and then shape our proposals accordingly. All we want to do is build more homes. If you listen to more people, it helps us to do that more successfully.” And then there is the controversial issue of land banking. Research unveiled earlier this year by the Local Government Association said 475,647 homes in England with planning permission were still waiting to be built. The findings led to a frank exchange of views between local authorities and house builders. Where does Barnes stand on this? The overall figure, he argues, includes sites which have started but not finished. “If there is a site with 1,000 homes and 500 of them have been developed, the whole site is not counted.” Other issues include consents where pre-commencement conditions are still outstanding, often the cause of significant delay. Then there is marketing the site, choosing a developer, potential judicial review challenges and site preparation. This often means gaps between consent and building commencement. The focus, says Barnes, should not be on the number of consented homes but the “You are never number of congoing to remove the sented sites. adversarial nature Barratt does not of planning. Your role as a planner is land bank, he to mediate between stresses. environmental “We are a return protection on capital busiand economic development.” ness. We buy land,

T H E PL AN N E R \ MA Y 2 0 1 6

p18_21_interview_barnes.indd 20

22/04/2016 14:08

A Teesside tale Philip Barnes’s thoughts lately have turned to his native Middlesbrough, which has not experienced the best of times. The inﬂuence of a cousin who was a planner and work experience as a 15-year-old in the council’s planning department set him on his career course. He calls Middlesbrough the “only North American city in the UK”, a pioneer town driven by the railways, iron ore and easy access to a river. From a population of 40 in 1830, Middlesbrough grew to 40,000 in 1870 and 90,000 by 1900. The good times were still around in his youth, but then globalisation and automation struck a devastating double blow. “When I was a child there was a sense Teesside was a boom town,” Barnes recalls. “It had a world-class petrochemical industry and a world-class port and steel industry that employed thousands and thousands of people. “There is still a world-class petrochemical industry and port, but those industries don’t employ the numbers they used to and we now have a population too big for its economy. An increasing proportion of local people are not leading fulﬁlling lives because of the decline in employment. It’s one of the most successful manufacturing clusters in the UK but has huge levels of deprivation. “It’s very dispiriting to know the same opportunities I had are not there to the same extent. I don’t know what the answer is, but there has to be a focus on improving skills and aspirations to take up the opportunities available, but these might not be in Middlesbrough.”

get planning permission, build on it, sell the homes and then go on to another site. We do things as fast as we can. We do not buy land which does not have planning consent.” Barratt does secure unconsented land through option agreements, particularly the right to buy a piece of land should the company manage to secure consent. This is eﬀectively the developer’s strategic land supply, but again he says the objective is to secure planning permission and build homes as fast as possible. If one of the company’s option sites fails to make it into the local plan, Barratt is obliged to wait until the next plan review. “That is the planning system making us wait to secure planning permission. If we sit back we face lawsuits from landowners expecting us to work faster towards the planning consent to realise their asset.”

Barnes is proud of the fact that of the 16,477 homes his company negotiated through the planning system last year, 95 per cent of them did not need to go to appeal

More is more

“Housing associations will need to build, Councils will need to build and smaller house builders have a role to play.”

Barnes says that while anyone can debate the details of diﬀerent clauses in the Housing and Planning Bill, the legislation’s objective is clear. “It’s all about building more homes and getting through the planning process faster, and that has to be the right objective,” he says. He is increasingly conﬁdent that the government’s target of one million new homes by 2020 will be achieved.

“Garden villages must be additional to the housing requirement of an area. You can’t not release other sites.”

But this will need a cocktail approach, “requiring us to pull every lever”. He adds: “We can’t do it on our own and we need other sources of buildings. Housing associations will need to build, Councils will need to build and smaller house builders have a role to play. We, as a major volume house builder, have increased our output by 53 per cent in the past ﬁve years. That is a huge level of growth for the biggest beast in the industry.” However, Barnes is concerned at some of the public’s limited understanding of the planning sector’s potential. Such fears have risen up the development industry’s agenda recently, particularly in light of spending cuts that have disproportionately hit planning departments. More planners would help Barnes’s drive for more partnerships and with them more business. “We would love to see more good-quality planners in every department,” he insists. “We would have more people to talk to and each oﬃcer would have more time to spend on our applications. If there was a magic wand that would help bring more resources into planning, I would use it.” MAY 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

p18_21_interview_barnes.indd 21

22/04/2016 14:09

D E V E LO P E R S O N T H E P L A N N I N G S Y S T E M

LOST

IN THE

What do property developers think of the planning system – and planners? There’s only one way to ﬁnd out – we sent Martha Harris to ask the awkward questions

PLANNING MAZE 22

T H E P L AN N E R \ M A Y 2 0 1 6

p22_25_utopia.indd 22

25/04/2016 12:52

1 1

A LACK OF RESOURCES IN R PLANNING

AS WE DISCOVER elsewhere in this issue of The Planner, the cultural divide between planners and developers is alive and well – but it may not be as black and white as you think. After all, it’s easy for planners to characterise the property development industry as a hungry machine driven by an unquenchable desire for profit. But as developers handling other people’s money, they have to pay great regard to economics. Their experiences of the system itself are likely to be rather different from their counterparts on the other side of planning’s fence. When we asked developers for their thoughts on the planning system, there was plenty of reasoned criticism of the system – notably its lack of resources. There was also acknowledgement of the need for a system that balances the various interests at play within the built environment, and respect for the often-difficult job that planners themselves undertake. Here are five ways in which developers feel the planning system delays their journey and leads them towards dead ends – and some suggestions for how to escape from planning’s maze of regulations and procedures.

MARTHA

HARRIS

We know from planners that lack of resources is a serious impediment to doing their jobs, with planning departments having experienced funding cuts of more than 40 per cent – and more on the way. Developers feel it, too. “There is such a goodwill among many people within the planning system to deliver the types of housing that are needed, with the kind of public realm that communities require,” says Lucian Smithers, sales and marketing director of Pocket. “But there is often just not that resource available to cope with innovation. The planner’s role in defining what happens in placemaking within local authorities has been somewhat diminished,” he adds. Richard Upton, deputy CEO at U+I, agrees: “The biggest barrier we face within the planning system is the lack of suitable resource to ensure that place and contextual urban design (which are critical to transformational regeneration) can be managed. And managed beautifully.” Possibly related to lack of resources are the differing performance levels across local authorities. Richard Alden, head of commercial property at the National Grid, cites this as the main issue within the planning system. “[In terms of] consistency of performance across local authorities, quality is so variable both in terms of officers and members,” he observes.

LACK L OF TRUST BETWEEN LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND DEVELOPERS “[There is a] general and understandable expectation that developers are greedy, self-centred, self-opinionated and unrepresentative,” says Upton. “So the barriers come up too early in communication.” Smithers agrees: “Local authorities at every level are nervous about doing

I M AG E | I STO C K

p22_25_utopia.indd 23

MAY 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

25/04/2016 12:52

D E V E LO P E R S O N T H E P L A N N I N G S Y S T E M

something wrong as they have either firsthand experience or knowledge of developers taking advantage, and the local authority being held up as an example of wrongdoing,” he explains. As a result, obtaining necessary information from local authorities can be difficult – something our developers suggest can be remedied through relationship building and greater collaboration on joint ventures. Alden, however, notes that if it’s in the council’s interest to do so, they will communicate well. “Our experience is that local authorities have been very helpful, though as [we are] a large-scale owner of brownfield land across the UK, they are incentivised to engage!” Where interests coincide, and where development helps local authorities fulfil specific policy goals, it seems the barriers between private and public sectors may fall.

3 3

C COMPLEXITY AND BUREAUCRACY Finding a route through planning’s maze of procedure and policy seems to be the most common complaint by developers. When your aim is to complete a project quickly and cost-efficiently any delay is understandably galling, and the process must seem full of wrong turns and dead ends. Paul Campbell, joint-MD at Richborough Estates, cites producing plans in city regions that are constrained by green belt as a key barrier in the system – and not necessarily for the obvious reasons. “Duty to cooperate can sometimes be a blunt instrument and there can be a tendency for green belt authorities to duck their responsibility by dragging their feet on plan-making,” he says. Pocket’s Smithers cannot understand why small-scale development should be subject to a similar degree of complexity as the big projects. “A lot of that is down to the level of complexity and the level of risk that is inherent in the planning system,” says Smithers. “You are never going to improve that situation unless we find a way of simplifying smaller sites that are delivering more community-friendly typologies, and helping planners to resource themselves effectively to deliver these.” This leads also to an unfair distribution of limited resources. Inevitably, planning

“THE PLANNER’S ROLE IN DEFINING WHAT HAPPENS IN PLACEMAKING WITHIN LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT DIMINISHED” – LUCIAN SMITHERS

authorities are going to push resources towards bigger schemes – particularly if smaller ones are also resource intensive but oﬀer less ‘reward’. Smithers also questions the time associated with certain elements of the planning process that delay development. “From start to ﬁnish, the whole process of gaining planning permission tends to take 16 weeks. Why then does it take on average 22 weeks to get the simplest type of Section 106 agreement you could possibly imagine?” He notes that all 33 London boroughs have their own approach to negotiating planning gain. Why not adopt a standard approach, he asks? Fair questions.

4 4

TTHE POLITICS OF PLANNING P Politics is, understandably, a big hurdle – and particularly at local level. Playing to a parochial crowd is not uncommon, and can be deeply frustrating. “All too often, members on planning committees are unduly inﬂuenced by the vociferous minority who wish to block development, with oﬃcers’ professional advice often ignored without any sound reason,” says Campbell. “Positive developer and community interaction takes strong and pragmatic local leadership and the right attitude from developer and promoter,” he adds. Perhaps lessons can be learnt from elsewhere. “We could learn from the Dutch and German systems where they allocate land much more strategically at a local level and housing isn’t used as the political football it is in the UK,” says Smithers.

5 5

FFEAR OF DEVELOPMENT D This brings us to fear of change. What seems to drive local resistance to development – particularly housing development – is a suspicion of the new. This holds even if the status quo is creaking under the pressure of demographic change and

T H E PL AN N E R \ MA Y 2 0 1 6

p22_25_utopia.indd 24

25/04/2016 12:52

Our respondents economic stress. Can resistance to change be overcome? “There needs to be a fundamental shift in the mentality of our country, where most communities fear change of any description, and many developers and local authorities lack imagination in meeting the needs of the community,” says Alden. One way to achieve this may be to recast development as ‘placemaking’ – a friendlier phrase that evokes a more inviting image of the outcome. The idea of placemaking, however, is “too far down the food chain”, says Upton. Yet it is “pivotal to long-term productivity and wellbeing”. Campbell notes that the planning system is “still fairly negative, with permission commonly being granted by LPAs only when there’s nothing left to be able to refuse it on”.

CAN WE FIX IT? YES, WE CAN Despite their grievances, our developers said there were many elements of the planning system that they respect, admire, and wouldn’t change. Its ability to foster open debate, discussion and innovation was celebrated, as was the commitment and professionalism of planners themselves. The necessity of the planning system as the ﬁrst line of defence against the “greedy average” of developers was also raised. Upton’s view is that the system is somewhat lopsided. “[It is] imperfect, sometimes quite irrational, quirky and British in character,” he says. “Perfect.” So what would make the planning system work better for investors, developers and builders? Richard Alden says that a greater variety of design needs to be encouraged to avoid “mono-developments”, with a need to perhaps look towards allocating more self-build plots. A need for greater realism within the planning system is also called for, says Upton. “The planning system is drowning in a tsunami of short-term, market-driven investment and a race to deliver housing

Lucian Smithers, director of sales and marketing at London-based housing developer Pocket

Richard Upton, deputy chief executive of property regeneration company U+I

Richard Alden, head of commercial property at National Grid

Paul Campbell, joint managing director at strategic land promoter Richborough Estates

n Go to www.theplanner.co.uk to read our respondents full answers to our questionnaire

units at any cost, with ﬁnancial inducements for local burghers to consent to housing numbers. So the system is twisted by a complete denial of the truth of the scale of the problem.” Smithers calls for a move away from a limiting level of bureaucracy, where innovation is hampered by a complex system within which each move forward results in “half a ton of paperwork”. “We have to reach a much more collaborative environment.”

“[THE SYSTEM] IS IMPERFECT, SOMETIMES QUITE IRRATIONAL, QUIRKY AND BRITISH IN CHARACTER”

A PERFECT WORLD Does a developer’s planning utopia exist? Our contributors agree that, as yet, there is no system in the world that has got it entirely right. But in a perfect world, what planning needs is vision from the country’s decision-makers, says Upton. “If we could have 15 years of a real leadership at the very top – a great Secretary of State for the Environment who is a visionary, with huge ambition and the strength of character to deliver real planning change ﬁt for the socioeconomic, demographic and cultural phenomena we face on this island. Someone who has wisdom and strength to sort the housing and infrastructure issues for the next 100 years rather than tinkering meekly for a few years in oﬃce.”

– RICHARD UPTON

MAY 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

p22_25_utopia.indd 25

25/04/2016 12:52

THE CHALLENGE OF HOUSING

Rarely is there so much consensus as around the idea that the UK must build at least 240,000 homes a year. So why are we building barely half that? Roxane McKeeken asks developers why they’re not constructing the homes we need

WHY AREN’T WE BUILDING MORE HOMES? I L L U S T R A T I O N | G I O VA N N A G I U L I A N O

T H E P L AN N E R \ M A Y 2 0 1 6

p26_29_housing.indd 26

25/04/2016 11:07

ROXANE

MCKEEKEN

2 240,000 HOMES a year. This, according to the 2003 Barker review of housing supply, is what the UK needs to meet demand. More recently, the government has set the higher target of 250,000 to make up for a lack of building over the last decade. It has also tweaked the planning system to create incentives to build homes. With councils, housing associations and house builders broadly in agreement on the need to build more – and investment easier to come by than for some years – you could be forgiven for thinking that meeting the housing target would be straightforward. Yet statistics consistently show we are off target. The National House Building Council says that in 2015 UK new home registrations reached an eight-year high. But even in that bumper year the number of registrations was only 156,140. We are also failing to build enough of the different types of housing needed, with insufficient provision of new housing to the elderly and renters, for example. Why, in a market with clear demand, are house builders and developers not building enough homes? How can the shortfall be solved?

MAY 2 0 1 6 / THE PLA NNER

p26_29_housing.indd 27

25/04/2016 11:07

THE CHALLENGE OF HOUSING

BARRIERS TO BUILDING Developers are quick to blame the planning system for delaying and declining their housing schemes, as well as applying conditions which they say can threaten financial viability. But not all their arguments are so predictable. Tony Pidgley, chairman of the Berkeley Group, cites the culture of planning departments. “Since the recession, local government funding has been slashed and those cuts have fallen hard on planning teams. We have to face into this. If not, the churn, the morale and the capacity of planning teams will undermine all our other efforts to accelerate house building.” Tom Bloxham, chairman and co-founder of Urban Splash, agrees: “Planners should get back to what they are good at, which is developing great plans – think of Milton Keynes – rather than just saying no all the time.” Pidgley adds, though, that builders need to change their mindset, too. “Developers must get on the front foot and talk about the benefits of what they do. House building is a force for good in this country..” Others feel there is an unhelpful lack of connection between planners and planning committees. “You spend 18 months working with planners on your scheme, making all the changes they ask for,” observes Scott Hammond, managing director of buildto-rent developer Essential Living. “Then the planning permission decision is made in one evening by politicians on a planning committee who have to digest a

“PLANNERS SHOULD GET BACK TO WHAT THEY ARE GOOD AT, WHICH IS DEVELOPING GREAT PLANS, RATHER THAN JUST SAYING NO ALL THE TIME”

“WE FIND THAT OUR SCHEMES ARE SOMETIMES NOT WELL RECEIVED BY TOWN PLANNERS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT USED TO A SINGLE TENURE LARGER BUILDING”

huge amount of technical information in one sitting and who may have very little knowledge of planning.” Another gripe is that planning departments are not receptive to innovative models that could accelerate house building. London developer Pocket creates blocks of one-bedroomed ﬂats where compact layouts increase density and allow the ﬁrm to sell at 20 per cent below the local market rate. “Our schemes are sometimes not well received by town planners because they are not used to a single tenure larger building,” says senior operations manager Nick Williams. “But our residents actually contribute a lot to the community, including spending quite a lot locally.”

BEYOND PLANNING The planning system is not the only obstacle that developers say they face. Pocket’s Williams says an acute construction skills shortage is a major concern. “The price of a bricklayer can threaten the economic viability of a site.” In addition, the rise in construction activity of the past 18 months means that contractors are difficult to book and raising their fees accordingly. Funding remains challenging. The British Property Federation’s (BPF) communications director and planning lead, Ghislaine Halpenny, says larger regeneration schemes are suffering from the impact on public-private funding models in the wake of council budget cuts. “We need more use of innovative financial models, such as funding development

with business rates,” she argues. Moreover, the impending EU referendum has spooked investors, who are deferring decisions until the result is known and, in the event of a Brexit, new trading relationships negotiated. With developers themselves often held responsible for the lack of housing built, how do they defend themselves? A common charge levied against them is land banking – buying sites without developing them, waiting for the land value to increase and then selling. While the developer makes a proﬁt, the UK falls further behind on house building targets. Why then, did the Local Government Association report in January that some 475,647 homes in England and Wales had received planning permission but were awaiting construction? Pidgley denies this is the fault of developers: “It can take two years to clear planning conditions on a major site. Getting land into production remains a slow and expensive process. There is no mechanism to sort out the complicated issues quickly: compulsory purchase orders, rights to light, vacant possession and utilities, for instance.”

PUTTING SPADES IN THE GROUND The developers we spoke to believe existing government initiatives could help them build homes more quickly. They say several proposed measures in the Housing and Planning Bill could offer them hope. These include statutory time frames for processes such as resolving Section 106 agreements. “Set time frames for getting Section 106 agreements or for the time taken for the secretary of state to deal with a plan that gets called in would be very helpful,” says Essential Living’s Scott Hammond. Developers also welcome plans for starter homes, a model that will offer house builders more flexibility in meeting affordable housing requirements. These could help to make schemes more financially viable, says Hammond. The bill’s proposal for automatic planning permission for homes in certain areas is also seen as helpful. The development community supports the National Planning Policy Framework, too. This, says Halpenny, “has helped to

T H E PL AN N E R \ MA Y 2 0 1 6

p26_29_housing.indd 28

25/04/2016 11:07

A Scottish view simplify the planning process”. However, she says the current review of the framework is premature. “We need to ﬁnd out how it is bedding in and assess how it’s working before we change it.” Indeed, repetitive change is the most diﬃcult thing we deal with. “Consistency and stability in the planning system and regulations would certainly help us build more homes,” says Pidgley. Hammond agrees, citing the Code for Sustainable Homes: “We had just got our heads around the rules and now the government has scrapped them.” A government drive to promote apprenticeships should help to tackle the skills crisis in the medium to long term. In the short term some, including Berkeley Group, worry that Brexit would intensify the skills shortage if it meant the loss of construction workers from the EU. Despite the developers’ dislike of changes to the planning system, Bloxham suggests one that would help save time and money for planning departments and developers alike. He argues that developers should be able to make brief applications for high-level planning in principle for housing. “I would like to see a red line drawn on a plan saying planning agreed or not. If it’s agreed only then would we invest in working out all the detail.” Innovative funding models are also needed. Halpenny says: “We are great supporters of public-private partnerships and the government’s Build to Rent Fund is a good example of that.” Launched in 2014, the fund facilitates co-investment from the government to provide new homes for rent. Indeed, this sector is fuelling interesting funding models of its own, such as Legal & General Capital’s joint investment with the giant Dutch pension fund PGGM. The pair is putting £600 million into more than 3,000 homes. Build to rent schemes are a powerful response to housing shortages, says Hammond, they “accelerate regeneration projects and build communities faster by increasingly supply sooner” because it takes less time to lease units than to agree unit sales. In addition, Essential Living and Legal & General are among investors planning to manage the building as the landlord for decades to come, giving them an incentive to ensure that the

“In Scotland we have very much the same problems with house building as the rest of the UK,” says David Melhuish, director of the Scottish Property Federation. “There are 150,000 people on the waiting list for housing and developers are not building any of the types of housing needed anywhere near fast enough to keep up. “Scotland needs 35,000 homes a year and we are achieving about half of that. The build-to-rent sector is particularly worrying – only 2 per cent of new

build housing is for rent. “Barriers to building more homes include the house building industry itself and particularly the ﬁnancial side being risk-averse. Another key problem is infrastructure to support housing developments. It is hard to get funding from traditional sources – especially the public sector – and even from non-traditional sources, for critical elements like schools and access roads. “So we clearly need new thinking around funding

“WE WOULD LINE UP WITH ALL HOUSE BUILDERS AND SAY THAT THERE ARE OF COURSE SOME LAND SPECULATORS OUT THERE BUT HOUSE BUILDERS MAKE MONEY BY SELLING HOMES”

surrounding community thrives. “We will be continually selling our buildings [to renters] so we want to ensure that elements like the commercial tenants make the environment attractive,” says Hammond, adding: “We recently chose a nursery rather than retail for one scheme.” Urban Splash is using another innovative funding model. Bloxham says: “Rather than the conventional approach of the developer buying a whole lot of land based on guessing what properties built on it would sell for, we are doing joint ventures with landowners. We ﬁnance the build on their land and then pay for the land as we sell properties.” A clever ﬁx for both spiralling contractor costs and the skills shortage is modular construction, which is being pursued by both Pocket and Essential Living.

and planning. The Scottish Government’s review of the planning system, which is under way and due to report in May, could lead to useful changes. The City Region Deals [with seven Scottish cities] also oﬀer an opportunity that should be seized. “The ﬁnal part of the solution is tackling local opposition to housing projects by engaging with communities and explaining that housing is desperately needed.”

Williams at Pocket says there are other beneﬁts. “Half of the building work is done oﬀsite, lowering risks and saving 30 per cent of construction time.”

THE CHALLENGE AHEAD “Developers face a real reputation issue,” says Halpenny at the BPF. “Everybody loves to hate them. So they must create schemes hand in hand with communities and show the public that development means new jobs and improved leisure time. The good ones are doing this, but many are not.” From the developer’s perspective, the barriers to building the number of homes we need are a complex mix of planning system, funding and logistical challenges. Many of these challenges show little sign of disappearing, but it is nonetheless encouraging that developers believe that some government initiatives might help them build more homes. In addition, many are also using innovative methods to fund projects that deliver homes faster. But with investment decisions slowing down as we await the result of the referendum, and with the outcome of the proposals in the Housing and Planning Bill far from certain, a dramatic increase in the number of homes being built remains some way oﬀ.

MAY 2 0 1 6 / THE PLA NNER

p26_29_housing.indd 29

25/04/2016 11:07

MASTERPLANNING

Cultural diﬀerences between planners and developers can scupper even the best masterplans, ﬁnds Mark Smulian. Why does this happen – and what can we do about it?

A FLAW IN THE PLAN P H O T O G R A P H Y | A K I N FA L O P E

T H E P L AN N E R \ M A Y 2 0 1 6

p30_33_masterplan.indd 30

22/04/2016 14:09

MARK

SMULIAN

M MANY WILL RECALL Monty Python’s English-Hungarian phrasebook in which the words “have you change of a pound” were allegedly rendered in translation as “my hovercraft is full of eels”. We’ll draw a veil over the rest of this phrasebook, but people who speak different languages and come from different cultural backgrounds will inevitably sometimes misunderstand each other. Is this sort of mutual incomprehension also true of planners and developers? At its most basic, planners will complain that developers see community and aesthetic issues as impediments to making money. Developers, by contrast, think planners fail to grasp that delivering planning gain or social benefits depends on there being sufficient profit to support this. If an application is disputed, both parties can become entrenched. Perhaps the planner thinks the developer wants to despoil an area with ugly offthe-peg houses; meanwhile, the developer thinks the planner refuses to accept that building anything more elaborate would make the project uneconomic.

MAY 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

p30_33_masterplan.indd 31

22/04/2016 14:09

MASTERPLANNING

Fundamentally, one might argue, planners want to create places and developers want profits, and the two objectives will not always proceed in harmony. Such conflict could be why some masterplans that on paper created impressive environments may prove to be something rather less once complete. Former Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) president Louise Brooke-Smith spoke in the April issue of The Planner about how she felt planners should know more about viability. Will Charlton, a director at her firm, Brooke Smith Planning, says: “I think there is a tendency for the more commercially minded officers to move over to the private sector, or they get poached. “You can then find planners in local authorities will seek to specify things like materials and appearances, even what the window frames are made from, and do not understand that these choices may increase cost.” The reverse may also be true, Charlton admits – that some developers simply wish to build, make money and leave “while it’s the neighbours who have got to live with the development”, and so look to planners to guard their interests.

A MATTER OF TRAINING? Gareth Morgan, managing director of commercial property valuer Cavendish Tate, thinks the diﬀerences arise from those who train in planning through RTPI-approved courses and those who follow the RICS route to become planning surveyors.

“THERE IS A TENDENCY FOR THE MORE COMMERCIALLY MINDED OFFICERS TO MOVE OVER TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR, OR THEY GET POACHED”

Morgan, a former chair of the RICS planning and development surveyors section, says: “The RTPI values the community and social planning concepts of an application, while the RICS is more concerned with viability, as there is not much point in applying for planning permission if a project cannot be made to work.

The APC of viability The RTPI Assessment of Professional Competence (APC) guidance for chartered membership says planners must “understand the economic context of planning decisions” and use their understanding of how markets operate and the economics and financing of development “to ensure that development adds value by being economically sustainable”. It has recently been amended “so that planners in all sectors should gain awareness of the interrelationship between planning and the economy,” says the RTPI’s head of membership Martine Koch. The new approach places greater stress on the economic aspect of planning’s social, environment and economic principles. “It was felt the first two featured more strongly in training and practice, and there appeared to be a skills gap,” notes Koch, adding: “We need to be testing for the financial/ economic competence now.” The financial implications for public, private and other sectors thus need to be taken into account in decisions “to avoid raising local expectations or forming unachievable planning strategies”.

“That diﬀerence extends to the places where planners qualify. If they go to a course leading to an RTPI qualiﬁcation, they will learn a lot about social and aesthetic aspects of planning. If they go to a RICS one they will learn more about economics and viability, but not about design.” He continues: “We need planners to understand the whole thing, whichever route they are trained by, or we cannot say that someone understands how the whole market works.” RTPI trustee Vincent Goodstadt believes the divide between planners and developers is less pronounced, and that RTPI requirements do produce planners with rounded perspectives (see The APC of viability). “I think planners do understand economics and developers understand social goals, at least in my experience, and I advise both the public and private sectors,” he says. “Most developers want to do a decent job, but they have to be aware of planners’ priorities.” Goodstadt says masterplans “need to be clear enough to translate regulations into a clear development framework to deliver quality and guide the choices made; if there were no choices we would not need a planning system. Problems arise when plans are too big and complicated.”

CROSSING THE CULTURAL DIVIDE People who represent developers think there is an endemic problem of miscommunication, but say the gap could be reduced. Speaking of the “cultural difference” between the private and public sectors, Andrew Whitaker, planning director of the Home Builders Federation, says: “Planners in the private sector will be driven by clients, if they are consultants, or by employers if they are in-house, and those drivers are economic; in the public sector the drivers are communities and councillors, so it’s different.” Whitaker says clients do appreciate that planners are professionals “who have a role to perform and who will look at things in a professional way but may have different goals”. Nevertheless, he would like to see a requirement for planners to

T H E P L AN N E R \ MA Y 2 0 1 6

p30_33_masterplan.indd 32

22/04/2016 14:10

WHY MASTERPLANS ‘FAIL’

have experience in both the public and private sectors to gain chartered status. “Putting monetary values on facilities might help,” Whitaker says. “Clients may see parks, open spaces and public amenities as a cost imposed by the council, but if their presence makes the development more attractive and so makes homes easier to sell then there is a beneﬁt to the developer in that.” British Property Federation communications director Ghislaine Halpenny says developers “need to be aware planning is not just a tick box exercise, it’s about creating places where people want to live, work and spend their leisure. “There is certainly a need for better education on economics and viability as there is a tendency to think that viability is a dark art, whereas in fact it’s something anyone involved should be able to get to grips with,” she says. “Whether developers grasp social goals is another matter. Ideally, developers will go to communities and planners and ask what they want rather than just saying, ‘I am going to build ‘x’ here’.” Perhaps both sides have an interest in exaggerating the miscommunication problem. But successfully creating places will surely depend on planners and developers better understanding each other, even if they cannot agree.

Frazer Osment is a board director of consultancy LDA Design. He has written extensively on the deliverability of masterplans. Deliverability is rarely a true design driver of most masterplans. Lots of masterplanners know plans need to be deliverable but do not know how to actually prepare a plan that can withstand all the hurdles it will have to overcome to survive the delivery process. In large part, this is because deliverability has never truly been the preserve of the designer; a patron-artist relationship often exists in which it is the responsibility of the developer/client to bring into being the ideas that the artist develops. This is all very well for a building, but it doesn’t work for a masterplan, which may be developed over 10 years or more. During this time land may change hands, and a transition from policy to outline consent to reserved matters applications and physical delivery has the potential to wreck the original concept. What emerges from the majority of masterplans bears little relationship to the planning documents and the design and access statements that accompanied initial proposals. The design of a

deliverable masterplan is quite diﬀerent from simply designing a masterplan to represent one possible development outcome on a site. It requires a mindset in which hard choices, compromises and tradeoﬀs are made through a design process that must resolve the tension between vision and commerciality. Design decisions are tested against the range of factors that will stand between the vision and its ultimate realisation. Solutions are integrated into the design from the outset. We call this “integrative design”, in which the delivery solution and business case is integrated into the design. In practice this means that successful masterplans are not detailed prescriptions of what will happen over an uncertain implementation period, but frameworks which give a high degree of certainty on a small number of key structuring elements of place and infrastructure. The relationship between the cost of servicing land and the value that can be generated by developing on that land will have been fully considered. Masterplan failure arises because of a cultural divide between developers and planners. Looked at starkly, the means by which policy is converted into development on the ground

is almost guaranteed to result in a failure to deliver on the original aspirations for a site. Planning needs to focus more on the servicing and structuring of land for development or regeneration. It needs to be increasingly clear about a small number of placemaking and structuring ‘moves’ which have been tested as viable ways of servicing and developing land. This ‘infrastructure and placemaking first planning’ should help to de-risk land and maximise efficiency. An associated business plan could make the case for further public sector investment. Within this framework, local planning authorities (LPAs) should be very clear about how development should relate to the main structuring infrastructure and placemaking moves, but otherwise be reasonably flexible. Where possible, LPAs and developers should encourage build out within this framework by a mosaic of big house builders, smaller local builders, selfbuilders, custom-build PRS, elderly housing providers and others to maximise delivery rates and also build richness and diversity of place.

“WE NEED PLANNERS TO UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE THING, WHICHEVER ROUTE THEY ARE TRAINED BY, OR WE CANNOT SAY THAT SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS HOW THE WHOLE MARKET WORKS”

MAY 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

p30_33_masterplan.indd 33

22/04/2016 14:10

B R E X I T : T H E D E V E LO P E R V I E W

A BREAK FOR THE BETTER? BREXIT – A VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY INDUSTRY In December 2015, a poll by property consultancy Carter Jonas of 69 leading property ﬁgures found a clear majority felt a Brexit would have a negative impact on investment in UK property. More than two-thirds felt that leaving the EU would have a negative impact on the UK occupational property market. Indeed, the respondents felt that Brexit was on a par with the housing shortage as a challenge facing the UK property market. When polled again in February 2016, attitudes seemed to have hardened slightly (see ﬁgures). Commenting on the results, Darren Yates, head of research at Carter Jonas, says: “Business doesn’t speak with one voice and neither does the property industry. But the extent of the majority was surprising. I thought it would have been closer.” Speculating on the reasons for the poll result, Yates stresses that EU withdrawal would cast the UK economy into relatively unknown territory – but certainty is what investors crave. “We’re bound to get volatility in the run-up to things like a referendum, and

T H E PL AN N E R \ MA Y 2 0 1 6

p34_35_brexit.indd 34

In last month’s issue, we took a look at the potential impact on planning of a No vote in the European Union referendum on 23 June. The article focused on European environmental protection legislation and the risk of losing this if the UK were to leave the EU. We felt there was more to say, however, and wondered how the property industry more widely feels about Brexit – not to mention what the case might be for leaving the EU

potentially afterwards if there’s a Brexit,” he notes. “It’s going to take a year or two at least to sort things out, and businesses and investors are going to be thinking, ‘What’s it going to cost us to buy and sell property? What are the currency implications? Have we got the right staﬀ in place, with permission to live and work where they’re based?’” Nevertheless, Yates feels the size of the UK economy and the strength of its property market will ensure a settled position in time should it come to a No vote. “We are a large, wealthy and growing market.

If you look at the indices produced by the World Bank, this is one of the best places in the world to do business. “It’s well regarded, relatively open, you can move money in and out easily, and it’s the second or third-placed property investment market in the world.” There is also the fact that while close to 50 per cent of investment in commercial UK property last year was international, Europe was responsible for a relatively small proportion of that. The biggest overseas investor remains North America, and investment from growing markets in the

B B 8

IMPACT OF BREXIT ON INVESTMENT

BREXIT POLL

(DEC 2015)

b POSITIVE b NEGATIVE b NO IMPACT

BREXIT POLL

(FEB 2016)

Source: Carter Jonas client poll

25/04/2016 11:08

THE KEY CHALLENGES WHAT DO YOU THIINK WILL BE THE MAIN CHALLENGES FACING THE UK PROPERTY INDUSTRY OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS? (HIGHER SCORE MEANS MORE SERIOUS CHALLENGE) SOURCE: CARTER JONAS CLIENT POLL HOUSING SHORTAGE POSSIBILITY OF A BREXIT RISING CONSTRUCTION COSTS PROSPECT OF HIGHER INTEREST RATES PROPERTY INDUSTRY SKILLS SHORTAGE REFORM OF THE UK PLANNING SYSTEM REFORM OF THE UK RATING SYSTEM HIGHER WAGE COSTS LESS SERIOUS

Far East is increasing. The message from Yates? The coming referendum fuels uncertainty, a Brexit will take us into unknown territory, but the scale of the UK market will enable

PLANNING’S CASE FOR BREXIT We invited readers to give us the planning case for leaving the EU in the forthcoming referendum. Tony Pierce, director of Urbisnet Consulting, took up the challenge. “Those arguing to stay in the EU often mischievously conﬂate it with Europe, and Brexit is often posed as ‘leaving Europe’. But while many people identify with Europe, very few positively support the institutions of the European Union. The wonderful diversity of European peoples, their languages, the history, vibrancy and character of many great cities all contrast strongly with the bland bureaucracies of the EU. Most in the development industries want to see higher standards of planning, design, safety and construction, but is the EU the institution to deliver them? Shouldn’t raising standards and improvement be driven by people with the knowledge and experience, rather than by a remote technocracy? Of the 24 appointed European Commissioners, only Karmenu Vella, from Malta, has any training in a development or construction profession (architecture) and he went straight into politics from graduation. Governments have ceded accountability for construction clients, professionals and

MORE SERIOUS

us to negotiate mutually beneﬁcial deals with Europe. Whatever the result, the UK is and will remain a good place to do business in property.

technicians to the EU. We all wonder at the complexity of procurement and protection rules of the EU, for example, that have taken control away from clients in the commissioning of planning, design and building services. The technocrats of the EC treat construction professionals as misguided children. Like all regulators, they use the worst excesses of a very few to limit the behaviour of many, so stifling experimentation and intellectual imagination. The UK stopped significant state investment in blue-skies research into construction technology soon after joining the EEC in 1975. Subsequent EU state subsidy rules and direction put a brake on innovation in building technologies in the UK. No wonder, after 40 years of not investing in building R&D, the UK now finds it difficult to break out of cottage industry and 20th century construction methods, and cannot build homes at the rate needed. The failure to invest enough in planning and building methods, and the controlling, regulatory EU context result in more lawyers and environmental consultants being employed in local plan production than trained planners and designers. All significant planning decisions are mediated through legal rather than democratic processes. For politicians to express frustration at the slowness of house building is understandable, but to blame ‘the planners’ is disingenuous and destructive. People point to the work of the EC in

promoting environmental regulation as a positive reason to remain in the EU. Underpinning EU environmental directives is the tenet that all human development has a negative impact on the planet that must be mitigated. This denies all the positive benefits of development as an essential part of human activity that should be promoted in and of itself. Penalties on development in the form of planning obligations to mitigate impact are promoted, particularly by the EC, as a way of extracting a tax on any uplift in land values arising from development or industry. Whatever your view on the benefits of these environmentally specific taxes, the requirement for them was imposed by EC directives, without any democratic or public debate. For example, proposals to inundate coastal areas and give up land to the sea, on environmental grounds, have very little regard for local people, nor much respect for the physical integrity of the UK. The EU record on the economy is also one of providing national political elites with an excuse to avoid all accountability for poor economic performance. It is no coincidence that the EEC and then EU grew from the early ’70s onwards, a period of 45 years in Europe of continuing, sluggish economic growth, slow-downs in productivity and increasing reliance on individual and national debts to sustain living standards. The EU is now promoting circular business models for the economy, as an alternative to economic growth. Having failed to invest and create the productivity and jobs we all need, the EU would rather we all accepted an economy based on limits on production and consumption, a sort of make-do-and-mend type of recycling. Lowering horizons, rejecting the intellectual and innovative powers of ordinary people, promoting a fashionable rehash of craft industries and imposing regulations on production and consumption are all current EU strategies that distract from the need to invest in infrastructure and raise productivity. Such circular business economic models should be consigned to history along with the EU. The EU is too entrenched in its anti-democratic ways to reform. A vote to leave the EU is the only way to rebuild a more dynamic building and property sector.” You can follow Tony on Twitter (and debate the EU referendum with him) at @tony_pierce

MAY 2 0 1 6 / THE PLA NNER

p34_35_brexit.indd 35

25/04/2016 11:08

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 GREEN BELT

HOUSING

Large-scale ‘inappropriate’ development approved for green belt

425 homes allowed despite loss of ancient woodland ( SUMMARY Permission has been granted for 425 dwellings in Cranleigh, Surrey, after an inspector found that the contribution of the scheme towards unmet housing need outweighed the loss of ancient woodland. ( CASE DETAILS Inspector Ava Wood noted that the 20.83-hectare appeal site constitutes three agricultural fields lying on a flat valley floor. Waverley Borough Council accepted the suitability of the site for development for a number of reasons, including its proximity to the village centre and relative visual containment owing to topography and existing vegetation. Nevertheless, Wood agreed that the sheer scale of development would have a magnitude of change for the landscape that could be described as “major adverse”. Because of the proposed access road, the development would result in a loss of 14.5 per cent of the Knowle Wood Ancient Woodland, noted to be an “especially

T H E P L AN N E R \ M A Y 2 0 1 6

p36_38_dif.indd 36

Housing need at Cranleigh, Surrey, outweighed the loss of ancient woodland

valuable habitat”. That said, the appellant pointed to a number of factors already compromising the ecological signiﬁcance of the wood, including its small size, limited diversity and proximity to the Hewitts Industrial Estate. Wood accepted that the appellant had considered other access options were viable and that the chosen route and subsequent loss of woodland was indeed “unavoidable”. Several mitigation measures suggested by the appellant to safeguard remaining woodland and manage newly created habitats were found to be acceptable. Wood noted that an Interim Sustainability Report carried out in 2014 conﬁrmed that 61 per cent

of the borough falls within the metropolitan green belt and 80 per cent of the countryside is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and/or Area of Great Landscape Value – but the appeal site is accorded none of these designations. ( CONCLUSION REACHED As the council is unable to demonstrate a ﬁve-year housing supply, and in light of the landscape constraints facing the borough, Wood posited that the appeal site represents “an attractive option environmentally and in sustainability terms”.

Appeal Ref: APP/ R3650/W/15/3129019

( SUMMARY Communities secretary Greg Clark has supported an inspector’s decision to allow a mixed-use development including up to 1,500 dwellings, retail shops and health facilities in Brockworth, Gloucestershire, after determining that the level of housing need in the area warranted exceptional circumstances in which to build in the green belt. ( CASE DETAILS Clark agreed with inspector KA Ellison that the proposal represents large-scale inappropriate development in the green belt. He found that the scheme would be harmful mainly in relation to loss of the essential characteristic of openness, being contrary to the purposes of checking urban sprawl and to a lesser extent the purpose of preventing neighbouring towns from merging. But Clark gave great weight to the undersupply of housing in the Tewkesbury district, which has persisted I M AG E S | A L A M Y

22/04/2016 14:11

The peatlands at the Caithness site oﬀered “potential to accommodate large-scale wind energy development”, ruled an inspector

over a long period. The scheme’s ability to deliver 525 homes within the next five years was therefore seen as a substantial benefit. The provision of 40 per cent affordable homes – equivalent to 600 units – goes towards the identified need for 1,600 affordable homes across the borough. The application site’s support from all three planning authorities involved in the emerging Joint Core Strategy (JCS) for Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury was also viewed as significant. Clark concurred that as the “consistent conclusion of extensive study over the past decade has been that the area represents a logical and acceptable option for the extension of the builtup area”, the proposal could be described as a “plan-led development” rather than one that would undermine the plan-making process. Importantly, the preliminary findings of the JCS examiner were noted to include that exceptional circumstances exist for the release of the proposed A4-Brockworth strategic development allocation, including the appeal site, from the green belt. ( CONCLUSION REACHED The benefits of the scheme in terms of improved sports facilities, an increased range of health services, employment opportunities and other wider community benefits also weighed in favour of the appeal, so permission was granted.

Appeal Ref: APP/ G1630/V/14/2229497

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Clark overrules inspector on New Forest solar farm ( SUMMARY Communities secretary Greg Clark has disagreed with an inspector’s decision to grant permission for a groundmounted solar array in Lymington, in the New Forest National Park, after deciding that not enough weight was given to the National Planning Policy Framework’s (NPPF) aim to conserve the landscape and beauty of national parks (NP). ( CASE DETAILS Clark considered inspector Robert Mellor’s reasoning that the mitigating screening effects of existing and proposed planting would render the adverse impact on landscape character to be moderate-minor to minor. But Clark said that greater weight should be given to the inspector’s assessment that the “manufactured and industrial character” of the panels and other structures would inevitably affect the character of the park. Clark said more weight should be given to the time needed for proposed planting to reach maturity, and expressed fears that this planting would then be likely to have a permanent effect on the landscape while the intention is for the scheme to have a limited life, “albeit extending over 30 years”. Clark noted Mellor’s assessment that there would be no material cumulative visual or landscape effects with other renewable energy schemes in the area, but he balanced this against the

“sheer quantitative impact” of an increasing number of solar farms in the park, which he found to be at odds with paragraph 115 of the NPPF, which gives the highest status of protection to landscape and scenic beauty in NPs. Clark also said the appellant, Locogen, had “taken no account of any diﬀerentiation between grade 3a and grade 3b agricultural land”. He found the scheme’s use of 3.9 hectares of grade 3a agricultural land to be at odds with national policy aims. ( CONCLUSION REACHED Clark concluded that the exceptional circumstances called for in the NPPF to approve a major development of this nature had not been proved, so refused the appeal.

Appeal Ref: APP/ B9506/W/15/3006387

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Impact of Caithness turbines judged ‘negligible’ ( SUMMARY Permission has been granted for three wind turbines in Caithness, Scotland, after a reporter determined that their visual impact against a backdrop of existing and

consented wind farms did not warrant a refusal. ( CASE DETAILS Reporter David Liddell noted that the three turbines would be an extension to the consented five-turbine Achlachan wind farm, just north of the appeal site. Within 120 metres of the site there are one operational and two consented wind farm schemes, totalling 49 turbines. The Highland Council rejected the scheme because it would cumulatively have an unacceptable visual impact on two residential properties in the vicinity. But Liddell found that the flat, and open nature of the sweeping moorland and flat peatland landscapes within which the appeal site lies means that they have “considerable potential to accommodate large-scale wind energy development”. He said the turbines would be viewed “within the existing spread of operational and consented turbines”. ( CONCLUSION REACHED Liddell gave great weight to potential for the scheme to generate 7.5 MW of electricity, offsetting the emission of 10,845 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year – the power for 6,494 homes.

Appeal Ref: PPA-270-2142

MAY 2016 / THE PLANNER

p36_38_dif.indd 37

22/04/2016 14:11

INSIGHT

DiF { D HOUSING

Green space loss given more weight than housing shortage in Boston ruling ( SUMMARY An inspector has refused permission for the development of 60 homes in Sutterton, Boston, despite acknowledging that Boston Borough Council could not demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land. ( CASE DETAILS Inspector David Prentis did not accept concerns that the increase in traffic as a result of the development would be so great as to be harmful to living conditions. But Prentis’s main issue with the development was the inclusion of an access road, which would pass through a well-used area of existing communal green space, referred to as “back green”. Prentis noted that it is mainly used for children’s play and community events “such as Easter egg hunts and barbecues”, and was of “considerable value locally as both a recreational resource and as a focal point for the community”. He viewed that the appeal scheme would have a “much greater” impact than might first be suggested by the relatively small area of land that would be taken for the road, finding that in combination with an existing border road the space would become dominated with highways infrastructure. Although Prentis acknowledged the appellant’s assertion that alternative green space would be

DECISIONS IN FOCUS provided, he also noted that open space in new housing estates typically becomes available for use towards the end of development and thus any replacement space would only become available “two to three years after the loss of part of the back green”. Prentis also found that there was little evidence to suggest that a space of comparable “quality and utility” could be provided nearby. The inspector also took issue with the sustainability of the proposal, ﬁnding that while Sutterton had some local facilities, the evidence available suggested that future residents would need to travel elsewhere to meet most of their needs for shopping, services, education, employment and leisure facilities. ( CONCLUSION REACHED Despite acknowledging the shortage of housing land in the area, the inspector decided that the threat to communal green space outweighed this issue in the planning balance.

Appeal Ref: APP/ Z2505/W/15/3010682

HOUSING

Council found incorrect on affordable housing calculations ( SUMMARY Millwood Homes (Devon) has been granted permission to develop 240 homes, up to 2.7 hectares of employment land and a local centre in Dartmouth, Devon, after an inspector ruled that South Hams District Council had unreasonably assessed the development’s ability to provide affordable housing. ( CASE DETAILS Inspector Stephen Roscoe noted that the council accepted that it does not have a five-year housing land supply, and thus its relevant housing policies should be deemed out of date. Regardless, Roscoe found that the council’s existing Development Plan Document and Supplementary Planning Document should still be taken as material considerations in relation to housing supply, particularly in respect to the council’s usual affordable housing

The need for green space trumped the need for housing in Sutterton, Boston

requirement of 30 per cent. In assessing the viability of the scheme, Roscoe noted that the council and appellant used different methods to arrive at a consented land value (CSV) for the site, but that both had reached a similar conclusion; the council found a value of £9.65 and £11.2 million on an acreage and plot basis respectively, versus the appellant’s findings of £9.31 and £10.12 million. Roscoe explained that “broadly speaking, the higher the CSV, the less opportunity there is for viable obligation commitments, including affordable housing”. As the land is subject to option agreements, the appellant suggested that it should be subject to a discount of between 10 and 15 per cent. The council suggested that a further 20 per cent discount should be applied as the site does not benefit from planning permission. But Roscoe found that this level would be “unjustified” as there are many factors associated with the scheme which “substantially reduce” the risk associated with the consent process, and to impose such a discount would be to “effectively double count the risks that it is intended to cover”. . ( CONCLUSION REACHED After agreeing with the appellant’s calculations in respect to residential flat values and affordable housing revenues, Roscoe agreed that an 11 per cent affordable housing level was indeed necessary.

Appeal Ref: APP/ K1128/W/15/3039104

T H E P L AN N E R \ M A Y 2 0 1 6

p36_38_dif.indd 38

22/04/2016 14:11

INSIGHT

LLegal landscape WHY LESS IS MORE FOR LOCAL PLANNING

Jay Das

Too much fiddling with the planning system is crippling the ability of planners to create plans. What politicians need to do is set a sensible course and let things settle, argues Jay Das The Housing and Planning Bill is at the House of Lords committee and, once enacted, it will provide the communities secretary with extensive rights to step in and direct the preparation of local plan/development plan documents or issue them himself. Meanwhile, the Local Planning Expert Group (LPEG) published its report in March, setting out its recommendations on how local plan-making can be made more efficient and effective. The LPEG report, which has received widespread support, contains a plea that the government should not cherry-pick recommendations such that only some of the proposals are taken forward. One of the key themes of the report is the need for less change – the barrage of change either through acts of Parliament, regulation, national guidance or ministerial statements needs to be reduced. Since the enactment of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which was intended to codify planning laws, we have had the Planning Act 2008, Planning and Energy Act 2008, Localism Act 2011, Growth and Infrastructure Act

2013 and Infrastructure Act 2015. That’s not to mention the countless regulations and guidance issued pursuant to each Act and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). The LPEG recommends that the NPPF is reviewed only once every ﬁve years and the NPPG changes are limited to, say, once every six months. If local plans are to be delivered in short order (by March 2017 or March 2018 where the plan predates

“THE MERE PROSPECT OF DECISIONS BEING MADE AT APPEAL HAS NOT TO DATE DETERRED MANY AUTHORITIES FROM FAILING TO PRODUCE UPTODATE PLANS.”

the NPPF) some of the key recommendations by LPEG will need to be adopted and these include: c Limiting the evidence required to achieve legal compliance; c Conﬁrming that a simple sustainability statement would be suﬃcient to meet legal requirements; c The scoping back of local plan requirements such that they only deal with “strategic” issues; c Amending the “soundness” test so that the local plan need only be an “appropriate strategy”; c Providing clear guidance on a shorter/standardised approach to calculating housing need; and c A national concordat between the county council network, the district council network and central government to agree to speedy performance. Most stakeholders involved

in the development process generally agree that local authorities are best placed to prepare their strategic plan documents. Although the bill gives the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government the power to intervene – and the latest study by Nathaniel Lichﬁeld & Partners states that 21 authorities could be at risk of intervention – save for exceptional cases it is likely that mass intervention would be considered a failure of the system – after all, it is a local as opposed to a central plan. The streamlining proposed by the LPEG, however, if adopted, would make it easier for the secretary of state to intervene to produce a strategic document. The LPEG also recommends that local authorities are incentivised to deliver plans. Withdrawal of the New Homes Bonus, together with the requirement that local authorities pay the secretary of state’s costs of intervening to produce local plans (contained in the bill), could provide a ﬁnancial incentive for many authorities to comply. The mere prospect of decisions being made at appeal has not to date deterred many authorities from failing to produce up-to-date plans. The willingness of politicians to nail their colours to the mast and set out clear policies (removing legal hurdles) as recommended by the LPEG and then to leave the system alone to provide a stable environment within which plans can be promoted and adopted will be the key to success. Is this likely, as we hear calls for further reviews of the NPPG? Jay Das is head of planning for Wedlake Bell LLP

T H E P L AN N E R \ MA Y 2 0 1 6

p40_41_LegalLandscape.indd 40

25/04/2016 12:53

LATEST POSTS FROM THEPLANNER.CO.UK/BLOGS

B LO G S An emerging EU directive conﬂicts with many local authority climate change and sustainability policies to deliver medium-scale combustion to feed heat networks

L E G I S L AT I O N S H O R T S EU directives and UK air quality Graham Harker

Air pollution is frequently cited as one of the largest contributors to health issues. Last month, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons released a report (Every Breath We Take: The Lifelong Impact Of Air Pollution) linking poor air quality to 40,000 deaths a year in the UK; an earlier study found that central London has some of the highest concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in the world. Data linking air quality and human health is so stark that the EU has developed a series of directives to force municipal authorities to act. One of the key directives enforced in the UK this year is the Medium Combustion Plant Directive, which will require any energy plant between 1 MW and 50 MW thermal input to reduce ﬂue emissions to very low levels. Quite rightly, the EU has pointed out that no city will be able to deal with air quality if point source emissions continue unabated. But this emerging directive conﬂicts with many local authority climate change and sustainability policies, which are looking to deliver medium-scale combustion to feed heat networks for new land development projects.

While the Department for Environment Food and Rural Aﬀairs (Defra) has yet to deﬁne any particular air quality targets or set out how it intends to apply the directive, we do know that its impetus is to stop unabated emissions in city regions failing to meet EU limit values. This ambiguity poses a challenge when designing energy centres for district heating. We know the directive will be implemented by 2018, but until such time as we know the air targets that Defra will apply, as engineers we won’t have all the data we need for plant design. The simple solution to this is to ensure that all plants are rated below 1 MW within new energy centres, thereby circumventing the directive. But this still doesn’t resolve the air quality issues in our cities or deal with the health impacts these emissions will create. Air quality is

I M A G E | H O WA R D K I N G S N O R T H

p40_41_LegalLandscape.indd 41

increasingly become a key metric in deﬁning healthier cities. With health being a priority in the multi-layered deﬁnition of sustainable development, this may be a perfect time to rethink sustainability policies that are forcing the delivery of energy centres with negative local air quality and health impacts. This rethink is particularly pertinent in light of new technology now available to deliver better carbon emission reductions, instead of burning gas and pumping hot water around new developments. Graham Harker is air quality team leader at development and infrastructure consultancy Peter Brett Associates LLP www.peterbrett.com See the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons report at: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-rcp-airpollution

Supreme Court backs Selby core strategy Selby District Council’s Core Strategy has received the ﬁnal legal approval. The strategy sets out the council’s plans to support new jobs, homes and investment in the district. The Supreme Court has dismissed an application to appeal brought by Samuel Smith’s Old Brewery Tadcaster following the Court of Appeal’s ruling judgement to reject the legal challenge and uphold a decision made by the High Court in November 2015. The brewery has been refused permission to appeal by the Supreme Court and has been ordered to pay the council’s court costs. The decision, coupled with re-establishing a ﬁve-year land supply for housing, the council said, allows it to “work proactively with landowners and developers to deliver growth where it is needed”.

Cambridge’s stadium plans approved A High Court judge has said plans to build a new stadium for Cambridge City Football Club can go ahead. South Cambridge District Council’s decision in 2014 to approve the 3,000 capacity stadium on green belt land had been the subject of a judicial review. The judicial review was lodged in 2015 after the planning committee approved the application despite officers recommending that it should be refused. The council said the judge did not find it had breached “any common law duty to give reasons for granting the permission when it went against officer recommendation to refuse it”. Lynda Harford, chairman of South Cambridgeshire District Council’s planning committee, said that the “original planning application was considered on its merits following active local public consultation and debate”. The stadium plans include a floodlit grass pitch, a full-sized training pitch and 500 parking spaces.

Judge ruling stops work at ‘Rising’ site A High Court judge has refused to grant any stay on his orders that prevent works to buildings and locations in and around Dublin’s Moore Street, declared as a 1916 Rising “battleﬁeld site” comprising a national monument. Chartered Land, which has already secured permission for a residential and commercial development in the area around Moore Street, sought the stay on some of the court’s orders. Acting for the developer, Shane Murphy SC said it wanted the stay because the court’s orders prevented any works in the area. He said his client would not demolish the buildings at issue, but it was concerned repairs work may need to be carried out. Conleth Bradley SC, for Colm Moore, a nominee of the 1916 Relatives Association, opposed any stay, and said he was concerned that could reverse the judge’s decision on a national monument. Mr Justice Max Barrett has permitted some conservation works by the minister for arts and heritage to a terrace on Moore Street. Barrett also said both the minister and Chartered Land were entitled to appeal his decision that the wider Moore Street area comprised a national monument but he would not grant that stay Chartered Land sought.

MAY 2 0 1 6 / THE PLA NNER

22/04/2016 14:54

INSIGHT

Plan ahead P If we build it, they will come

“WHEN I STARTED DOING THIS WORK IT WASN’T EVEN CALLED INFRASTRUCTURE” 42

editorial@theplanner.co.uk Tweet us @The Planner_RTPI

Robbie Owen: “Infrastructure planning aﬀects more people than you might think”

The National Infrastructure Planning Association is due to take its annual appraisal of the opportunities emerging from the UK infrastructure boom “When I started doing this work it wasn’t even called infrastructure,” recalls Robbie Owen, head of infrastructure planning and government aﬀairs at law ﬁrm Pinsent Masons. “This whole new sector has come into being – it started fairly soon after the recession. In 2008 to 2010 the Labour government began to understand the importance of infrastructure to helping us achieve the economic growth we need. It’s been going on ever since.” Indeed, the UK appears to be undergoing an infrastructure boom. Roads, railways, energy systems and gargantuan sewage systems are undergoing renewal wherever you look. It is as though the economic crash of 2008 cast into relief the degraded nature of much of we rely on to keep the UK powered, on the move and economically active. But new infrastructure is also, as Owen acknowledges, a tool for attracting overseas investment, creating jobs and laying foundations for economic growth.

Send feedback to

The infrastructure boom has also been fuelled by long-standing projects coming to fruition, such as HS2, and ambitious policy goals, such as the Northern Powerhouse, which is intended to rebalance Britain’s lopsided economy. In England and Wales, the whole is supported by a bespoke planning regime introduced in 2010 to speed consents for the biggest projects. To date, the Nationally Signiﬁcant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) planning regime has sanctioned 50 big projects, from the Thames Tideway Tunnel to the East Midlands Gateway rail freight interchange, the A19 coast road improvement in Tyneside and numerous energy projects. The boom has also given rise to the National Infrastructure Planning Association (NIPA), which holds its annual conference on 29 June. To NIPA founder Owen, connecting places is key. “I think a real driver is connectivity, whether from highway networks or the rail network. HS2, for example, is redrawing the economic boundaries of the country.”

The conference “We’ll be looking at what went well over the last year and what didn’t go so well,” says Owen of

the event, the programme for which was being finalised as The Planner went to press. “We’ll be looking at those projects that are not just planned but have actually been built. What are the lessons that have been learnt and how can you apply them to the planning stage [for future projects]?” The event will cast an eye over the current themes in infrastructure planning – the creation of a National Infrastructure Commission and an NSIP regime for Wales, “England’s very challenging road investment strategy and the need to get a lot of roads though the planning system”. Then there is perhaps the biggest built environment issue of all – housing – one that many feel should be integrated into the NSIP regime to speed up delivery. Owen says the conference is one where “hopefully you learn stuff”. It’s not about “highprofile names” but substance

and stimulating discussion. Planners, says Owen, will gain a great deal from attending whether or not they are familiar with the NSIP regime. “[Infrastructure planning] is different from the planning process run by local authorities. It’s much bigger than just planning – for example, you have compulsory purchase orders and many other things. “You might go along if you are a local authority planner having to advise someone affected by one of these schemes. Or you could know very well the ins and outs of the regime and be wanting to learn more… You might, for example, be advising on a big scheme as a promoter.” “I think to date people have felt that unless I live next to a nuclear power station this regime won’t affect me. But there’s Thames Tideway Tunnel, Heathrow, road schemes. Infrastructure planning affects more people than you might think and the conference is a chance to get to meet some of the people who are planners in the process.” “You can certainly see the relevance of infrastructure a lot more than in the past. Connectivity and security of energy supply are the main drivers of what’s going on as well as the recognition that this is good for jobs generally. The rate of planning in the regime hasn’t slowed… It’s been running for six years. The government has changed, tweaked and improved the process and it’s bedding in well.”

B U I LD I N G B R I D G E S What: National Infrastructure Planning Association annual conference When: Wednesday, 29 June 2016 Where: Cliﬀord Chance, London EC2R 5TA Find out more and book: http://www.nipa-uk.org/

T H E PL AN N E R \ MA Y 2 0 1 6

p42_43_event_listings.indd 42

22/04/2016 14:12

DIARY

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

LONDON 12 May – Design in the planning system One-day masterclass on dealing eﬀectively with design. Venue: The Hatton (etc Venues), 51-53 Hatton Garden, London Details: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-LO-1205 17 May – Eﬀective communication skills: How planners can speak so people will listen This personal skills masterclass addresses your need to be listened to in conversations, meetings, and when speaking in public. Venue: The Hatton Details: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-LO-1705 18 May – MPA / RTPI Minerals Conference 2016 The event focuses on the challenges and opportunities presented by the emerging UK Minerals Strategy. Venue: Grange St.Paul’s Hotel, 10 Godliman St, London, EC4V 5AJ Details: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-LO-1805

SOUTH EAST 13 May – SCYPN - CIL and neighbourhood planning: a legal perspective Join barristers Leanne Buckley-Thomson and Scott Stemp for a free one-hour evening seminar taking you on a whistlestop tour through CIL and neighbourhood planning from a legal perspective. Venue: 12 College Place, Southampton SO15 2FE Details: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-SE-13-05 17 May – Surrey Young Planners APC event The Surrey Young Planners Network hold an evening event on the APC (Assessment of Professional Competence – the main route to becoming a chartered

town planner), hosted by Runnymede Borough Council. Venue: Runnymede Civic Centre, Station Road, Addlestone, Surrey Details: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-SE-1705

EAST OF ENGLAND 17 May – East of England AGM A debate on ‘Shared Services, Merging Authorities and Devolution’ will take place immediately following the AGM. Venue: West Suffolk House, Western Way, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP33 3YU Details: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-EE-1705 17 May – East of England social Enjoy a relaxed quiz evening among friends and colleagues. Advance booking is essential. Venue: The Oakes Barn, St Andrew’s St South, Bury Saint Edmunds, Suffolk Details: tinyurl.com/ planner-0516-EE2-1705

EAST MIDLANDS 17 May - EMYP visit to Delapre Abbey A visit to view the restoration of Delapre Abbey funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund and Northampton Borough Council and supported by the Delapre Preservation Trust. Limited to 12 places only. Venue: Delapre Abbey, Northamptonshire Details: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-EM-1705 18 - Rural planning This full-day event looks at key aspects in delivery of development in rural areas and the measures necessary to protect and enhance the countryside. Venue: Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire DE45 1AE

DON’T MISS RTPI Brighton Rock Lecture 2016 David Rudlin, director of URBED, is the guest speaker at this year’s event, sponsored by the Berkeley Group. URBED (Urbanism, Environment and Design) specialises in urban design and sustainability in an urban context. Rudlin joined URBED in 1990 to manage the BURA award-winning Little Germany Action project in Bradford. He has since managed many high-profile consultancy projects including the Oldham Beyond Vision and the Selby Renaissance Charter for Yorkshire Forward. He has also been responsible for private sector masterplans such as Temple Quay 2 in Bristol, The New England Quarter in Brighton, and the 4,500 home Southall Gasworks masterplan in West London. He is the author of several reports including 21st Century Homes for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. He is chair of Beam in Wakefield, joint chair of the Sheffield Design Panel, and a founder academician of the Academy for Urbanism. Date: Thursday 26 May Where: Grand Parade Campus Boardroom, University of Brighton, Brighton and Hove BN2 0JY Details: tinyurl.com/planner0516-SE-2605

Details: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-EM-1805

WEST MIDLANDS 25 May – Neighbourhood planning: rhetoric or reality? How well is the process working? This seminar is designed to explore this and other questions. Venue: In Birmingham tbc Details: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-WM-2505

YORKSHIRE 19 May – The development management law conference This conference looks at development management from a planning law angle. It is organised by solicitors from DWF LLP, with contributions from No 5 Chambers. Venue: The Hospitium, Museum Gardens, York Details: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-YO-1905

NORTH EAST 9 May – Minerals & waste, all you need to know? This seminar explores the role minerals and waste play in the current market. Speakers include: Mary Campbell, planning director, Stephenson Halliday; Sam Thistlethwaite, associate director of Wardell Armstrong, and Carol

Romero, MD of Romero Waste Consulting. Venue: Centre for Life, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear NE1 4EP Details: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-NE-0905

planner0516-NW-1905

NORTH WEST 17 May – Transport investment and development The quest for the wider beneﬁts of transport infrastructure investment was one of the 10 points that the RTPI asked the incoming government to address. Prof Richard Knowles, FRGS, University of Salford, will examine what we know about these impacts. Venue: Eversheds, Great Bridgewater St, Manchester Details: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-NW-17-05 19 May - Local planmaking: The challenges This event will consider the challenges in preparing a local plan. It will: provide an update on the legal issues and government proposals that have arisen in relation to policy preparation; consider the duty to cooperate; reﬂect on how best to provide for gypsy and travellers; and consider how professionals can work together, with the community and with other stakeholders. Venue: DAC Beachcroft, Manchester M3 3HF Details: tinyurl.com/

23 May – Public inquiries The event will consider inquiry procedure and process with speciﬁc emphasis on the approach to giving witness evidence. Venue: Pinsent Masons, Manchester M3 3AU Details: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-NW-2305

SCOTLAND 18 May – A brave new world? Outcomes of the Scottish Planning Review With the outcomes of the Scottish Government Planning Review approaching, the RTPI South East Scotland Chapter has organised an event inviting industry leaders and specialists to give their thoughts. Venue: Morton Fraser, Quartermile Two, 2 Lister Square, Edinburgh Details: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-SC-1805

N OR THER N IR EL AND 19 May – RPA one year on Following just over 12 months of the new planning system, this event will look at the road travelled so far and looks at how things can further develop. Venue: The Playhouse, Artillery St, Londonderry, Derry BT48 6RG Details: tinyurl.com/ planner0516-NI-1905

MAY 2 0 16 / TTHE PLA NNER HE P LANNER

p42_43_event_listings.indd 43

4433

22/04/2016 14:12

NEWS

RTPI {

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

Highly Commended APC candidates share tips for success More than 400 Licentiates apply for Chartered Membership via the Assessment of Professional Competence (APC) annually. In 2015, the first-time pass rate increased to 45 per cent – up 8 per cent from 2014. Each year APC assessors nominate candidates with particularly excellent submissions for commendation. The nominations are judged by the Institute’s APC Advisory Panel. The accolade highlights the positive contribution our candidates make to the profession and their commitment in developing professional competence. In this article, the five candidates awarded an APC Commendation for 2015 share their advice and tips for a successful submission. The candidates speak about the importance of not rushing and waiting until they were ready to make a strong submission. Iain Crossland says that “waiting gives the opportunity to build a greater variety of experiences and a broader perspective when reflecting on that experience”. Laura Dimond advises that the Professional Development Plan (PDP) requires time and thought to “ensure actions have a clear timeframe, are measurable, address your weaknesses and link to your goal”. Many candidates stressed the role of the logbook. Emma Watts says: “Start your log book early and keep on top of it.” The candidates also found crossreferencing the competencies in their logbook was useful for identifying types of experience they still needed to gain and for selecting case studies to cover all of the competencies. Another key success factor is using all available resources. In 2015, the RTPI launched a new user-friendly guidance document and a series of podcasts. Jennifer Towers advises candidates to “familiarise yourself with the guidance and what is expected” and adopt the policy of “if in doubt, ask”. This could involve your line manager, mentor,

b 2015 APC Commended candidates: b Iain Crossland b Laura Dimond b Dan Evans b Jennifer Towers b Emma Watts

colleagues, the RTPI’s Membership Team or even a non-planner (for example, to help proofread). To make the most of the APC process Dan Evans recommends not simply seeing it as a means to an end. “The APC provided me with a valuable opportunity to reﬂect on my experience and competencies. It has helped me to become a more conﬁdent, wellrounded town planner and has guided

my professional development following chartership”. This view is echoed by president of the RTPI, Phil Williams: “These outstanding planners are well on their way to making considerable contributions to both the profession and the community.” n More information on the commended candidates and their tops tips can be found at: www.rtpi.org.uk/apc-commendations

T H E PL AN N E R \ M A Y 2 0 1 6

p44_47_RTPI_news.indd 44

22/04/2016 14:13

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 she would improve development enforcement in Scotland

Rachel Webster Planner CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL Enforcement departments of local authorities have an often under-recognised role to play in maintaining public confidence in the planning system. The non-fee generating nature of the function means that it is often an easy target in cost savings and cuts to staff. A portion of the fees required for planning applications should be ringfenced to fund conditions monitoring. In addition, where works have been carried out without planning permission, a penalty fee of an additional 25 per cent should be charged on top of the standard application fee to recognise the additional workload. The requirements of the procurator fiscal to prosecute against a breach of planning are also overly cumbersome; often there are difficulties in reaching court where a date of birth of a property owner cannot be obtained by officers. Fines levied by the courts can also be small in relation to profits made by carrying out unauthorised development, and are often insufficient to deter repeat offenders of similar breaches.

1 Better resource conditions monitoring through a portion of planning application fees

Higher fees for Greater retrospective enforcement applications penalties for repeat offenders

POSITION POINTS

YOUR INSTITUTE, YOUR QUESTIONS Why should young members take part in the RTPI elections?

TOM HILES, YOUNG PLANNER, NORTH WEST

‘GREEN OASES’ FOR OUR CONCRETE JUNGLES Green infrastructure is what brings our towns, cities and communities alive and makes them great places to live in. Street trees, gardens, green roofs, community forests, parks, rivers, canals and wetlands deliver a wide range of proven, tangible and cost effective economic, social and environmental benefits. Simply by acting as green oases in our concrete jungles, they offer recreation and health services for all including the most disadvantaged in society. Wildlife Trusts Wales (WTW) has published a new report that explores the connection between green infrastructure and a healthier, more prosperous Wales – for people and for wildlife.

n See the report www.wtwales.org/sites/default/ﬁles/ green_infrastructure.pdf

LUCY SEYMOUR BOWDERY, TRUSTEE YOUNG PLANNER Our strength comes from our members’ involvement and we want the widest possible range of members, including recently qualified planners, students and licenciates, to be active across our governance structure. We are looking for a range of different life and work experiences, diversity, new ideas and a desire to make a difference. Standing for election is your opportunity to shape the future of the RTPI. Elections take place at regional and national level, so there’s lots of scope to get involved. In June, we will be opening nominations for members of the General Assembly and Trustees to the Board. Both will give you the chance to work with a wide range of colleagues and to contribute to the big discussions, debates, and decisions that impact our profession.

CENTRE FOR CITIES’ FAST GROWTH CITIES REPORT In its Fast Growth Cities report, Centre for Cities says the UK’s fastest-growing cities are facing signiﬁcant challenges which will put their economic success at risk, including pressure on transport infrastructure, housing shortage and declining aﬀordability. All the cities cited – Cambridge, Oxford, Milton Keynes, Swindon, and Norwich – attract commuters from nearby areas, which illustrates the importance of planning for functional economic areas rather than cities in isolation. Managing housing markets and transport networks will need co-ordination across a wider area than a single local government boundary. As the RTPI points out in Strategic Planning, the solution is for local authorities that form a functional economic area to plan collectively.

n www.rtpi.org.uk/knowledge/policy/policy-papers/ strategic-planning/

MAY 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

p44_47_RTPI_news.indd 45

22/04/2016 14:13

PLANNING THEORY AND PRACTICE:

NEWS

RTPI { WHERE IS WALES’S BEST PLACE?

Roisin Willmott Director of Wales and Northern Ireland ROYAL TOWN PLANNING INSTITUTE Wales’s Best Places is a competition designed to celebrate some of our most attractive and inspiring places. This comes hot on the heels of the success of Scotland’s Best Places in 2014 (Dundee Waterfront) and England’s Great Places last year (Liverpool Waterfront). We are inviting nominations until 10th June. Any member of the public can nominate their ‘Wales’s Best Place’. Each place nominated will be judged against how it was shaped, protected or improved by planners and the planning system. A diverse panel of judges will come up with a short list of the top 10 and then we will invite a public vote which we will be launching at the National Eisteddfod in Abergavenny at the end of July. There is no single deﬁnition of a ‘best place’. We are leaving that up to you. We want your suggestions. It could be a natural landscape, a historic town, perhaps a national park. It might be a vibrant and

diverse community you are especially proud of, a special place within a town or city, a stunning cultural quarter or a neighbourhood. You could nominate an area that has undergone signiﬁcant regeneration and has been transformed by that process. It could be a place that has changed over time to meet the needs of its communities. Please do think about where your best place in Wales is and let us know, through our website www.rtpi.org.uk/walesbestplace or email: walesbestplace@rtpi.org.uk. Please spread the word to family, friends and colleagues to nominate their best place in Wales.

Placemaking for wellbeing VICTORIA PINONCELY, RESEARCH OFFICER The latest issue of the RTPI’s respected journal Planning Theory And Practice (volume 17, issue 1) contains stimulating debates Mee Kam Ng discusses in the editorial the right to healthy placemaking and wellbeing, while Rebecca Webster kicks off with a call for cooperative land-use planning between indigenous and state-based governments and shows how this led to a fairer distribution of resources in the Oneida Reservation in Wisconsin. Andrew Zitcer, Julie Hawkins and Neville Vakharia assert the importance of arts and culture in place-based community empowerment, even in the face of deprivation and pressure from gentrification. Petter Næss’s contribution sheds light on the importance co of the urban built environment and land use to human actions and asserts the causal links between the physical world and social life. be Mahyar Arefi recounts a collaboration between architecture and planning students in be two American universities to evaluate a property tw redevelopment near the University of Nevada. red Karen Trapenburg Frick discusses citizen activism and planning in a digital age and puts ac forward a new framework to understand how for individuals search for like-minded groups on ind the internet and react to the planning process. th The Interface section focuses on marine spatial planning (MSP) and calls for a better sp understanding of the social and distributive un impacts of MSP with more emphasis on equity, im democratic decision-making and a fairerdistribution of marine resources. An interview with Edward Soja pays tribute to his contribution to the understanding the spatiality of justice in placemaking, and finally, Cliff Hague talks about planning practice in the West Bank. n Interested in subscribing to the journal? Visit: http://www.rtpi.org.uk/knowledge/ publications/planning-theory-and-practice

T H E PL AN N E R \ M A Y 2 0 1 6

p44_47_RTPI_news.indd 46

I M AG E | G E T T Y

22/04/2016 14:13

RTPI Y ACTIVIT E PIPELIN Current RTPI work – what the Institute is doing and how you can help us BOOK YOUR TICKET FOR THE 2016 YOUNG PLANNERS’ CONFERENCE PROGRAMME ANNOUNCED Booking for this year’s Young Planners’ Conference is now open. The conference, titled Planning for Change – Shaping our Future, will take place at the Europa Hotel in Belfast on 14-15 October. Brought to you by the Northern Ireland Young Planners, this conference will showcase the importance of information and knowledge-sharing across various disciplines and demonstrate how planning can build in ﬂexibility and resilience when developing for the future. It will also outline how new technologies are adapting UK cities into ‘smart cities’ and the role the planning sector can play in shaping spaces and places through creative ideas and innovative solutions. n Don’t miss out on this excellent CPD and networking opportunity – book your tickets at: www.rtpi.org.uk/events/young-planners-conference-belfast-2016/ and follow the discussion on Twitter @RTPIPlanners, #YPConf2016

2016 RTPI AWARDS FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE OPEN FOR ENTRIES The prestigious RTPI Research Awards recognise and promote high-quality, impactful spatial planning research from RTPI-accredited planning schools in the UK and internationally. This year we are launching a new category, the Planning Consultancy Research Award, to recognise the valuable contribution that consultancies make to spatial planning research. All RTPI-accredited planning schools staﬀ and students are encouraged to submit entries, as well as planning consultancies for the Planning Consultancy category.

RTPI SHORTS

MEMBER DEATHS It is with great regret that we note the deaths of the following members. We oﬀer our condolences to their families and colleagues. c Thales Argyropoulos Overseas

c Ursula Morhall East of England

c Andrew Beedham London

c James Pate Scotland

c Alan Cheetham South-West

c Grenville Pullen Overseas

c Stephen Chorley Scotland

c Merfyn Roberts Wales

c George Goodall West Midlands

c John Senior South-East

c John Hawkins South-East

c Graeme Smart Scotland

c Kiki Kafkoula Overseas

c Jane Stiles South-East

c Simon Kirk Northern Ireland

c Charles Walker Scotland

c Zigurds Klavins Yorkshire

c Edgar White South-West

c Philip Maynard South-East

c Fraser Williamson Scotland

c Nigel Mentzel Wales

c Philip Wilson London

c Stanley Midwinter South West

c Richard Wood West Midlands

n Further information, including eligibility criteria and full application guidelines, is available at: http://rtpi.org.uk/researchawards

BOOK YOUR FREE STUDY TOUR AT THE PLANNING CONVENTION 2016 Five exciting study tours are being oﬀered to delegates at this year’s Planning Convention. Led by an inspiring guide, the tours oﬀer unique insights into the way planning has supported the growth and development of some of the most historic and up-and-coming areas of London.

MEMBERSHIP ROUTES – IMPORTANT DATES TO NOTE

n Booking and information on each tour is available at: www.theplanningconvention.co.uk/

During 2016, some non-accredited routes will close as we prepare for new routes to come in from January 2017. The Technical Member class also closes this year. b

10 June 2016: the last possible date to apply for Chartered Membership through the Reciprocal Arrangements and EU Pathway routes.

10 June 2016: the last possible date to apply for Technical Membership (future candidates will apply for the Associate class from 2017).

26 October 2016: the last possible date to apply for Chartered Membership through the Special Entry route.

WALES PLANNING CONFERENCE 2016 DELIVERING POSITIVELY Join us to explore top issues of the day at Wales’s premier planning conference. This year’s Wales Planning Conference, on 9 June in Cardiﬀ, will immerse delegates in discussions concerning the planning landscape in Wales in the light of the new Planning (Wales) Act 2015. There are topics of interest to all areas of planning, wherever you are based and whichever sector you work in. You may even be interested if you don’t work in Wales at all. n For further information please visit: www.rtpi.org.uk/events/events-calendar/2016/june/wales-planningconference-2016/

Guidance for the new routes will be available later this year. n FAQs: www.rtpi.org.uk/routes-to-membership

MAY 2 0 16 / THE PLA NNER

p44_47_RTPI_news.indd 47

22/04/2016 14:13

INSIGHT

Plan C P Plan B has gone AWOL this month, so we’ve had to go to Plan C instead. Here’s Rob Cowan… Rob Cowan is working on the second edition of his acclaimed book The Dictionary Of Urbanism. To keep him sane, he is also writing a much shorter book, The Alternative Dictionary Of Urbanism. This provides the definitions that the words should have, even if they don’t actually. Here, he presents a selection specially chosen for developers. AFFORDABLE Less expensive than more expensive properties. ARCHITECTONICS What architects drink with their gins. AWARD-WINNING Leaking. BROWNFIELD An abandoned, formerly developed site, luxuriantly overgrown, that is neither brown nor a field. CHARRETTE The lady who does the cleaning. CIVIC PRIDE Tasteless white bread served at local authority buffet lunches. CONSENSUS BUILDING One that everyone agrees is an appalling piece of architecture. CONSERVATIVE SURGERY Government cuts to council funding. CONSULT To perform a con trick that insults the people on the receiving end. CONTEXT A design and access statement aimed at pulling the wool over the planners’ eyes. CYCLE PATH A dangerous lunatic. DESIGN CODE The incomprehensible language that architects speak. DEVELOPMENT BRIEF Badly designed buildings that have to be demolished after a few years. ENQUIRY BY DESIGN Asking an architect if that is really what he or she meant it to look like. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Deciding at a dinner party whether you dare admit that you are a developer. FEASIBILITY STUDY The room that middle-class homeworkers use when trying to earn enough to pay for their children’s private education. FINE GRAIN Muesli from Waitrose. FORWARD PLANNING The opposite of retrospective planning. It’s much more difficult. FUEL POVERTY Filling the tank of your BMW at a motorway service station. GHETTO A cake ordered in bad French. GOLDEN MEAN A tight-fisted oligarch. HIGH RISE Finding that the drugs still haven’t worn off when you get up in the morning. HOME ZONE The green belt. LANDSCAPE UPGRADE Bushes. LAYOUT When a developer puts the brown envelope on the table. LIVE/WOK SPACE Housing for dyslexic Chinese cooks. LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS Flint trimmings and carriage lamps. LYNCHIAN ANALYSIS When the locals decide which developer they would like to string up. OUT OF TOWN Having no more brownfield sites to develop. The equivalent of being out of milk. OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION A development proposal drawn by making a rough tracing of a design for a completely different site.

T H E P L AN N E R \ M A Y 2 0 1 6

p50_Plan B.indd 50

PRESTIGIOUS Overpriced. PROPERTY SPECULATION Interminable discussion at a dinner party about how much house prices are rising. REAL ESTATE An area of council housing whose tenants have not exercised the right to buy. REDLINING Spending the afternoon in the Red Lion when you are meant to be on a site visit. RETAIL PARK All retail, no park. REVAMP A response to the failure of the previous vamp. RURAL BUFFER An old person with NIMBY attitudes. SIGNATURE ARCHITECT One who is sufficiently literate to be able to write his or her name. SOCIAL ENTREPRENEUR A developer who thinks that inviting planners to his parties will make them approve his applications. SOCIAL RENEWAL Taking out another year’s subscription to the online dating agency. SPEC DEVELOPMENT Building on a minuscule piece of land. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT A vampire struggles with an adversary. SUSTAINABLE More or less acceptable. TOWNSCAPE Getting away to the country. TOWNSHIP A party yacht that a local authority hires at MIPIM in a desperate attempt to attract developers. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Running a business from your mobile phone as you drive in the fast lane. TROPHY ARCHITECT One who is better at golf than architecture. TUSCAN ORDER A bottle of Montepulciano and a bowl of olives, please. Rob Cowan is an urbanist, editor, writer and cartoonist at Urban Design Skills, and occasionally finds time to do some planning. You can see his work at http://www.urbannous.org.uk/plandemonium/ or pick up more of his skew-whiff definitions on Twitter @cowanro

n Any other dictionary deﬁnitions? Tweet us - @ThePlanner_RTPI 22/04/2016 14:14