Plan making and Local development frameworks

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:21:23 BST

On interim solutions...a phasing idea... We were so close but pulled our Council's consideration of our proposed submission Core Strategy after Eric Pickles' letter. We want to get it back on track now. But we don't want to commit our small market town communities to whacking great urban extensions with 15 years' worth of allocations. Our former proposals for 800ish homes at each town were very unpopular and are politically a no-go given that the RSS has gone. And why should we commit these communities for the next 15 years, effectively removing their ability to plan their own growth through bottom-up new style Local Plans? So what we're tentatively thinking is that we progress with a plan to 2027, but phase the growth. We'd commit fully for the first 5 or 6 years, say 300-400 homes at each town, then have a holding policy (get-out clause) for the post 2017 period saying that these homes won't be allowed to come forward until there has been further work with communities in these areas. Perhaps a hatched-in area on the proposals map for the pre-2017 allocations (phase 1), which would form part of a bigger edged area for rest of the 15 years (phase 2). Will this work? Is this meeting the PPS3 requirements for a 5 year and 15 year supply? Would this be sound? Are inspectors going to see this as a workable compromise given that the world is changing? Would love your thoughts! Submitted by: Pickled Planner

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:01:28 BST

Folks - we (Aylesbury Vale) were just at the end of the examination into our Core Strategy when the announcements started to come. As we are in a growth area (and due to the way in which the RSS was done in the SE) we do not have any option 1 figure. If of interest you might wish to see how we are dealing with this - go to www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk and follow the link on the front page to Aylesbury Vale Core Strategy Examination, and follow the links to inspectors interim report (the counsil rep is the fourth in the list). It might help on the way in which we are moving, and more will become public for our Council meeting on the 8 Sept. Submitted by: andy barton

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:25:43 BST

Just a thought, returning to the topic earlier in this thread. Is anyone contemplating reverting to their draft RSS housing target (the so-called "option 1" figure) as an interim measure pending evidence base work and modelling to determine a final target? Submitted by: Andy Duncan

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:28:04 BST

I assume that a revoked RSS can only be the adopted RSS not a draft? This is actually an important consideration in the East of England where a review had commenced but the Minister has specifically referred to the revoked RSS. Submitted by: Phil Morris

SA Scoping Report Changes

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:34:49 BST

Has there been any examples of SA Scoping Reports being reviewed in light of the revocation of the RSS. The Plan Making Manual suggests that Scoping Reports should be reviewed regularly and an addendum to the Scoping Report should be considered where there have been significant changes to the basline, or where the policy context or evidence base has substantially changed since the original report was published. I can only substantiate that since 2/3 of Core Strategies have yet to be adopted, this potentially leaves a large number facing the prospect of more SA Scoping reviews... Submitted by: Kim Balls

3 Day Health Impact Assessment (HIA) Training Course

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:55:06 BST

Another exciting course on HIA has been jointly organised by the West Midlands Public Health Observatory (WMPHO) and the Wales HIA Support Unit (WHIASU) for October, 2010 and follows on from the successful delivery of this course last year and the 2 one day courses in 2009/10. The 3 day course, Ready to do HIA , is on 5th 7th October 2010, at Gregynog, Powys, Wales. An optional pre course workshop on an Introduction to HIA will be hald on Monday 4th October 2-4pm. The 3 day course will cover the HIA process in more depth using a series of exercises based on real life examples. After completing the course participants should be able to undertake a simple HIA or work on a complex HIA as part of a team. Discounts are available for those working in public service in the West Midlands or Wales. To see the 3 day Course Flyer see: http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/view.aspx?RID=44548. For more detailed information and prices, discounts and booking form see: http://www.wmpho.org.uk/hiatraining/ Sue Wright HIA Gateway Content Manager 0121 415 8840 Submitted by: Sue Wright

Re: Proposals Map - Local Wildlife Sites

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:53:33 BST

This is an issue we are considering as we progress our Environment DPD. Para 8.1 of PPS12 is clear that 'locally designated sites and areas' and 'areas at risk from flooding' should be identified on the proposals map. I appreciate that these are designations that are likely to change; however, wouldn t a document be found unsound if it didn t include them? With regards to flood risk, I would be inclined to leave the designation off the proposals map (as discussed in the earlier post) and refer to the SFRA or EA website. It could be a matter for consultation with relevant bodies or examination to discuss the merits of this approach. Could designated sites such as Local Wildlife Sites be included on the proposals map with an acknowledgement that this was correct at the time of printing and should only be a guide. Further to this the AMR could be used to update the list of designated sites. Submitted by: John Dixon

Re: Localism Implementing the Red Tory Agenda

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:54:24 BST

Simon my reading of the David Cameron speech here in Liverpool suggests that the Big Society "vanguard" roll now being asked of Liverpool will focus on cultural activity rather than putting Open Source Planning to the test directly. If something turns up incidentally then I shall undertake to tell all about it. Turning to the post above I agree that members and the public can feel isolated from the activity of making plans but having a tier of planning above the distrcit is not the only or sole reason for this. Here in the NW the RSS is seen quite differently by most, though I would acknowledge not all councils, in fact only 9 of all NW councils finished with housing numbers other than the ones they had wanted. Perhaps it is time to revisit the official lables we use in our work - unles I imagined it when I first started my plan-making career everyone seemd to "get" what a Local Plan or even a "Unitary Development Plan" was. Submitted by: M Eccles

Re: Localism Implementing the Red Tory Agenda

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:37:34 BST

Simon, I don't think any of us see this as a mandate to just say no and then wait to see what bribes are offered to change minds! Given the continued use of the PPS and LDF as the basis for planning policy, should we not just assume that this 'open source planning' idea is more about communicating with the public much sooner and far more effectively than we currently do? The real trick here for me is to spend time investing in educating members on what the goals and policies of the council are. In my experience, far too many councillors, including those in control, continue to see the Local Plan or LDF as something the council (officers) have 'done' to the communities they represent, rather something they, the councillors, have been involved in creating and therefore have responsiblity for. As long as an 'us and them' situation persists, you will always have the potential for confrontation. Failing to bring the elected members on board, allows them to claim no responsiblity for the policies contained in the LP/LDF. If, god forbid, we were to end up with a pick'n mix planning system, where everything was indeed at the whim of members and the community, then I think we would indeed be on a road to nowhere. Finally, you have to keep in mind that, unlike officers, members are there at the will of the people and often steer a fine line between the electorate and the policies of their council. In the abscence of policy and a sound understanding and at least some commitment to the goals and ambitions of the council, then any elected member who chooses to go against the wishes of his or her community, would effectively be commiting political suicide. If a wooley take it or leave planning process is the result of these changes, then the professionals are going to have to work their socks off convincing members of the merits of continued development - something that to date, has been done via central government dictate i.e. RSS - as I said earlier, done to them not by them. I'm not saying that this is a good situation, but it is the reality and the sooner we work out how to manage it the better! Over to you guys and gals! Submitted by: Roger Gambba-Jones

Re: Localism Implementing the Red Tory Agenda

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:40:15 BST

Dierdre, you make a good point, but we need to take this further. Clearly, in a localist era where communities/Councillors (presumably) can "just say no" planners and developers need to work together to ensure that the necessary new homes and jobs are provided. This means that those existing residents, the majority of whom have a home and job must be persuaded that the development being proposed will benefit them. The promised financial incentives to Local Authorities may help, but direct, specific and clear improvements to communities arising from development will, in my view, be key. I think that alterations to the current policy/regulatory limitations to section 106 and the retention of CIL (or a similar, possibly less bureaucratic replacement) will need to be part of that reorientation of planning policy and development practice. Submitted by: Simon Thornley

Re: Localism Implementing the Red Tory Agenda

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:49:02 BST

I will do my best to pass on anything we learn. Submitted by: M Eccles

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:25:12 BST

Thanks Adam, You make a good point and despite its brevity we will all need to revisit and scrutinise the q&a guidance with some care. To be honest the whole RSS business is for some strategic / policy planners such as myself immensley demotivating and dispiriting. The Yorkshire and Humber RSS emerged out of a couple of years worth of extensive research, really useful collaborative working among planners, stakeholders and local politicians and via very extensive engagement and public consultation which culminated in a costly but exacting and rewarding EIP. Yes there were tensions and disagreements during the process and some of the final content of the draft RSS did reflect a degree of compromise. However to characterise the whole process as one of central imposition and failure is just something we as professional planners must not let go unchallenged. The only part of the process that was truly a centralist imposition was the ability of the secretary of State at the 'final hurdle' to make modifications to change things such as the final housing targets without re-opening the EIP. But this represents just a tiny fraction of the work and the procedural time line. The phrase throwing the baby out with the bath water comes to mind ..... I am sorry but I just do not buy the whole idea of a combination of localism toghether with a general requirement for local authorities and stakeholders to co-operate as a substitute for proper strategic planning nor do I see local communities signing up in their droves for housing development on the back of some aditional pennies going into Council coffers. Regards, Simon Submitted by: Simon Latimer

Re: Strategic Flood Risk Assessments

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:09:43 BST

Hi Peter, Two years later and I am the first to reply! Did you by any chance come to a solution for your DC officers on how to utilise SFRA flood maps? I would particularly interested to know if you had any advice regarding the utilisation of any 'with climate change accounted for' flood maps. Particularly given the policy in PPS25 that climate change should be taken into account. Submitted by: Plan Cunningly

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:43:39 BST

Doh! http://urbanregen.wordpress.com/ Adam Roake Submitted by: Adam Roake

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:42:54 BST

Simon, Do also watch out because although the SoS has revoked them, RSSs might still be material considerations according to the guidance issued with Steve Quartemain's letter. Policy as it were by the back door! This is the link to the letter and guidance http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1631904.pdf and this is the link to my blog, which you may find of interest. Good luck deciding whether to forge ahead with LDFs or wait for the Localism Bill. Adam Roake Submitted by: Adam Roake

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:30:27 BST

John, Many thanks for this, and for chasing it up. Its a shame that in all the centralist (note not localist...) material and propaganda issued of late on Regional Spatial Strategies no one thought carefully about the wording and terminology being used and no one to my knowledge actually used the phrase 'revoked by parliamentary statement'. Come to think of it, this is the least of our worries. Its a shame that no one has managed to disuade the Government from, before it had any viable thought out alternative, replacing a perfectly reasonable if imperfect regional planning system with chaos, confusion and a charter for nimbyism. Submitted by: Simon Latimer

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:01:03 BST

I've discussed your questions with CLG: Regional Strategies have been revoked, but there will be no order. On 6 July, the Secretary of State revoked Regional Strategies under s79(6) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, by Parliamentary Statement. Now that they have been revoked, Regional Strategies no longer form part of the development plan for the purpose of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The abolition of Regional Strategies will be taken forward through the "Localism Bill" later this year. The Parliamentary Statement can be found in the following link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100706/wmstext/100706m0001.htm#10070623000003 Submitted by: John Chantler

Re: Localism Implementing the Red Tory Agenda

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:47:12 BST

It would appear that M Eccles of Liverpool CC will be in a position to advise us all soon - the Government has today announced that Liverpool will be one of the 4 pilots for introducing Open Source Planning, presumably ahead of the legislation. Interesting times ahead. Simon Submitted by: Simon Thornley

Re: Potential policy vacuum as a result of changing national and regional planning policy:

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:37:20 BST

There is a possibility that RSS policies can be adopted as a SPD on the back of national policies. Submitted by: Julian Jackson

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:15:44 BST

John, I don't think that from your repsonse that you / Alex have inderstood the issue. We all know what the secretary of state announced on the 6th July but in order for RSS to actually be abolished an order has to be laid before parliament under powers granted by s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. To quote Mr Pickles from the CLG website, "An order laid in parliament today will revoke Regional Strategies with immediate effect." There is no physical evidence of that order being made on either the UK Parliament website or the OPSI website which is the repository for all legislation. On Thursday the OPSI representative replied to my e-mail see my post above and confdormed that they had contacted the legal section of the CLG who confirmed that no legal revocation order has been made. I have just returned to the office and found the following e-mail from the UK Parliament website, "Dear Mr Latimer Thank you for your enquiry, which related to the revocation of regional spatial strategies on 6th July. I have looked on our internal database, but was unable to find any evidence of revocation orders having been laid before Parliament. However, there was an announcement by the Minister, Eric Pickles, in a Written Ministerial Statement on this subject on 6th July. This statement is available on the UK Parliament website at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100706/wmstext/100706m0001.htm#10070623000013. " The e-mail continues by suggesting that I contact Steve Quartermain's office for further information. I did send such an e-mail on Tursday but perhaps unsuprisingly I have not yet made any reply. There are therefore to my mind several possible explanations: 1) The legal order has been made its just that officials at both websites cannot find it or don't have a copy; 2) The due legal process has been followed and perhaps does not require a physical order to laid down - however this is not how I read any of the written material I have seen but I am not a legal expert; 3) There has been some form of c up which CLG are hoping will go unoticed; or finally 4) The order does have to be made for RSS to be revoked but this has not yet happened and both the CLG material letter etc have been worded in an extremely misleading way - hopefully this latter alternative is not correct. Either way I simply want an answer to the question, have RSS's been legally revoked or not and under what due process and where is the evidence to prove it? Rregards, Simon Submitted by: Simon Latimer

Re: Potential policy vacuum as a result of changing national and regional planning policy:

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 17:00:38 BST

In St.Helens we have identified some potential gaps in minerals, waste and renewable energy policy created by the revocation of RSS as UDP policies were not saved because at the time the RSS covered them. We are looking at this in more detail to consider what the implications are and whether national policy adequately covers the issues. If there is a serious gap, the only option we can see at this stage is to rapdly develop, consult on and adopt interim planing policy. Submitted by: Gerard Woods

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:08:30 BST

Sorry - link to press release should read: http://www.communities.gov.uk/newsstories/newsroom/1632132 Submitted by: Ian Rowland

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:07:02 BST

John, Thanks for your reply. I had been led to believe that it was necessary for the revocation to be brought about through a formal Order being laid before Parliament (an approach that I thought was supported by my email from CLG and the press release at http://www.communities.gov.uk/newsstories/newsroom/1632132). Is it actually the fact that the written ministerial statement forms the Order that revokes the Regional Strategies and that a written Order of the form of those found at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/feeds/SIfeed.xml is not required? I'd welcome some clarification. As for my communication with CLG, I won't publish a name but it was somebody within the Development Plans Team... Submitted by: Ian Rowland

Re: Localism Implementing the Red Tory Agenda

Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:26:14 BST

Dear All A amjor missing element in the debate so far (as far as I can see) is engaging the construction/development and landowner sector, without which nothing will happen anyway. In my Local Government past, applying the general purpose of planning as 'the control of land in the public interest', customers or stakeholders could be defined as anything from future generations whose expectations could only be guessed at, through investors to community groups and individuals. I suspect that the development industry will only follow 'community' opinion if it makes it financially worth doing. Attempting to place all responsibility for leadership on new development on the good sense and philanthropism of established communities and their representatives will not actually deliver the investment which is inseperable from the whole purpose of planning, or tap into the imagination, creativity and entrpreneurial skills available ouside the public sector. A lot of effort could go into darwing up new strategies that few will be prepared to enact. Submitted by: Deirdre Wells

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:46:19 BST

Ian, I don't know who you have been in touch with at CLG. Alex Turner from the Development Plans team has just confirmed for me that: "The revocation of RSS was announced by parliamentary statement on 6 July. Abolition of RSS will be taken forward through the "Localism Bill" later this year." Cheers, John. Submitted by: John Chantler

Potential policy vacuum as a result of changing national and regional planning policy:

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:14:29 BST

When we went through the process of saving Local Plan policies, one of the reasons for not saving a policy was that it was covered by National or regional policy. With the potential changes to National policies and the loss of Regional planning policy there is likely to be a policy vacuum where we have deleted policies to be reliant on existing policies at a higher level that are also subsequently lost. Has anyone else encountered this? Is anyone aware of how this gap can be plugged? Submitted by: Ashley Baldwin

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:01:39 BST

I too am still waiting for the appropriate order to appear! This is the response that I received on the 9th July from the Development Plans Team at CLG on the matter when asking about where I could view the revocation Order: "The Order will appear on the OPSI website, there is just a time lag of a few working days between the Order being laid in Parliament and appearing on OPSI, I suggest you look at the site next week." I like Simon am now a little nervous about the status of the revocation without sight of the actual Order! The statement from the National Archive is certainly a little worrying! Submitted by: Ian Rowland

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:49:57 BST

Hi, With reference to the above, has anyone found the legal order yet? I have failed to find the order on either the OPSI or UK Parliament websites. I am writing a briefing note today for our Planning Management Team so would like to get my facts about the legal position right. I ahve e-mailed both websites and Steve Quartermain's office for clarification. However I have just recieved the follwoing e-mail response from a officer at national archives in response to my OPSI query ... "Dear Simon, I have checked with a variety of sources including the Legal department at the Department for Communities and Local Government. They have confirmed that Eric Pickles made a statement before the house regarding Regional Spatial Strategies but that no order has actually been made." I am therefore awaiting with interest the response from Steve Quartermain's office as if the above e-mail is correct then I assume that RSS's have in actual fact NOT yet been revoked. Regards, Simon Submitted by: Simon Latimer

Re: Localism Implementing the Red Tory Agenda

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 22:30:03 BST

The contributions above have identified what many of us have known for many years, that appropriate consultations with local communities are quite complex activities and require more than just meetings with local residents and "community organisers". Our experience is that local residents who are consulted are not nor will be fully representative of other existing or future members of the community. This is particularly true in relation to disabled people where designs and proposals with serious access barriers have been agreed as a result of a lack of understanding or sometimes because residents are not interested. We hope that decision making by communities will include consultations with groups representing equality and diversity issues and communities and it is is unfortunate that this could be assisted by regional networks which are now at risk. If planners were able to take a more proactive role in promoting good design and access statements to take account of more than wheelchair users, and to require developers to show that they have consulted, as was envisaged in the early concepts in the 2006 guidance, this will cover some of the consultation costs but planners and members could play a key role ensuring that information about groups are available and that there is a broad and relevant representation. Submitted by: Flick Harris

Re: Renewable Energy Action Area - can this be 'enshrined' in an LDF?

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:54:19 BST

http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=114302 Talks about LDO in London re energy Submitted by: Sarah Jones

Re: Renewable Energy Action Area - can this be 'enshrined' in an LDF?

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:47:34 BST

Sounds interesting- maybe a broad indication of the area in the Core Strategy and reference to the area in Core Strategy policy text followed up by a Site Allocation with specific policy or seperate AAP would be more concrete, but would an AAP focused just on energy be too narrow? If it was part of a wider regeneration initiative I imagine this would work better? I suppose the issue of identifying site allocations for proposals would need to account for the (albeit changing) national policy picture, which at the moment I understand doesn't necessarily seem to recommend such allocations unless there is a developer interest in a firm scheme? A DPD policy/SPD combined with Local Development Order might work and could still provide a more concrete approach, but I've not had any experience with LDO processes. Be interested to see how this develops. The new Government ideas for the planning system could change alot of these things though I suppose e.g. the structure/style of LDFs. You're probably aware of these examples already- not sure how they were addressed in the LDFs http://www.lep.org.uk/projects/energy-action-zero-carbon.htm Submitted by: Sarah Jones

Re: Localism Implementing the Red Tory Agenda

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:40:47 BST

I think the post by the last contributer is a good one as members are there to represent the 'community' in its widest form and have a mandate to do so. What worries me in all this is that it assumes a cohesive community view, which from my experience is almost never achieved. You often have the vocal minority who perceive they are adversely affected by a proposal, and a far larger silent majority who either don't care one way or the other, or who could (either themselves or sons/daughters etc) potentially benefit from development (eg from affordable housing, employment development creating more jobs) but who do not have the understanding to see these longer term wider benefits for themselves or the wider community or who are not fully engaged by the consultative process. Members are at least in a position to consider such issues as these and have leadership to take them forward. The vocal minority can sometimes seem like a majority, however, and ity can come down to how politicians see development influencing their votes at an election - this requires strong leadership to see more unpopuklar proposals through the system, even when they would have a wider benefit. Submitted by: Ian Gill

Re: Localism Implementing the Red Tory Agenda

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:15:09 BST

Having read all this professional input, I am left somewhat disappointed at the lack of any suggestion that elected members have a major role to play in the new localism agenda. All contributors seem to have siezed on the negatives of seeking community input when it comes to anything to do with planning. Yes, there will indeed be an element of NIMBY and anti-everything response as always and you will never overcome that. However, the early involvement of elected members in a managed and focussed way can deflect much of the negative public response that occurs. Councils seem to continually avoid member involvement until the whole thing becomes a public outcry or a planning application, thereby missing numerous opportunites to test the water and gain valuable input. I'm not advocating a policy of getting members to go native far from it. However, even if members are initially negative (without being pre-determined if that is an issue), this can give you the basis for exploring alternative proposals and better ways of doing things. Waiting until it becomes a valid application or worst still gets to the DC committee is always the worst way to manage community engagement. Submitted by: Roger Gambba-Jones

Re: Localism Implementing the Red Tory Agenda

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:59:01 BST

I agree with Peter's assessment especially his last point, but supposing we see an extension of the approach now proposed for the NHS, where local neighbourhoods, rather than the the local council receives the "incentive" and we the planners work in a direct partnership alongside local people and are given budgets to do so. The proposed restructuring of the NHS is entirely consistent with Blond's ideas for solving "broken Britain" through "associative relationships". Despite the few examples he gives (such as the John Lewis Partnership) there does not seem to be any examples of sufficient scale and currerncy to suggest that this way of working would address the issues raised by Peter such as "households moving into the area from somewhere else or households that have not yet formed". I think that used to be called strategic planning. Submitted by: M Eccles

Re: Localism Implementing the Red Tory Agenda

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:01:40 BST

One of the problems with a localism agenda is that it assumes that the beneficiary of the Planning system is its existing residents. This is often not the case. One of the purposes of Town and Country Planning is to provide for future social and economic needs by releasing land before it is needed. For example with regard to housing the objective is usually to accommodate newly forming households, or households moving into the area from somewhere else or households that have not yet formed. We are not normally planning for the existing adequately housed or adequately employed. They are not part of the problem we are trying to solve and yet they are the ones that will bear the impact of construction and changes to their environment. Since most people do not welcome change in situations where they are already reasonably happy, they are bound to be resistant to a Planning system that aims to develop land. Since they are likely to be classified as the locals under the new narrower definition of community , it is their voice that is likely to influence Planning policy. Unless there is a popular local regeneration agenda or some other specific problem that might be resolved by building new houses, the locals are bound to oppose proactive planning policies, aren t they? Nor can I see existing residents changing their attitude by the thought that building new housing will make their Council slightly wealthier ? Submitted by: Peter Stockton

Re: Localism Implementing the Red Tory Agenda

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:53:29 BST

Richard, in response to your question I am tempted to say "chaos". I dont think that a "when" question is necessarily beyond the grasp of a community, I have known places where the locally expressed view was that a period of consolidation was needed before further development should take place. However following a discussion with local GO officers this morning I does not seem likely that we will be handing over these kind of "calls" to the community, but wil still be relying on statistical monitoring. They could be wrong though and if so I wondered if anyone had any idea what that would look like as i am not sure I do. Submitted by: M Eccles

Re: Localism Implementing the Red Tory Agenda

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:00:20 BST

Thanks for this thoughtful post. I followed it (I think) right up to the point where you say :- "we can now expect to turn to an alternative way of making this judgement which involves the direct input of the concerned community" I can easily imagine asking a community "what"-type questions. I think "when"-type questions are much less obvious candidates for a distributive approach. Can you expand on what it is you're expecting to happen as a result of handing over the timing decision to the community ? Submitted by: Richard Crawley

Localism Implementing the Red Tory Agenda

Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:37:07 BST

I must admit I didn t spend much time reading Open Source Planning when it was first published, I couldn t see for example how in practical terms plan-making could start at ground level in neighbourhoods with every single resident of the neighbourhood approached to take part or how a presumption that the modules of the local plan provided by each neighbourhood will be incorporated in the final plan unless there are strong grounds for modifying them would actually be realised. I therefore expected that these ideas would not be followed through. It is now however clear that for as long as this coalition government lasts we are clearly going to see even more radical, though not necessarily new ideas put into practice. If the ground level up modular approach is to be achieved then the changes to planning have only just begun. The end state is not yet known, except that the smaller the state the better. The vehement dislike of centralist targets and measuring them as tools of policy and service development and delivery is giving way to a distributist approach. Phillip Blond in Red Tory argues for an associative relationship between public sector workers and the communities they work with. Blond also points out that the community needs to be given real incentives for this to work and we are beginning to see how this might play out in relation to housing delivery. While Blond does not have a great deal to say about how this will be work in the field of planning, Open Source Planning has started that job and the decentralization bill might well finish it. It is clear however that as Blond s ideas are followed through we must expect to see even more radical changes to local government than we have so far had sight of. The restructuring proposals for CLG published a couple of days ago, for example don t seem to have enough detail in them yet to judge what this might look like. After this rather lengthy intro, I just wanted to put forward an idea about how one small aspect of the planners work might be affected, namely the implementation and review of policies and see what people thought about it. In this hypothetical example a newly regenerated (and successful by most measures) major city centre still faces a few hurdles, in particular to grow its office/commercial area, which has not for a long time done quite as well as other core cities but the signs had been looking good. At the same time it has nearby a major development opportunity which many recognise could play a major role in the future of the whole city region. Naturally the success of both areas is desirable, but it looks like the timing needs to be right or an alternative competing centre of gravity could be created potentially threatening the good work of the last decade or more as well as bringing about a perhaps less sustainable pattern of land uses, growth and decline. In the not so distant past we might have tried to find market signals that we could constantly monitor to tell us when the time was right to release the planning sluices , an easy job I am sure we would all agree. It seems that we can now expect to turn to an alternative way of making this judgement which involves the direct input of the concerned community. I would be really interested to read peoples views on how this could be made to work as soon as possible please. In thinking about this it is worth noting that in Blond s analysis of what has gone wrong with Britain and global systems is as much the over-dominance of big capitalism as it is a big state. Finally I would point out that Blond believes that if his approach is put into practice people would no longer need to leave the North for the job markets of the South. Population could spread more evenly, as opportunities and genuine access to wealth and markets, to careers and the good life, could be found beyond the boundaries of the M25. Submitted by: M Eccles

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:02:00 BST

Hi All, Following my request above, CLG have kindly informed me that the Order should be available on the OPSI website sometime next week. Ian Submitted by: Ian Rowland

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:48:01 BST

Hi All, Following the letter from Steve Quatermain, CLG on the 6th July announcing the revocation of the Regional Strategies, could anybody direct me to the Order that was laid before Parliament that actually brought the revocation into force? We have not been able to find a copy of the actual Order and our legal team is quite keen to have sight of it. I've emailed CLG but have yet to obtain a response... Many thanks, Ian Submitted by: Ian Rowland

CLG guidance for local authorities on abolition of regional strategies

Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:23:20 BST

Hi All, On 6 July 2010, Eric Pickles MP confirmed at the Local Government Association s annual conference that the government had laid the necessary statutory instrument to formally revoke regional strategies. This together with new government guidance issued to local authorities on how to address the changes, should now be taken on board by councils and planning inspectors. The LGA Group has been instrumental in encouraging government to provide clarity to the sector on this issue and therefore welcome the publication of this guidance. We recognise that further details will be needed on how other areas of the new system of planning will look like and we will be working closely with government and other sector and professional bodies on this. In the interim, if you have questions or issues related to decentralised planning you feel are not covered in the CLG advice note or if you simply wish to feedback any immediate thoughts or reactions we would be grateful if you could add your comments here. Link to text of Eric Pickles speech at LGA Annual Conference 6 July 2010: 2010: http://www.communities.gov.uk/speeches/newsroom/lgaconference2010 Link to webcast of Eric Pickles speech at LGA Annual Conference 6 July 2010: http://connect.lga.public-i.tv/site/player/pl_v7.php?a=42652&t=0&m=wm&l=en_GB#indx Link to all LGA Conference 2010 webcasts: http://www.lga.public-i.tv/core/ Link to letter from CLG's chief planner Steve Quartermain, contains transcript of parliamentary statement plus FAQs for local authorities: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1631904.pdf All the best, John. Submitted by: John Chantler

Re: Climate Change Adaptation Policies

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:38:48 BST

Helen Thanks. That's great. Regards - Les Submitted by: Leslie Huckfield

Re: SPDs and SEAs - SEA may apply, but why do SA?

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:56:31 BST

If an SPD is subject to SEA, is there any need to subject it to full SA, given that SA of SPDs is no longer a legal requirement? Why not just do an SEA? The PAS guidance (http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=469626) is silent on this. It implies that SA would be required if SEA applies but it doesn't explain why or make a clear distinction between the requirements for SEA versus SA. It would be really helpful if PAS could clarify by explaining why SA would be needed rather than just SEA. If SA is needed, where does this requirement come from, in legal and/or policy terms? NB I have seen the previous discussion thread on SA of SPDs which occurred around the time that the legal requirement was removed, but it didn't address this question. Submitted by: Catherine A

Re: SPDs and SEAs

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:12:42 BST

The CLG Plan Making Manual was updated with guidance on SPDs that is relevant to this conversation. http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=469626 Particularly this section: "In principle, supplementary planning documents should not be subject to the SEA Directive or require sustainability appraisal because they do not normally introduce new policies or proposals or modify planning documents which have already been subject to sustainability appraisal. However, a supplementary planning document may occasionally be found likely to give rise to significant effects which have not been formally assessed in the context of a higher-level planning document. This may happen for example where the relevant higher level planning document containing saved policies within a saved local plan or unitary development plan pre-dates the 2004 Act or the 2001 SEA Directive." Refer to the actual page (link above) for more info. Submitted by: Helen Pineo

Re: SPDs and SEAs

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:02:08 BST

NB: re the term "minor modification". According to the 2005 Guidance on SA of LDDs and RSSs (now superseded by the SA guidance within the Plan Making Manual for LDDs- (and presumably defunct re SA of RSSs too)): The term modification should be interpreted as in elaboration of when referring to SPDs; this may include development briefs and design guides. Submitted by: Catherine A

Re: SPDs and SEAs

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:42:52 BST

Just for clarity re application of SEA requirements, under the SEA Directive (and transposing regs) SEA is needed if the plan: -- Is prepared for planning, waste, etc and sets the framework for future development consent for EIA projects (listed in EIA Directive Sched I or II). -- Does not set framework for determining EIA projects But still gives rise to likely significant environmental effects (LSEEs). --Is only a minor modification to a plan that sets framework for determining EIA projects But still gives rise to LSEEs. --Only determines the use of small areas at local level But still gives rise to LSEEs. --In view of the likely effect on European sites, requires HRA (ie HRA is screened in). SEA would be needed if any of the above situations applies. Theoretically this requirement could be avoided if a higher level plan has been through SEA and the lower tier plan does not have any additional LSEEs, but this in practice seems unlikely. The ODPM 2005 SEA Guidance contains the following advice: "If an SEA has been done on a high level or parent plan or programme, is one required for plans or programmes at lower tiers or later stages? -- The Directive provides for avoidance of duplication between plans or programmes in hierarchies. In practice the extent of assessment needed will often depend on the relationship between the plans or programmes concerned. Lower level plans and programmes are generally more detailed and locationally specific than those at higher tiers, and an SEA may therefore be needed to assess effects not previously covered in the necessary detail." Submitted by: Catherine A

Re: Climate Change Adaptation Policies

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 07:57:02 BST

I've attached the spreadsheet I used to list the documents. Once I started to look at some authorities in more detail I created another tab with a bit more information. It was slightly piecemeal so I didn't include it here. It's difficult to get a list of adopted SPDs because they aren't examined by PINS. So this list was compiled by emailing Government Office contacts and some planning officer groups. It might not be comprehensive but I think it's a good start. Helen Submitted by: Helen Pineo

Re: Climate Change Adaptation Policies

Tue, 06 Jul 2010 15:09:19 BST

Helen. Your "Using Supplementary Planning Documents to Address Climate Change Locally" is a good starter. Is it possible, please, that you might kindly be able to make your list of SPDs and links available more widely? I'm trying to compile a similar list in Scotland. Many thanks and best wishes - Les Submitted by: Leslie Huckfield

Re: Local Housing Study

Mon, 05 Jul 2010 19:04:16 BST

The attached slide is an emerging framework for thinking about the factors that will feed into the process of defining the future housing requirement at a local level, and will in turn shape the types of housing study that will be required. I hope it is useful. Ultimately, the type(s) of study that is/are needed will depend upon what evidence is already available, how up to date it is, and how far it helps answer the key questions that will shape the new housing and spatial strategy debates at a local level. In some cases, where existing evidence to inform the emerging LDF and the RS process is still robust and/or where the locality broadly agrees with the existing RS approach, very limited new evidence might be needed. Submitted by: Matthew Spry

Re: Townscape Character

Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:38:08 BST

Hi, you could look at http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/pp_townscape_assessment.htm Submitted by: jennifer heaton

Re: Townscape Character

Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:13:54 BST

Hi, You might find 'Distinctly Darlington' of interest. http://www.darlington.gov.uk/Living/Planning+and+Building+Control/Planning+Services/Planning+Policy/NewDesignSPD.htm (scroll down to the bottom of the page linked to). It is one of the nominees in the RTPI North East 2010 Awards Submitted by: Andy Bell

Re: Climate Change Adaptation Policies

Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:52:08 BST

Hi Rachel, I recently did a review of about 70 SPDs on sustainable design and construction or other sustainability type SPDs. Although I confess some where examined in more detail than others. I didn't find very strict requirements for adaptation. There were more recommendations and strongly urged suggestions than actual requirements. You might find the case study that I wrote as a result of the research useful: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=552515 The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) have done a green roof feasibility study that might result in interesting policy. You can find more details of this and other studies in the climate change evidence base case study: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=370622 I think you'll also find the case studies on the UKCIP website helpful because they look at adaptation specifically: http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=724&Itemid=9 If you want to contact me directly I could share a spreadsheet that I created with a list of the SPDs and links to them (with some additional information as well). helen.pineo@idea.gov.uk Good luck with your research. Helen Submitted by: Helen Pineo

Local Housing Study

Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:46:32 BST

As we now see the Localism agenda coming forward and the removal of RSS figures. Can anyone lend ideas of the type of Housing Studys that they are looking to undertake, as well as other studys? Submitted by: Mark Webb

Re: Townscape Character

Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:49:26 BST

Harriet, We have a Town Design Statement SPD which seperates teh various different character areas. May be worth a look? Graham http://www.testvalley.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=7035 Submitted by: Graham Smith

Renewable Energy Action Area - can this be 'enshrined' in an LDF?

Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:01:13 BST

Hi We're working with a local authority looking at ways to increase renewable energy installations in their District. One idea we have worked up is to establish something we are calling a Renewable Energy Action Area. The aim would be to carry out an in-depth consultation in a defined area within that Borough (in this case it happens to be an ex-mining area). We would work with local interest groups and carry out a series of focus groups with individual groups, eventually bringing them together to a larger forum, and culminating in an area-wide postal/e-questionnaire (the sort that would be carried out for making a Parish Plan). This would find out what they would welcome or fear about the idea, help to dispel some of the significant myths about renewable energy etc. What we hope to achieve is a groundswell of support for the establishment of renewable energy projects in the area, as well as identification of the area as a place for investment in renewable energy education (through engagement with, and support for the local FE Colleges), as well as targeted support for renewable energy businesses to expand or set up in the area. What are your views on how such an approach could be 'enshrined' in an LDF? Could there be an Area Action Plan outlining how renewable energy will be promoted in the area? Could there be an SDF (presumably linked to a resource study), presuming in favour of certain installations? Could large scale wind sites or hydro sites be identified in Site Allocation Plans? We are working with the LA to try to come up with ways that this process will result in something more concrete than just a vague local aspiration to generate more renewable energy. Any thoughts, especially criticism and picking holes in this scheme, would be very welcome. Many thanks Rachel Coxcoon Senior Project Manager Centre for Sustainable Energy www.cse.org.uk Submitted by: Rachel Coxcoon

Climate Change Adaptation Policies

Thu, 01 Jul 2010 09:50:54 BST

I am looking for adopted policies, either strategic level in a Core Strategy or more specifically in SPDs that relate to climate change adaptation rather than climate change mitigation (i.e. adapting to the effects of climate change that are already unavoidable). I've got a few good ones from some Sustainable Design and Construction SPDs (especially Brighton & Hove, Barking, City of London) and some good ones on managed coastal retreat from Waveney's Core Strategy. I'm really struggling to find anything on the following though: - Requiring developers to use materials resistant to high temperatures - especially road surfacing - Anything on maladaptation - i.e. attempting to control things like air conditioning that would adapt a building to higher temperatures but simultaneously increase energy demand - Stringent green infrastructure requirements, such as a requirement to incorporate green roofs and living walls in new developments. Any info would be welcome! Many Thanks Rachel Coxcoon Senior Project Manager Centre for Sustainable Energy www.cse.org.uk Submitted by: Rachel Coxcoon

Re: Local Development Framework Diagram

Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:00:07 BST

Hello Illina Thank you for your feedback. I see what you mean about the stems looking as if they only relate to one section of the LDF. I have removed the individual stems and added a central arrow. An alternative approach could be to leave the stems and change the seperations between the document types to grey/dotted lines... Submitted by: Richard Overy

Re: Townscape Character

Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:08:50 BST

You may have already seen this well publicised one from Northamptonshire but its quite useful http://www.wndc.org.uk/publications/manual_for_design_codes.aspx Sarah Submitted by: Sarah Jones

Viability of Tenure Blind Housing

Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:56:27 BST

Hi, I am thinking of setting in policy a requirement that all housing development should be tenure blind (i.e. that there is no visual difference between the affordable and market dwellings) in order to create sustainable mixed communities etc. Just wondered whether tenure blind development affects scheme viability and if anyone else has tried this? If so, were you successful and did you need evidence? Cheers, Submitted by: John Careford

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:05:15 BST

You may have seen that Eric Pickles has made his first Secretary of State planning decision. Ironically it involves 299 new homes on a Green Belt site in Essex and revolved around whether Thurrock had an identified five year land supply. Pickles granted permission. You can read my analysis, not pleasant for LPAs, and access both SoS letter and Inspector's report on my blog at http://urbanregen.wordpress.com/ Submitted by: Adam Roake

Re: Local Development Framework Diagram

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:57:26 BST

Hi Richard, I like the crisp look and feel to your diagram, looks very professional - to a standard that with various advertising out there, the public has come to expect. I have always liked the Planning Portal "clickable folders" diagram, where they actually open up and show what documents lie underneath, but it isn't always obvious what things you can click on. In your diagram, the way the stems of the top level flowers connect to certain segments of the wheel makes it look like they only relate to that segment. E.g. It looks like legislation and local & parish councillors are only relevant to sustainability appraisals. It is also not easy to see that the different segments feed into each other (though you may not be able to show all that on one diagram). Submitted by: Ilina Todorovska

electronic communications code

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:24:20 BST

Help please I have drawn blanks from GOSW and PAS the issue is as follows one of the specific consulties for consultation is persons with powers under the electronic communications code operating in LPA area (see reg 2 - (1) ) I have always interpreted this to be the main four mobile phone operators but its much larger than this, this hyper link takes you to the formal list from Ofcom http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/e_c_c/cp_reg It has over 100 companies on it and while some by virtue of their name are local to other area most have the potential to be national. Ofcom can not tell me who operates in our LPA area so who do we consult. sorry this is a boring point but if you take the regs literally then surly they should all be consulted help please Submitted by: Alistair Wagstaff

Re: Local Development Framework Diagram

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:01:24 BST

Hello Robert, Reflecting the lack of progess through the use of circles wasn't my intention although it could well have been! The intention was to create a structure which looked quite organic eg a flower head... Submitted by: Richard Overy

Re: Local Development Framework Diagram

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:51:24 BST

Richard, Is your liberal use of circles a conscious reflection on the progress many of us have made on our LDFs? Submitted by: Robert Thain

Re: Local Development Framework Diagram

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:46:14 BST

File attached. Submitted by: Richard Overy

Local Development Framework Diagram

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:43:53 BST

I produced the attached LDF diagram in an attempt to explain the process/influences. Although the LDF visual guide is a start it looks a bit dated! Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks Submitted by: Richard Overy

Re: TCP Regulations 2008

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:46:48 BST

SA is required for DPDs, so the short answer is yes - SA should be carried out for site allocations. However, the manual advises that final decisions on what issues to cover and the right level of detail are for local authorities to make, and that it is important that the sustainability appraisal is relevant and proportionate to the plan. You should consider contacting your GO if you are unsure. Hope that helps. John. Submitted by: John Chantler

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:18:14 BST

Aside from the PINS guidance and the QC's opinion, I think that the next few months are going to be particualry interesting. What we are looking at is a fundamental clash between yet to amended planning laws and the government. It will be interesting to see what the first test cases are and how they end up being resolved. Looking at the issue of build rates, colleagues in the agency community are vey positive about smallish sites in the region of a couple of hundered dwellings and not too infrastructure heavy. Therefore, the current difficulties could arise from the last generation of strategic super sites. Submitted by: Nathan MLoughlin

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:51:38 BST

There is plenty of land with pp - over 10 years supply at last years build rate, and that is the issue. Developers are simply not building enough houses to meet the supply requirement. My assertion that the target is unachievable is based on a increase in completions based on the NHPAU growth predictions, and then 5 years sustained delivery at peak historic volumes. Even then we will be at least 12,000 houses short. Land is only a part of the issue, developer ability and willingness to deliver is a greater problem Submitted by: David Hemmett

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:09:07 BST

Peter Village QC's opinion, as reported in Regen and REnewal, on Mr Pickles letter is instructive. http://www.regen.net/bulletins/Regen-Daily-Bulletin/News/1009441/QC-warns-ministers-advice/?DCMP=EMC-Regen%20Daily%20Bulletin I think it underlines the importance of a robust and reasoned housing target, even it isn't the same as the RSS target, and a identified five, ten and fifteen year land supply to meet that target, because you will get challenged by developers. And surely if your target is "unachievable" that can only be because you haven't identified and allocated enough housing land. Submitted by: Adam Roake

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:29:35 BST

I have a real conundrum. We don't have an "Option 1" figure as such - it is essentially the same as the RSS. Our evidence is showing that our RSS target is unachievable anyway as we can't back load our housing trajectory in any way which is realistic and achievable. It looks like we will need to challange our RSS/Option 1 figures on the basis of this evidence. Is anyone else doing this, or already done so? If so, with what joy? Submitted by: David Hemmett

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:15:58 BST

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the new PPS3. It seems to me that although back gardens are now defined as green field instead of brown field, if they lie within settlement boundaries, where the DPD says that development is acceptable in principle, what has changed? Surely, an application for new dwellings which are in keeping with the character of the area, such as detached houses in an area of detached houses, complies with DPD policies and should be permitted. The object of the amendment to PPS3 must be to prevent what we used to call "town cramming" not to prevent all new development on urban back gardens. Submitted by: Jim Bailey

Re: managing the 5 year housing land supply.

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:08:08 BST

It should be noted that the PINS advice for which Andrew Byrne provides a link and to which John Halston also refers, has now been removed from the PINS website. So can we use a managed profile to calculate five year supply or not? Submitted by: M Eccles

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:45:43 BST

We are dealing with our five (and 10 and 15 years) supply through our Core Strategy (based on our SHLAA evidence) and we have shown an approach (not contested at PO) to start below the annual average requirement and then to move above it. The GONW advice was pretty much as I set out in my 11:43 post - given in a conversation, so quite brief - are they wrong? Interestingly PINS were in touch earlier today to give a heads up that a recent "garden-grabbing" appeal against refusal for 2 dwellings in a back agrden is probably to be re-opened given, we understand, the contents of Eric Pickles letter. So cannot wait to deal with that one. Submitted by: M Eccles

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:07:20 BST

Re 5 year supply, that was kind of my thinking. All very well to back-load but you've still got to deal with the first five years, which probably becomes seven or eight when you take the time-lag into account between start and finish of the CS process. Submitted by: Adam Roake

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:16:44 BST

Just back to the 5 year supply issue, presumably any back loading of housing numbers would have to be done through a core strategy rather than an annual trajectory done through an AMR? If through a CS then it would clearly take a great deal longer to sort out and doesn't help with the short term position of not having a 5 year supply. What was the specific GONW advice on this? Submitted by: Ian Gill

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:08:05 BST

PINS guidance to Inspectors just published: Submitted by: Andy Blaxland

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:05:51 BST

Re the last question - do we have a robust reason for doing so? - Yes we do thanks. Submitted by: M Eccles

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:30:51 BST

re M Eccles latest, so your GO advice (and you would hope they had some idea!) is that RSS targets are abolished but still use the figures anyway! Makes perfect sense then. As for back-loading growth, do you have a robust reason for doing so? I would have thought merely wanting some flexibility might not get you over the line. Submitted by: Adam Roake

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:43:44 BST

Adam Roake response to my question echoes the observation of "Another Planner" concerning the absence of logic. However my question was prompted by my uncertainty as to which figure to put into the calculation for our annual requirement. Since posing the question the advice from our GO (the same advising Jonathan Noad) is that unless we ahve compelling evidence to the contrary we should stick with the numbers given us by RSS, but that with regard to delivery concerns and our housing trajectory we are now free to back load growth - rather than have a flat-line trajectory. We have always felt that a flexible approach was essential anyway but if our GO has it right - perhaps at last we can have one. Submitted by: M Eccles

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:54:06 BST

My thoughts - what a shambles! You make the mistake of looking for logic in this whole exercise. 'They' do not know what our approach to housing delivery should be now, so how on earth should we? DCLG websites list of PPS's no longer includes PPS11 (RSS), which has now been moved to archived content and labelled 'cancelled'. However, we have a new PPS3 will numerous references to the RSS. To release a new PPS, with no transitional arrangements in place and having cancelled RSS, whilst still making reference to them smacks of a complete lack of any common sense to this whole sorry process. Surely a letter outlining the density and garden grabbing alterations would have been enough! Surely a bit of calm discussion would have been a better way forward? Ill thought out, knee-jerk reactions as per usual. If I proceeded like this in my role I would expect to be fired. Submitted by: Another Planner

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:02:25 BST

An interesting development yesterday - the Government reissued PPS3. Its purpose seems to have been to remove references to housing densities and change the definition of PDL. It states para 32. "The level of housing provision should be determined taking a strategic, evidence-based approach that takes into account relevant local, sub-regional, regional and national policies and strategies achieved through widespread collaboration with stakeholders." Paragraph 68 - Determining planning applications still says: "Local Planning Authorities should take into consideration the policies set out in Regional Spatial Strategies and Development Plan Documents, as the Development Plan, as well as other material considerations." As it post dates Eric Pickles' letter - I would have thought there is a strong argument that it has slightly more material weight when it comes to the approach LPAs should be taking with regards to housing delivery now. Thoughts? Submitted by: Matthew Winslow

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:54:19 BST

Some advice from GO (edited for brevity) to St Helens who are just about to submit - though now we see the risks or proceeding as very high! "Our advice would be not to delay unless there are issues which you consider that your LPA would wish to change its stance upon or that there is unacceptable soundness risk. It is hoped that the issue of the abolition of RSS will be dealt with by PINS in a pragmatic way. The Plan is the LPAs assessment of what is best for the area based upon all available evidence around housing etc. Under the new localism agenda it is for the Council to demonstrate that by and large the local community/stakeholders support the overall strategy by whatever means, in terms of evidence, that's available to them. As you know, we are awaiting further advice from CLG on transitional matters, but in the meantime here are some thoughts on the issues that you raise: (i) not covering areas that we are presently reliant on RSS for: presumably the LPA could add any brief references in proposed changes on essential areas that you were relying on RSS for- we'd need more clarification on this really. References in the CS to RSS policy could be changed via the proposed changes document. However, please bear in mind that any big/fundamental changes to the Plan would have to be consulted upon, and SA would also have to be considered. (ii) Housing numbers: St Helens are a Growth Point area and currently include Growth Point figures in the Plan, so you have put your own housing figures in the Plan and are not just relying on RSS. I guess the issue would be whether, if GP funding is subsequently pulled as part of the spending review, whether you could meet the figures outlined in your GP Programme of Development. However, if you are content with the figures put forward, there is no reason to delay unless you know, for example, that the Council would seek to change them and had the justification/evidence for that change. Would allowing some flexibility in your position in the Plan assist, for example, by saying what would happen if GP funding was pulled? The housing figures are already separated with/without GP so this may assist." Submitted by: Jonathan Noad

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:53:49 BST

Some LPAs are continuing to submit Core Strategies or other DPDs since Eric Pickles letter was published, with more submissions due in next few weeks. Various others are currently at Examination where Inspectors appear to be seeking views of the relevant LPA and other participants on the letter but continuing with Examinations. Bristol and Castle Point Inspectors are rescheduling Core Strategy appearances on housing to later in the Examination in hope of further clarification from DCLG Ministers on process/timing of abolition of RSS. Minister has the power to revoke whole or part of RSS (posted above) - needless to say some clarity on whether just housing numbers would go initially, or the whole RSS would be helpful ! We may have to wait for emergency budget on 22nd June for confirmation - expectation is lots of announcements to coincide with that. Submitted by: Andy Blaxland

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:48:39 BST

You may be interested to read my second post on the MIxed Messages emerging from CLG. http://urbanregen.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/more-mixed-housing-messages/ I think M Eccles question, "By the way does anyone know how we work out a five year supply now?" is particularly telling. I don't know the answer but he and others in his position had better find out fast because without a five year supply LPAs are at risk of being deemed "entirely permissive" by default, and not under any new "Open Souce"legislation but rather under the current version of PPS3. Submitted by: Adam Roake

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:49:38 BST

In terms of the experts taking the initiative and coming up with a sound replacement, I believe that the RTPI, TCPA and POS are working hard on this as we speak. What remains to be seen is how this expert advice is taken. The real problem here is not the removal of the RSS per se, but the complete lack of any strategic-level alternative and the short-sighted view that the major issues of housing shortage, infrastructure delivery and climate change (to name but a few) can be delivered through a system, which seemingly seeks only to pander to those 'locals' how are able to shout the loudest. I commend this article to you...http://urbanregen.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/mixed-messages-on-housing/ Submitted by: Another Planner

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:04:30 BST

So a mixed picture of interesting views from around the country (though I think it is a bit unfair to suggest we are all a bit LMF as the contribution from Lincolnshire appears to be saying) but does anyone know when we will get more concrete policy, regulations etc because whether we like the changes or not putting resources into more abortive work is not desirable or beneficial to our employers or communities. By the way does anyone know how we work out a five year supply now? Submitted by: M Eccles

Re: New Government's intentions for draft PPS on Natural and Healthy Environment

Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:59:52 BST

If 'Open Source Planning' is anything to go by, the intention is to produce a single National Planning Statement which will wrap up most of what is currently in PPSs and PPGs. This is pretty much what John Redwood did as Welsh secretary in the 1990s. Whether the outcome was better, clearer planning and better quality development is a matter for debate. Submitted by: Daniel Hudson

Re: Financial Viability Assessments

Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:02:27 BST

Hi, Sorry just realised I also duplicated this question on another thread. Has anyone got any examples of assessments that look at the viability of the Core Strategy in a wider sense, looking not just at affordable housing, but also things like open space, renewable energy, and other infrastructure? Alex, did you find any good examples? Thanks Harriet Submitted by: Harriet Fisher

Re: Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessments - After Blyth Valley

Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:00:08 BST

Hi, Has anyone done a viability assessment that looks at more than just affordable housing? I.e. considers the viability of the whole Core Strategy, taking into account the full range of requirements and infrastructure, including things like open space and renewable energy? Thanks! Harriet Submitted by: Harriet Fisher

New Government's intentions for draft PPS on Natural and Healthy Environment

Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:38:14 BST

Hi, does anyone know what the new Government's intentions are for the draft PPS: Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment? Are they still looking to streamline national policy? We are scoping out work on a Green Infrastructure Strategy so it would be useful to know what the new national position is in terms of green space and green infrastructure. Submitted by: Stewart Donohue

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:38:57 BST

Instead of cry on each others shoulders in lamenting the (soon to be?) passing of the RSS process, shouldn't all you experts be taking the initiative and coming up with what you see as a sound replacement? For all of its time consuming complexity, the actual process and the evidence it produced remains valid. The millstone around the neck of the process was the term 'regional'. Few, if any, of us in rural areas at least, feel any connection with EU doctrine of regions. These artificial boundaries were imposed on us by Europhiles who saw the EU super state as their ultimate goal. We understand counties in this country not regions. Come up with a logical strategic planning system, that acknowledges the character of the areas and communities it is attempting to plan for I think they used to be called County Structure Plans and you might just find the vast majority supports and promotes its goals. Produce a national spatial plan for the big stuff and leave the rest of us alone to get on with planning for people. Submitted by: Roger Gambba-Jones

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:52:35 BST

Section 79 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 sets out the Secretary of State s reserve power to revoke a regional strategy where the Secretary of State thinks it, necessary or, expedient to do so. But my understanding is that this letter has not done this formally, just set out the intention to do so? Therefore whilst the letter is a material consideration in decision-making, the RSS surely still forms part of the statutory development plan? for the time being at least! As Daniel says, the Courts are going to be busy! Submitted by: Roger Comerford

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:09:10 BST

Better still...Where does it leave you if you've spent a huge amount of time and effort negotiating the LDF process and progressing your Core Strategy to Independent Examination and you're awaiting the Inspector's Report when all this erupts? We've also yet to find out what is meant by 'a presumption in favour of sustainable development'. I agree with Peter - I think PINS are going to be busy, as are the Courts. Submitted by: Daniel Hudson

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:38:33 BST

At Bolton we have just submitted our Core Strategy for examination. And while I suspect Eric Pickles may not fully appreciate that RSS does contain rather more than just housing figures and gypsy site, removing it asap without recognising how it forms a critical part of the whole planning process is at best naive. It will be hard to demonstrate conformity and how the plan works from a regional approach when RSS is no longer in place! Also housing targets such as previously developed land and numbers have been set in RSS and not considered through options during Core Strategy development - might this cause problems and challenges? We need firm and definitive advice from PINS and CLG immediately. Yes authorities may well do sub-regional work but what weight will this have and what processes does it need to go through. At least one GM district is putting its Core Strategy on hold - to see whether any commonsense appears...I forsee huge delays and uncertainties. Given financial pressure many authorities cannot afford to lose work done so far, or step back. Hard to see how any of this will bring forward delivery. Submitted by: Andrew Chalmers

Eric Pickles letter if you've not seen it

Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:55:52 BST

Submitted by: John Chantler

Re: Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessments - After Blyth Valley

Thu, 03 Jun 2010 14:20:41 BST

Having been on both sides of the table, I'd comment that too often the viability debate is about percentages, not types of need. Often the needs assessment doesn't tie in with the policies on percentage requirement, and doesn't consider the issue of under-occupation of affordable dwellings. These issues then don't help build trust and respect for any negotiations. Submitted by: Stephen Harness

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 03 Jun 2010 14:12:14 BST

Haven't we seen this before, when Regional Planning approaches were changed in the 1990's? At that time, lots of authorities relied on increasingly dated plans, and as the last post suggests, appeal rates increased. Isn't the alternative for authorities to enter a coalition themselves to prepare voluntary sub-regional strategies? Submitted by: Stephen Harness

Re: The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:57:02 BST

Transfer staff if your appeals team ? Submitted by: Peter Stockton

The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Sun, 30 May 2010 14:26:44 BST

Starter for ten - if you are on the road to producing your submission core strategy and your current RSS played a major role in shaping what you have done so far, what are you going to do now? Submitted by: M Eccles

Re: Flexible Land Use Allocations

Wed, 26 May 2010 15:11:45 BST

Worth looking at the section on "Flexible Zoning" in the Conservative Green Paper (page 6). This seems to encourage what you are contemplating. My guess is that it will form part of a government proposal to revise zoning practice and the Use Classes Order (as set out in the Green Paper) in the not too distant future as it is a Tory commitment and something the Lib-Dems don't seem to have any objections to. Submitted by: Graham Townsend

Re: Community Infrastructure Levy - a few queries!

Wed, 26 May 2010 12:26:42 BST

We are thinking of using our IDP/LIP as a way of deciding what to do with a view to working on a charging schedule and economic viability assessment as those 2 elements are likely to be required for any kind of charge. By the time the IDP/LIP is finished, we should have more of a steer! Submitted by: Natalie Beal

Re: Proposals Map - Local Wildlife Sites

Wed, 26 May 2010 10:56:21 BST

Forgot to add...whilst PPS12 might say that flood plains should be on the PM, I think there are grounds to battle this out at an EiP on the grounds of misleading anyone interpreting the map. Personally, I would leave the flood zones off the map and include in the Legend/ Key - that detailed flood zone information is available from the EA's website on a postcode basis. If PINS are insistant that the flood zones go on - then they should do this through one of their changes. I would doubt whether you would be found unsound for missing this information off your PM; unless you hadn't applied its data to your allocations, etc through the Sequential & Exception tests. The concept of a PM with everything on it pre-dates the availability and opportunities for information access that the Internet provides. With the Internet, the PM concept needs to start moving with the times and existing alongside other sources of information from other data providers. Submitted by: Matthew Winslow

Re: Proposals Map - Local Wildlife Sites

Wed, 26 May 2010 10:47:23 BST

We have grappled with this problem for a little while ourselves now too. Our PM is from our 1998 LP and shows SINCs, but since then we have had a new Phase 1 Habitat Survey carried out in 2004, together with an annual review of our LoWS since 2007. There are now ten new sites, a few deselected sites and sites with boundary amendments that are not accounted for in our PM. What we have done to try and address this is that in addition to the PM, we publish our Planning Constraints online on a web GIS; but this could be a suipplementary paper map/ PDF if this is easier. This is updated and is a 'live' reflection of constraints to development. It is currently not cited in any policy due to the age of the policies, but like Epping have done, we should be including reference to the fact that the LoWS are subject to frequent reviews and the designations should just be used as a guide in the DPD policies. We also publish a LoWS Register - which you could take to Cabinet and adopt as a formal material consideration on an annual basis, if you think it would add additional weight in the planning process. This comes with maps of the boundary extents and as a seperate document the LoWS Monitoring Forms, which set out why each site has been selected in the first place and whether it is improving, stable or in decline. As we have a planning system, which does not permit the Proposals Map to be a dynamic document for environmental designations, which would really benefit from this degree of flexibility; I think the only option is to supplement it with other reports, and ensure that in the policy & RJ, the relationship between these supporting documents and their role in the planning process are clearly explained. http://www.basildon.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=2112&p=0 http://www.basildon.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=2110&p=0 I would not recommend anyone puts flood zones on a Proposals Map. They can be updated every 3 months by the EA and are available to the public in any case from the EA's website. I think a hyperlink in the polcy document to the EA website would ensure that accurate guidance on the presence of flood plains and the risk they pose is interpreted properly. Submitted by: Matthew Winslow

Re: Proposals Map - Local Wildlife Sites

Wed, 26 May 2010 10:18:56 BST

We're currently considering a similar issue, albeit under an existing LP policy rather than an LDF policy. The existing policy states that reviews may be undertaken on the LoWS, and that a revised list of such sites may be published. As per the initial question, this does leave us with a question about the proposals map, and whether a separate stand alone map would be sufficient given that the policy has been worded specifically to allow for reviews of the LoWS. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated! Submitted by: Amanda Wintle

Re: Flexible Land Use Allocations

Wed, 26 May 2010 06:29:54 BST

Define a group of suitable land uses (Land Use Group) plus maybe one or two caveats, e.g. maximum peak period traffic generation. peter.anderson@khatibalami.com Submitted by: Peter Anderson

Re: managing the 5 year housing land supply.

Tue, 25 May 2010 19:34:53 BST

The 'Growth Fund document 2008' provides guidance on housing land supply specifically for growth areas and points, it does not claim to be of general application or somehow clarify PPS12. However, the key words are on page 12 FAQ A: phasing can only be introduced for the purposes of the 'requirement' when phasing is contained within the RSS or LDD. There is no phasing in the EoE or SE Adopted RSSs so I'm not sure how it was accepted in Wokingham. That CS (Policy CP18) does include phasing but it is not clear from the Inspector's report (paras 4.12, 4.13) that this was tested. The same Inspector at Aylesbury CS Hearing accepted that the SEP has no phasing so that AVDC could not rely on phasing to calculate its 5 year supply. This topic is often critical but guidance is not sufficiently precise. It is also strange that trajectories often rely on what housebuilders tell the LPA, and they have reason currently to blame the market for low delivery. This results in portions of permitted sites not being included in the 5 year supply, thus more sites being required (with no guarantee that they will deliver any faster). Hives Planning have much experience in this field and offer a service principally to LPAs to produce objective trajectories in AMRs. Please contact me. Submitted by: Geoff Gardner

Re: Proposals Map - Local Wildlife Sites

Tue, 25 May 2010 17:07:21 BST

As an idea (and I haven't tried this elsewhere, so check first) UK legal process enables you to use electronic records instead of paper, and the concept of the regulation is to best inform the public about designated sites. So.... If you could designate an online GIS system as being the definitive record, you could use the GIS to show sites currently designated, sites under review, sites currently under consideration and potential future sites. Provided there is a clear audit mechanism for changes, and you never delete sites (only mark them historic at a date & time), you should be able to use the GIS in court as evidence. Whether it complies with the letter of planning regs, is another matter. Using a dynamic online system should also get you out of having to print new maps everytime there is a proposed change. From a public perspective, the online GIS based system provides a better quality of information than a static printed document. Also you could use the mechanism to solicit information from the public about specific sites, improving the democratic process. Submitted by: Ian Parmenter

Re: managing the 5 year housing land supply.

Tue, 25 May 2010 12:52:27 BST

It is our understanding in Pendle that the wording in Para 5(ii) of the PINS guidance which states "... adjusted to reflect the level of housing that has already been delivered ..." indicates that you should use the 'managed' annualised requirement to calculate your 5 year housing land supply. However, we would agree that the guidance for calculating the 5 year supply should have been clearer from the outset. Submitted by: John Halton

Re: managing the 5 year housing land supply.

Tue, 25 May 2010 11:16:47 BST

This is an interesting conundrum and one I struggled with last year. To add to the confusion I would point towards PINS guidance at http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/advice_for_insp/advice_produced_by_dclg.htm Which for me says use the RSS figures as per Para 5 (ii) and this was updated in March this year. I am also aware that Leeds CC have had/have some appeals running where this has been an issue, the outcome(s) of which I do not yet know. This is an area of unnecessary confusion to my mind and the sooner it is resolved with clear unambiguous guidance in one place the better. Submitted by: Andrew Byrne

Re: Community Infrastructure Levy - a few queries!

Tue, 25 May 2010 10:47:25 BST

Sam At this stage, from our perspective, we will run with the SPD but with a view to needing to consider the need for CIL or SULT - whichever the Conservatives run with once things become a little more certain. I have just read a very interesting recent account of the situation on the following website. I think it provides a very good understanding of what the situation is and what the differences in CIL and SULT could be. http://www.tymconsult.com/newsitem_The-impact-of-Conservative-policy-on-infrastructure-planning_46.php Regards, Ed Submitted by: Edward Morgan

Re: managing the 5 year housing land supply.

Mon, 24 May 2010 09:55:51 BST

Andy, Further to Oliver's response, at Wokingham through the Council 's submitted Core Strategy (since adopted in Jan 2010), the authority proposed a re-profiling of the RSS requirement. Even allowing for a past under provision in achieving strategic targets, the inspector through the Core Strategy examination allowed the authority to continue under performing the RSS during the earliy years of the Core Strategy. This was because the authority was committed to achieving the requirements of the RSS (together with earlier under provision) and that he understood that the Council's re-profiled housing targets associated with the proposed delivery approach would address the issue. Hope that helps. Graham Submitted by: Graham Ritchie

Proposals Map - Local Wildlife Sites

Fri, 21 May 2010 16:53:23 BST

Paragraph 5 of PPS9 requires local authorities to indicate the location of designated sites of importance for biodiversity, including locally designated sites, as part of the Local Development Framework . The condition of sites can, however, vary over time and, as a result, a review may result in some sites being assessed as no longer of local importance. Equally,new sites that are worthy of designation but are not identified in the LDF may emerge from time to time. PPS12 states in Section 8 that the adopted proposals map should show locally designated sites, but these can of course only be shown as they exist when the Proposals Map is adopted. This would also apply to flood risk areas which also change as new assessments are made. As the Proposals Map is a DPD itself it should not be changed unless it goes through the formal process. Is anybody aware of any mechanism that we could use to protect sites that emerge in the future from inappropriate development without going through the formal process of amending the Proposals Map? Submitted by: MICHAEL HAYBYRNE

Re: Flexible Land Use Allocations

Fri, 21 May 2010 12:29:27 BST

Suzanne, I'm not entirely sure but I think that Sheffield's Site Allocations and City Policies DPD has flexible use areas where more than one use is considered acceptable. Harriet Submitted by: Harriet Fisher

Re: Community Infrastructure Levy - a few queries!

Thu, 20 May 2010 08:26:54 BST

From reading Regulation 123(3) again alongside the new Planning Obligations consultation, it seems quite clear to me that it will not be possible to fund infrastructure through S106 once a CIL is adopted or after 2014. The area of uncertainty is what constitutes infrastructure as S106 contributions will still be able to be collected for things that aren't determined as infrastructure. So I think that CIL will eventually replace SPDs that set out infrastructure tariffs. Is anyone else preparing or planning to prepare a CIL? Submitted by: Sam Hubbard

Re: Core Strategy publication

Wed, 19 May 2010 14:49:44 BST

What happens where there is not one single newspaper which circulates within the LPA area? In our case we get a bill for 2000 everytime we have to meet this part of the regs. Submitted by: Peter Stockton

Re: Core Strategy publication

Wed, 19 May 2010 09:56:23 BST

Wokingham Borough had a similar issue in deciding how to ensure coverage when each of the local newspapers circulating did not provide complete coverage on their own. The authority consequently decided to place adverts in each of the newspapers that provided coverage in the relevant parts of the area. The Council's use of this approach was accepted by the Inspector who concluded the submitted Core Strategy was sound. Submitted by: Graham Ritchie

Flexible Land Use Allocations

Wed, 19 May 2010 09:14:03 BST

We are just starting to prepare a Preferred Options version of our Land Allocations DPD and are proposing sites for specific types of development. Most landowners are promoting their sites for residential use however; some are looking to keep their options open and are looking for flexible allocations . This is to say that a site is identified and allocated but rather than just identifying the land use as residential it could also be for another land use i.e. care / nursing home (a mixed use scheme is not considered an option). Our concern at the moment is that LPA s are supposed to be providing certainty as to the type of development that is to take place and when. However, if we insist on an allocating a site for one specific use this could see: the landowner declare the site unavailable and submit a planning applications at a later stage. This is against the grain of the LDF / Development Management approach. a departure from the adopted Land Allocations DPD if allocated for one specific land use (it is unlikely that the Council would refuse an application for a care / nursing home on the site if allocated as residential as there is on overwhelming need for housing for the elderly). Has anyone every come across a document which list options for development rather than just allocating a site for one specific land use? Any advice welcome. Thank you. Submitted by: Suzanne Parkes

Re: managing the 5 year housing land supply.

Tue, 18 May 2010 09:16:17 BST

Andy, The answer is YES. We use the managed annualised requirement to calculate our 5 year land supply at Fareham and I know a number of other authorities do the same. This is considered standard practice. I can also tell you that I have used this arguement at appeal for a number of private client and won. What I would say though is that if you've under delivered on your plan requirement to date and your concerned that you don't have a 5 year land supply, it may be possible to argue that an assessment should be based on the RSS average annualised requirement rather than the managed annualised requirement but only where you are confident that significant allocations will come forward before the end of the plan period to compensate for the shortfall in housing delivery achieved so far. Hope this helps. Oli Submitted by: Oliver Taylor

managing the 5 year housing land supply.

Mon, 17 May 2010 17:05:24 BST

We are just preparing the latest 5 year housing land supply report. As part of this work I am referring to the 'Growth Fund Programme of Development Guidance 2008 Annex B Guidance on Producing Housing Trajectories' DCLG advice that considers that trajectories can be 'managed' so as to re-profile the estimated number of completions anticipated for a particular year instead of using the annualised average set out in the Regional Plan. A re-profiled trajectoty may result in the 5 year housing land supply being less than that set out in the Regional Plan, If this is then used in the calculation of the 5 year supply it has a difference to whether or not there is a five year supply. (if that makes sense!) so my question is: Can a 'managed' trajectory be used to calculate the 5 year supply or does it have to be based on the Regional Plan targets? has anybody used this approach and if so has it been successfully defended at appeal? Submitted by: andy d'arcy

Re: IT Consultation systems for LDFs

Mon, 17 May 2010 11:17:28 BST

Thank you all for your comments, they are really helpful......Liz. Submitted by: Liz Amott

Re: TCP Regulations 2008: advertising consultation

Mon, 17 May 2010 10:03:57 BST

As Andy says, it's not a requirement for Reg 25. However, for our "revised options" consultation on our CS last year we chose to place an advert in the three local papers that cover our area at the start of the period. Obviously there's a cost involved but we felt it prudent given the public perception that we (planning) don't give sufficient notification of important consultation. We also felt that it would be helpful to be able to demonstrate the placing of a "statutory" notice as part of our overall consultation arrangements come the examination. Submitted by: Andy Duncan

Re: How many planners does it take to write a DPD?

Fri, 14 May 2010 15:51:48 BST

We currently have 2 FTE in out planning policy section and we are struggling mightily. I don't see this improving anytime soon. In-fact post election I see the policy function being cancelled altogether, falling back on the old adopted local plan, which still has outstanding allocations, the rest being decided by appeal. Submitted by: Another Planner

Re: How many planners does it take to write a DPD?

Fri, 14 May 2010 13:25:25 BST

My authority is progressing 4 DPDs with 4 planners. As each planner has other responsibilities, some of which are LDF related i.e. preparing evidence base studies, I am unable to equate DPDs to FTEs. Submitted by: Sarah Slade

Re: Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessments - After Blyth Valley

Fri, 14 May 2010 11:15:18 BST

My comment as a consultant would be that robust policy is critical. It is not enough to identify need and level of requirement through the SHLAA and SHMA. The analysis has got to be taken to the level of area policies in order to be able to monitor, and justify negotiations with developers. Site viability might then be conducted on an even playing field, otherwise you are likely to be a hostage to the developers figures. Without this, appointed consultants will struggle to give you the support you need. I think Thurrock and Wokingham web sies are worth looking at. Submitted by: Laurence Jones

Re: TCP Regulations 2008

Thu, 13 May 2010 13:51:32 BST

There's nothing in Regulation 25 that requires advertisement during the public participation process prior to the Publication stage (Reg 27). However, it would be worth checking whether your SCI indicates that you would have advertised at the 'old' Preferred Options stage (as ours does) as an Inspector may expect that you comply with the spirit of that SCI notwithstanding subsequent changes to the Regs. Submitted by: Andy Hill

TCP Regulations 2008: advertising consultation

Wed, 12 May 2010 15:42:34 BST

Can someone please confirm whether or not it is a statutory requirement to publicly (newspaper etc) advertise for a non statutory period of consultation e.g. preferred options consultation ?? Submitted by: Mark McEvoy

Re: TCP Regulations 2008

Wed, 12 May 2010 14:27:32 BST

The problems occur when Regulation 31 is reached and the instruction is to substitute the 2004 regulations with 2008 ones. Wouldn't it be much simpler just to re write a single set of regulations ? The Plan making manual isn't particularly clear about SA. For example are we supposed to assess individual site allocations or not ? There doesn't seem to be any definitive guidance on this and yet it is quite important, not least to potential objectors. Submitted by: Peter Stockton

Re: Community Infrastructure Levy - a few queries!

Wed, 12 May 2010 10:45:57 BST

Hi I work for a small Local Authority in Leicestershire and we have scheduled to publish our Developer Contributions SPD over the course of the next 12 months, once our Core Strategy has been adopted. However, now the Community Infrastructure Levy has been enacted, we must consider how this may impact upon the preparation of the SPD and how this could influence our approach to developer contributions should we choose to introduce the Levy in the Borough. I have to admit, at this stage I am not entirely sure whether the one replaces the other or if there is indeed a need to still have an SPD as well as a CIL Charging Schedule. This is something, along with many other uncertainties around CIL that I must clarify very soon! Are you aware of any forthcoming RTPI / PAS / CLG events on how Local Planning Authorities can implement CIL or have you come across any other training opportunities that LPA's can attend in relation to this? If you haven't come across anything of this nature, not to worry. To all reading this thread - how are others in LPA's tackling CIL? Regards, Ed Submitted by: Edward Morgan

Re: Community Infrastructure Levy - a few queries!

Tue, 11 May 2010 12:10:19 BST

I think the key to continuing to use s106 alongside CIL charges is to try and pinpoint very specifically and commit to what items of infrastructure will be funded through CIL. The effect of Regulation 123 is that authorities should always have a definitive list published on thier website setting out intended CIL spending priorities. This leaves them free to seek s106 agreements for other items NOT on this list. If an authority does not publish a list, then it will be difficult to get a s106 for any infrastructure. As long as the off-site infrastructure can be shown to adhere to direct impact mitigation of the particular development (in accordance with the now statutory tests), and you are not otherwise committing to spending CIL monies on the same item, these can still be secured through s106 agreements. Bear in mind however that, ultimately, post-2014 the idea is that any standard charge approach towards capital infrastructure expenditure should be built into a CIL charge. s106 would be safer for provision in kind, or non-capital related contributions (e.g. for open space maintenance). Submitted by: Sabella Wallace

How many planners does it take to write a DPD?

Mon, 10 May 2010 15:32:37 BST

A basic question: how many policy planners are there per DPD in your authority? In mine we're currently progressing 4 documents with either 2 or 2.5 FTE on each - how does that compare with others? Submitted by: Rachel Williams

Re: TCP Regulations 2008

Mon, 10 May 2010 12:40:37 BST

The Sweet & Maxwell Planning Law Encylopedia updates Acts and Regulations in light of changes. There are monthly bulletins and quarterly updates, but you have to pay. Personally I think the Government should publish updated versions of the Acts and Regs for free as soon as changes come into force. Regarding when to undertake SA and AA, it is not always clear cut. I suggest you read the Plan Making Manual and seek guidance from your local Government Office. Submitted by: Gerard Woods

Affordable housing policy

Fri, 07 May 2010 17:08:19 BST

My councils preferred approach to securing affordable housing is via a per bedspace approach. This has casued a number of issues and confusion amongst developers because our existing policy sets the threshold on a per unit basis. I am trying to draft a new policy for the Core Strategy but can't see how this council can secure affordable housing through a per bedspace threshold especailly where we're proposing different targets levels. Does anyone have any experience of other councils adopting a similar approach? Submitted by: Oliver Taylor

Core Strategy publication

Thu, 06 May 2010 17:10:30 BST

The Regs require the LPA to give notice by local advertisment when they publish a DPD. Local Advertisement is defined as "on at least one occasion in a local newspaper circulating in the whole of the area of the local planning authority". This definition clearly does not restrict a LPA to only one advert. However, as wriiten it appears to suggest that only one newspaper can be used. What happens where there is not one single newspaper which circulates within the LPA area? Presumably there is nothing to stop us using more than one newspaper on one or more occasions? Submitted by: Ian Nelson

Re: TCP Regulations 2008

Thu, 06 May 2010 14:38:03 BST

We are doing some work to make the "plan making manual" easier to use (and inserting some new content), but that may not be what you're after. As the world stands today, I'm not aware of anyone proposing changes to PPS12. What would make it easier to use - and where is the duplication across regs ? Submitted by: Richard Crawley

TCP Regulations 2008

Thu, 06 May 2010 11:31:25 BST

The development plan Regulations are a mess. It is almost impossible to work out at which stages SA and appropriate assessement should be undertaken and published and at what level of detail. The regulations currently exist in two places and need a comprehensive rewrite. Is anyone looking into this do we know ? Submitted by: Peter Stockton

Re: IT Consultation systems for LDFs

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:01:26 BST

Hi Liz We went through a selection process on this last year and chose Swift LG to provide our on-line consultation system. We have not used the system in anger yet but we have had a few teething problems and some feedback from a recent consultation was that some users found it a bit difficult to use. We are working with Swift to iron out any bugs before our pre submission consultation later this year. They are a small company and have been very keen deliver a working system. I would echo the comments about such systems adding to your consultation headaches in some ways. For instance to make every response visible on-line you will have to scan all paper responses in which can add up to a lot of man hours. Also you may need a lot of IT support to get the system up and running. Good luck. Submitted by: Peter Williams

Examination databases - possible to use Limehouse?

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:27:21 BST

We currently use Limehouse, a web-based document creation/consultation database/project management software package to publish documents on the web, and to receive and store comments. We have recorded representations received by post, mail, etc, our summaries and council responses to the representations. Have any other authorities used this as their examination database, or have authorities exported data to a spreadsheet or database (e.g. Access)? Submitted by: Gerard Woods

Re: Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessments - After Blyth Valley

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:55:12 BST

The simple message is we need to use specialist consultants and not just for housing viability see other related PAS discussions re CIL etc Submitted by: Julian Jackson

Re: IT Consultation systems for LDFs

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:01:08 BST

We went through a selection process a few years ago and settled on Jdi Solutions. Their offer is incredibly good value for money compared to most other providers of LDF software. You can't get a 'Print Ready' document like with Limehouse - but that is not something that we needed. JDi are a small company and have a very good customer service. Please bear in mind these things though when considering LDF software: 1. Parsol XML Schema / Portal Accreditation is not the be all and end all. This schema was created way before anyone really knew what LDF is all about imo and it is not essential for a software supplier to have in order to provide you with a good system. 2. Don't be fooled into thinking this will solve all your consultation headaches - it may make them worse (e.g. more people submitting comments). It is still just as much about how you physically manage consultations. 3. Be aware of annual renewal fees and whether they will be affordable in the next few years especially given the proposed cuts. Submitted by: Plan Cunningly

Re: Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessments - After Blyth Valley

Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:37:25 BST

We have done a Economic Viability Assessment in line with PPS3 paragraph 29, and currently require 30% affordable housing on sites above a threshold of 5 units. We are finding that developers are questioning the viability of our requirements. Our Affordable Housing SPD allows lower amounts of AH but only if justified by an independent site-specific economic viability study. We also have issues with economic viability of redeveloping employment land and premises. Consequently we are now looking to employ consultants to conduct site-specific financial viability appraisals on planning applications. If anyone who has posted or read this thread has experience to share in dealing with such work, then I would be interested in hearing from you on a new topic I have posted here - http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/forum/thread-maint.do?topicId=517402 Thanks. Submitted by: Matthew Dugdale

Re: Financial Viability Assessments

Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:35:48 BST

Re: Proposals Map - Tips and Guidance?

Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:32:22 BST

An interesting discussion, but is there anyone out there who has yet published a whole district map and if so how much has this cost you to do? Submitted by: M Eccles

Re: Community Infrastructure Levy - a few queries!

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:05:15 BST

Hi Nat, My understanding is that for social housing, the element of a scheme that is social housing will be exempt from the charge. However, the scheme in its totality will have to pay CIL, although reduced to account for the social housing element. I think this is why it is called relief. Although you are proposing 3 charging zones, there will only be one charging schedule and therefore all zones will be examined at once. Remember that differential zones can only be based upon economic viability and not the infrastructure needs of a given area. Check out the recently published guidance on CLGs website. Another question along the same theme.... How are authorities dealing with emerging and exisiting planning policies that require off-site S106 contributions where on-site infrastructure is not provided (for example open space policies)? From reading the Regs and the guidance it appears these types of policies will be unworkable post 2014 and I can't see how they can work under CIL where all development pays contributions toward infrastructure regardless of onsite provision Submitted by: Sam Hubbard

Community Infrastructure Levy - a few queries!

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:06:38 BST

We have interpreted the regulations as set out in section 49 onwards, with regards to Social Housing, as Social Housing being charged a reduced amount, determined by the formula. However, in the explanatory note at the end of the regulations, it says Regulations 49 to 54 provide for an exemption where a development is to include social housing . If Social Housing is exempt and does not pay CIL, why is the section called relief and why are there lots of formulae rather than just saying 'social housing is exempt'? We think we could have 3 zones with different charging schedules - 2 where there are AAPs and another for the rest of the District. We are interpreting advice and the regulations as saying that all three charging schedules need to be produced at the same time, within the same document and examined together. Are we wrong, or can we have different documents, produced at different times and examined at different times to reflect where we are at with the evidence? Submitted by: Natalie Beal

Re: IT Consultation systems for LDFs

Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:24:17 BST

Hello Thanet District Council have been using Inovem for about 4 years now. We have carried out some minor consultations and, more recently a major consultation on our Core Strategy. The system seems to be doing everything we expect so far, though we haven't used it yet through an EIP process which I imagine will be the real test. Inovem have been really helpful for all of our consultations and have always been at the end of a phone/email/client forum to help with our numerous queries whilst preparing and running consultations. We've also had a couple of upgrades since we bought the software and have found that some of the areas we have had problems with have been addressed in the newer versions. Inovem are also efficient in adapting/developing the system to keep up to date with any new guidance/legislation. Submitted by: Jo Wadey

Re: IT Consultation systems for LDFs

Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:06:22 BST

Northamptonshire County Council have been using the iNovem system for some time now and we have used the system to consult on our MWDF. We have found the iNovem system saves a large number of man hours and speeds up the whole consultation process. iNovem themselves were a brilliant company to work with, they understand the planning system and the requirements we have, and were willing to offer advice and assistance throughout us setting up programme. They provide a forum where all the users can communicate and discuss any issues and potential improvement in the way the system works. I an looking forward to our upgrade which will save even more time, and which has only been delayed due to issues with our own internal computer systems. Submitted by: Laura Burton

Re: Hearings Training

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:06:29 BST

Hi, At my old job I had some training from a legal firm in Birmingham on inquries and examinations which was very helpful and up to date. Contact jenny.poxon@lgyh - Jenny organised it and will probably have the details. Harriet Submitted by: Harriet Fisher

Re: Hearings Training

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:15:57 BST

We used Trevor Roberts Associates for LDF hearings training. Very good. Suggest you email: penny@tra-ltd.co.uk if interested. Emily Submitted by: Emily Butcher

Hearings Training

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:09:14 BST

Anyone know of any good training on being an expert planning witness at LDF style hearings? Looking around, most of the existing training seems to be for inquiries, which is no longer directly relevant to LDF examinations. Submitted by: Simon Thornley

Re: IT Consultation systems for LDFs

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:41:26 BST

Hi Andy many thanks for that - i contacted the Planning Portal who have a list of 'accredited LDF suppliers' and they list 4 on their website: https://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/government/lpas/workwithus/lpa33ldfaccreditation A Recipe for Success Blue Fox Technology Ltd Limehouse Software iNovem and yes, it would also be useful to know if others are using the other three (apart from limehouse) and their experience. many thanks. Submitted by: Liz Amott

Re: IT Consultation systems for LDFs

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:08:39 BST

There are other providers offering something similar - Inovem, JDi and A Recipe for Success are some I've come across. I'm currently looking at acquiring consultation software, so would appreciate some feedback from users of these. Submitted by: Andy Hill

IT Consultation systems for LDFs

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:55:29 BST

Hello - I have a general query about providers of systems to help Councils consult and produce LDF documents. Other than Limehouse, does anyone know of IT companies/software providers out there who have a system that allows councils to produce and consult on their LDF documents? Many thanks. Submitted by: Liz Amott

Re: The inclusion of emerging Allocations within the 5 year land supply

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:31:41 GMT

Regarding the inclusion of "unallocated brownfiled sites", the guidance goes onto state that "would normally have been identified by the LPA as being suitable for a housing use and have made sufficient progress through the planning process at the time of the assessment to be able to be considered deliverable in the terms of paragraph 54 of PPS3". Submitted by: Nathan Smith

Re: The inclusion of emerging Allocations within the 5 year land supply

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:16:07 GMT

The advice in 'Demonstrating a 5 year supply of deliverable sites' (April 07) states that sites that there are 3 types of sites that can be included in the 5 year supply; 1. Development Plan allocated sites, 2. sites with planning permission and 3. specific unallocated brownfield sites.. I take that to mean that only sites that are in adopted plans are 'allocated' because until the Inspectors binding report, sites are not allocated and can potentially be removed from the plan by the Inspector. A recent appeal decision APP/G2815/A/09/2108495 (see para 41) seems to support the idea that draft allocations - in this case preferred option allocations - cannot be included as they cannot pass the test of being available, suitable or achievable. Submitted by: Susan Garbutt

Re: Planning Committee Members - Possible Conflict of Interest?

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:20:35 GMT

At South Somerset we're currently looking forward with some relish to the return to a proper "community leadership" role, as this will result in better spatial planning, more informed decisions, community prioritised delivery, less damaging conflict en-route and fewer appeals. Apart from that I'm ambivalent ... :-) I think it fair to point out that the original concern addressed through the probity guidance (and the Member's Code of Conduct) was corruption of the planning process, not pre-determination. The latter is specifically procedural and best addressed through training and chairmanship. There is a very good paper which deals with Case Law and prior decisions at http://www.standardsforengland.gov.uk/News/Newsletters/TheBulletin/Issue46/BiasPredeterminationandtheCode/ Apparent pre-determination is always an issue, I have already seen applications where my portfolio clashes in a way which prevents my participation (beyond making representations and answering questions). I would have no worries about the case you're suggesting. Indeed, as all our members sit on their local planning committee and also set policy, we would have extreme worries otherwise. Submitted by: Peter Seib

Re: The inclusion of emerging Allocations within the 5 year land supply

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:11:35 GMT

Thanks for the replies. Yours points have been duely noted. The site is being considered through the Core Strategy as a strategic allocation because it has been considered central to the achievement of the Core Strategy. The site is much wider than the 280 dwellings. The site also consists of the redevelopment of a former hospital and its grounds for mixed use. Submitted by: Oliver Taylor

Re: The inclusion of emerging Allocations within the 5 year land supply

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:21:52 GMT

We have been through a similar exercise with the preparation of our 5 year supply statement within our SHLAA and co-incidentally our Core Strategy is at a very similar stage. The key test for us in evaluating our housing land supply was: are the sites Suitable, Available and Achievable. If so then they have be included within our supply. Questions over delivery and lead in times have then influenced where exactly the sites fall within that supply i.e. within 5 years or beyond. On the same basis it is then a question of what your supply position would be if this site were not included. If you cannot prove a 5 year supply and the site is shown to be Available, Suitable and Achievable then it should be included, if you have sufficient supply without the subject site then a judgement call will need to be made as to when this strategic site should come forward and any application judged on its merits or otherwise. We have taken the view that without including "potential" allocations our 5 year supply will fall short, so therefore have included sites that have met the key tests, and outlined supporting information developers would need to fulfil to support any application. One question I would have, and forgive my ignorance of Fareham Borough, but why is a site of 280 being considered strategic? There is an argument that it isn't of significant size or impact to be considered a strategic site so should be dealt with via your allocations document not the Core Strategy, but this is without knowledge of the actual circumstances, so forgive me if you've been down this route already. Submitted by: Andrew Byrne

Re: The inclusion of emerging Allocations within the 5 year land supply

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:58:06 GMT

At Wokingham we had a similar issue and realised that only upon submission of the Core Strategy could strategic allocations be included within assessments of 5 and 15 year housing land supplies. Therefore, following submission of the Core Strategy in August 2008, the Council was then able to include allowances for the four strategic sites (total capacity of 10,000 dwellings) witihn its housing land supply figures. This approach was endorsed through the subsequent examination of the Core Strategy and the document was adopted in January 2010 (see www.wokingham.gov.uk/corestrategy for more information). If you want to contact me about this, please email graham.ritchie@wokingham.gov.uk or telephone 0118 974 6457. Submitted by: Graham Ritchie

The inclusion of emerging Allocations within the 5 year land supply

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:37:02 GMT

I've been searching all day, through various documents/regulations to try and ascertain whether strategic allocations that are emerging through a draft Core Strategy can be included within the 5 year housing land supply. Can anyone offer some advice? In our emerging Core Strategy (we are currently preparing a submission draft for consultation which will take place end of 2010 early 2011) we have identified a strategic allocation for 280 dwellings. My manager seems to think that given the sites status as an emerging allocation we ought to be including the site within our 5 year land supply becasue there is information that justifies that the site will come forward within the 5 years. Discussions I've had with the Developer indicate that they will be preparing an application for submission within approx. 6 months, by which time it is very unlikely that our Core Strategy will have moved forward. My research has led me to the conclusion that we should not be including the strategic allocation on the grounds that if an application were submitted it could well be refused on the grounds of prematurity. "The Planning System General Principles" states that "emerging policies, in the form of draft policy statements and guidance can be regarded as a material consideration." However, the document goes on to note that planning permission may be refused on grounds of prematurity where a DPD is being prepared (i.e. this is our case), but it has not yet been adopted. This may be appropriate where a proposed development is so substantial, or where the cumulative effect would be so significant that granting permission could prejudice the DPD by predetermining decisions which are being addressed in the policy of the DPD. Our relevent Core Strategy policy makes reference to an emerging SPD for the site, which is yet to adopted. It is my understanding that PINS have obtained legal advice that a preferred options DPD is not yet a 'draft plan' and therefore no materiality can be attached to it until at least the submission stage. Given then that our Core Strategy is still 9-12 months off submission, in relation to the Developer submitting an application shortly, then I deem that planning permission could be refused on prematurity grounds and the 280 dwellings should not be identified within the 5 year land supply. Does anyone agree with this? My gut also tells me that until submission stage the draft strategic allocation policy and draft SPD can attach little weight becasue of the uncertainty that they will be adopted! Thoughs and consideration please?! Submitted by: Oliver Taylor

Re: Water Cycle Study - Detailed Stage

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:41:30 GMT

Further to my previous enquiry, has anyone had any experience (and success) in obtaining contributions from developers towards the detailed study, in relation to specific sites? Thanks! Submitted by: Harriet Fisher

Re: Planning Committee Members - Possible Conflict of Interest?

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:31:50 GMT

John, probably didn't put that very well. I don't think it's the guide itself so much as the fact that the guidence exists and it is an element of the annual training. As such, it would seem that members tend to see it as a constraint to involvement, rather than a means of helping them to do so safely. The old adage, if in doubt stay out, is often used as a reason (excuse?) to avoid becoming involved in discussions with applicants, or even with the officers on occasion. Add to that, the probity training is often delivered by the monitoring officer or in some councils by one of the legal team and you begin to see how members might view it as a clear direction to steer clear, or suffer the consequences at a later point in the process. I'm not suggesting that it is anybody's fault as such, but it must be accepted that most members do not read thoroughly documentation of this sort and will often take a steer from those they see as more experienced. Therefore, if that individual has taken the ultra-cautious approach, or has themselves mis-understood the message and intention of the training, then you have a continuation of the myths surrounding pre-application discussions etc. I believe that experienced members who are confident in their understanding of the process and know how to become involved without crossing the line have a crucial role to play during the formal training process, but they are seldom called upon to do so by the officers. It may be that role profiles for PF holders and committee chairs, should contain a 'requirement' that they assist officers in the process of member development. It is after all a fact that officers can only offer the theory, it is only the members themsleves who have the practical experience of being involved in talking to applicants. Submitted by: Roger Gambba-Jones

Re: Planning Committee Members - Possible Conflict of Interest?

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:54:29 GMT

Roger, Thanks for sharing your insight. Really good points. Really curious to hear what you think it is about the LGA guide that "seems to have the effect of scaring members away"??? John. Submitted by: John Chantler

Re: Planning Committee Members - Possible Conflict of Interest?

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:35:52 GMT

Harriet, Just to complete my comments. We held a DC workshop on Tues night, offering members the opportunity to raise issues with officers and myself as chairman of the committee. As well as all the normal stuff, what did come out of it that had not occured to me before, was the need for members to be well versed in 'their' Local Plan / LDF policies. If they have a good understanding of the background to the officers decisions, then they tend to make far better decisions themselves, obvious I know, but not always the case and it does not happen by accident, it needs to be delivered to members in a structured and understandable package. Expecting them to sit down a read the Local Plan in their own time is not the way! More importantly, if they have some degree of understanding or buy-in to use the jargon, they tend to make more balanced comments about planning apps rather than shooting from the hip. Our planning manager, a straight talking, but mild mannered Geordie, made a very good observation during his presentation. Members sometimes tie themselves in knots by not separating principle from detail. He also gave them a very simple guide to the policy hierarchy and structure, something a number of them clearly did not appreciate until that point! Put simply, if members think about the principle first and then consider the detail, they can clarify the issues in their own minds before speaking and taking a scatter gun approach to the points they wish to make. Is an application acceptable in principle, normally seen as being in line with the council's policies. If the answer is yes, then is it the detailes you are concerned about and can these be overcome using conditions, s106 etc. Mixing the two areas together and not clarifying exactly what the areas of concern are in a clear and unambiguous manner, can prolong the debate and lead to a less than satisfactory conclusion when it comes to the vote. It then falls to the officers to make sense of what the members were trying to say. The chairman obvious plays a crucial role in steering a course through the debate and I like to think that the vast majority of our decisions are based on members being comfortable with how they got to their decision. However, the comments made by our manager has helped me identify a better way of putting issues across to members during discussions on major or complex applications. In summary, the more confident members are about the policies that you have in place the more likely they are to offer reasoned and well informed comment, make sound decisions and avoid putting their foot in it! Sorry, this was supposed to be a brief note to complete my comments! Hopes it helps. Submitted by: Roger Gambba-Jones

Health Impact Assessment

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:51:58 GMT

Dear Colleague, Apologies for cross-posting and regards from IMPACT, the International Health Impact Assessment Consortium at the University of Liverpool, UK. Early bird registration is now available for delegates registering before 31st March for the next IMPACT Health Impact Assessment training course, which will run from 14thth - 18th June in the award-winning Foresight Centre on the University campus. Please contact us by e-mail at impact@liverpool.ac.uk or by telephone +44 (0)151-794 5004 to register your interest and for further information about the course. Bursary funding is not available. Information about IMPACT can be found on our website www.healthimpactassessment.co.uk I hope you can join us in June. Hilary Dreaves Research Fellow (HIA) IMPACT - International Health Impact Assessment Consortium Division of Public Health University of Liverpool Whelan Building Quadrangle Liverpool L69 6GB Tel: (+44)151-794 5004 Fax: (+44)151-794 5588 E-mail: impact@liv.ac.uk Website: www.healthimpactassessment.co.uk 2009 Winner Research Councils UK knowledge transfer award for Public Policy and Service Impact http://www.liv.ac.uk/news/features/impacts-award.htm Submitted by: hilary dreaves

Re: Planning Committee Members - Possible Conflict of Interest?

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:48:53 GMT

Thanks for your helpful responses! Harriet Submitted by: Harriet Fisher

Re: Planning Committee Members - Possible Conflict of Interest?

Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:03:33 GMT

Unfortunately the Probity in Planning guidance seems to have the effect of scaring members away rather than giving them the confidence to become involved. As chairman of the development control committee and portfolio holder for Sustainable Development for the last 4 years, I have found it relatively straightforward to navigate the course between the two. I have also had to contend with my ward being the single largest area of current and future housing development proposals in my district. Part of my role has involved encouraging a much greater use of our Local Development Framework Working Party as a sounding board for potential development proposals, with many members of the WP also being members of the DC committee. None of the members have expressed concerns about conflicts of interest because it has been made clear that their role on the WP is to raise concerns and issues that might echo those of the public when an application becomes public, not to express a preference for the development being proposed. I know the issue of land allocation is somewhat different and if a member feels that they must actively promote an area for future development then there is no way around that, they have very obviously made their minds up and will indeed be seen as predetermined in their views. However, such members must be few and far between and any that are so outspoken and committed to a particular piece of development or land use should probably not be involved in the process in the first place. Members should be guided in how to be advocates for their taxpayers, rather than campaigners for a particular cause. It most cases, ensuring that they de-personalise the discussions by referring to the concerns that the public or residents may or may not have, should be enough for them to avoid accusations of pre-determination. If your CS process is actually organised in a way that requires members to cast a vote on a particular piece of land allocation, thereby requiring a member to lay his or her cards on the table so to speak, then perhaps you should think about changing that process to one that seeks a consensus of opinion from the group as a whole rather than any specific voting. Ultimately, any piece of land use will be debated through the consultation process and tested through the LDF (soon to be Local Plans again under a Tory Government? who knows??) Inquiry process, so individual member influence must be very limited at best. If however the whole process changes with a change of government and localism becomes a reality, with the good ol' boy network taking over the development control process like it did in the good old, bad old days, then you may well have to think again! Submitted by: Roger Gambba-Jones

Re: Planning Committee Members - Possible Conflict of Interest?

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:57:29 GMT

The LGA guide "probity in planning" is your friend. I cant post links today, but a quick search should turn it up. If Ive understood your question, I dont think that a "conflict of interest" occurs because a councillor is involved both at the strategic allocation and then subsequent planning application stages. The advice to councillors should be to get as involved as they can - without them our plans are useless. The LGA guide should give them confidence and certainty they need to engage with a clear conscience. Submitted by: Richard Crawley

Re: Townscape Character

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:10:32 GMT

Harriet We have an LDF urban characterisation & density study out for consultation at the moment - links attached: Rgds Robert http://www.hart.gov.uk/index.htm http://www.hart.gov.uk/index/top-planning/planning-policy/planning-policy-local_development_framework/planning-policy-evidence-base/planning-policy-urban-characterisation-and-density-study_.htm Submitted by: Robert Thain

Townscape Character

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:53:06 GMT

Hi, Has anyone done some work for the LDF on townscape character in an urban context? I'm aware of the work by Tower Hamlets and Southampton, but I was wondering if anyone else has any examples? Thanks Harriet Submitted by: Harriet Fisher

Healthy Communities

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:45:19 GMT

A colleague from the PCT has suggested that we include a policy in our Core Strategy to limit alcohol, tobacco and fast food outlets near to schools and in certain other locations. Whilst I can see how this is "spatial" in that it would support health objectives, I do wonder how it squares with the general principles of PPS4. Does anyone have, or propose to include, such a policy in their Core Strategy (or other DPD?) Submitted by: Martin Putsey

Re: crowd-sourcing policy development

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:42:05 GMT

Reckon its a good way to go, as an alternative or complimentary way of getting people involved in decisions. First saw this kind of thing happening in another environment much closer to my heart: http://www.myfootballclub.co.uk/ Fans pick the team and decide who to buy etc. - 'Welcome to a magnificently chaotic pure democracy' (The Guardian). If harnessed correctly, and a 'buzz' created, this could be powerful. Like anything, you won't know how it will work until you try it - I just hope it isn't another good idea that goes nowhere because people start getting too worried about the detail. The 1m should encourage someone to have a go. Ebbsfleet, the team involved above, won the FA Trophy in their first season under this kind of ownership. Submitted by: martin hutchings

Re: crowd-sourcing policy development

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:09:58 GMT

Is Wikipedia not already something like this? What is of interest for such platform in relationship to local planning strategy is that people spending most of the day in a locale but having no say because non-residents will then be able to have a say. Somehow there is very few policies that is just local. Also, local planning strategies have always multiple spatial scales. Place shaping policies are interdependant - it is not about just chosing between pair but how one policy choice has consequential impact on many other policies. Having said this, then I would agree that this is not Wikipedia - this is a completely new platform. Submitted by: Alain Chiaradia

Re: Water Cycle Study - Detailed Stage

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:51:46 GMT

Someone from the Greater Norwich Development Partnership may be able to give you some advice. Their stage 2 water cycle study is at: http://www.gndp.org.uk/documents/?pageid=99 Submitted by: Gillian Morgan

Re: Water Cycle Study - Detailed Stage

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:30:41 GMT

Thanks Matthew I've sent you an email. Harriet Submitted by: Harriet Fisher

Re: Water Cycle Study - Detailed Stage

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:22:39 GMT

It is complicated - due to changing factors happening at DEFRA and EA. As we are about to go to tender - I can't openly talk about these matters, but if you email me: matthew.winslow@basildon.gov.uk - I can share our experience to date and perhaps learn from you too? Submitted by: Matthew Winslow

Water Cycle Study - Detailed Stage

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:17:25 GMT

Hi all, We have just published our outline/scoping water cycle study and now need to progress to the next stage. Has anyone commissioned a detailed (stage 2) water cycle study yet? And if so, is anyone willing to share their experiences, procurement briefs, reports etc? Thanks Harriet Submitted by: Harriet Fisher

Planning Committee Members - Possible Conflict of Interest?

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:11:49 GMT

Hi all, Has anyone got any views on what to do under this hypothetical scenario: - Local authority preparing Core Strategy (CS) under revised PPS12 to allocate strategic sites - Elected members comment strategic site allocations during preperation of CS - Same members sit on planning committee - At some point in the future, decision on planning permission needed by same planning committee with same elected members for one of the strategic sites now allocated in the CS In your opinion, would this cause any issues and give rise to a potential conflict of interest? Have those members that commented on sites during the preperation of the CS predjudiced themselves for future decisions on sites at planning application stage? This isn't a scenario that has arisen (yet), but we are trying to advise our members on how to comment on and be involved in preperation of the CS without causing potential issues further down the line. Many thanks! Harriet Submitted by: Harriet Fisher

crowd-sourcing policy development

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:15:39 GMT

I've not seen any comment on the conservative's announcement of a 1m competition for the "[..] best new technology platform that helps people come together to solve the problems that matter to them - whether that's tackling government waste, designing a local planning strategy, finding the best school or avoiding roadworks." (my emphasis) http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2009/12/Harnessing_the_wisdom_of_crowds_in_policy_making.aspx I'm rather taken with this - a kind of public options appraisal based on the principles of http://kittenwar.com/ See http://www.mysociety.org/2009/12/16/mysocietys-next-12-months-part-1/ for a less surreal version. What say you ? Submitted by: Richard Crawley

Re: Missing out the Preferred Options stage

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:20:51 GMT

At one of the meetings which our GO kindly arranged with the GO and PINS, each with small groups of LPAs, the then Deputy Chief Executive of PINS said that major DPDs, like Core Strategies, should have a Preferred Options stage. The view was that flexibility in consultation stages introduced following the Govt.'s Streamlining LDF proposals could apply to less contentious/minor DPDs, not the Core Strategy. We anticipate including an Indication of Preferred Options in our Issues and Options consultation where we can, so that if we come up with a number of reasonable options the public would have an indication of which ones Members feel inclined to go for. We plan to 'front-load' sufficiently so that the Preferred Options stage comes soon after the Issues and Options stage (barring mishaps and bolts form the blue) so that the public have a chance of remembering the previous consultation when they see the Preferred Options one. Submitted by: henry stamp

Re: Decision by Council at pre-submission

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:58:18 GMT

Hi Ian My hunch is that all evidence show be prepared and digested when you submit the DPD - otherwise how can determine that the policy options you have chosen are sound based on the evidence available. Whilst the LDF system has changed somewhat with the new 2008 Act, I can remember authorities who were found unsound (stafford and litchfield poss?) because their evidence was incomplete. I guess there may be some flexibility, if your DPD was effectively delegating the consideration of detail down to another specific DPD? Submitted by: Matthew Winslow

Re: Missing out the Preferred Options stage

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:05:58 GMT

The advice we got from our PINS visiting inspector was that if we went from Issues & Options straight to a pre-submission document there "shouldn't be any surprises" in it. As we are doing a joint Core Strategy with a neighbouring authority and their housing allocation was doubled by the proposed amendments to the RSS after the I&O stage it was fair to say there would have been some surprises. We are therefore going out for consultation on a pre-publication version. My instinct is that a fixed consultation period is probably even more important at the end of the process than the beginning. Build the consensus using something approaching continuous engagement, including targeted consultation, but be wary of not having a formal consultation on the PO stage. Submitted by: Graham Townsend

Re: Adopted SPD and Emerging Core Strategies

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:08:16 GMT

We actually took legal advice on this very point. In summary the response was that you need an adopted policy of some sort (either LDF or saved development plan) to hang it on. In some cases we have been able to use saved UDP policies and simply flag up emerging draft LDF policies (for the purposes of continuity). There seems to me to be little point in adopting a UDP linked SPD unless it is intended to replace it with an equivalent LDF policy. In others we have had to wait until the relevant DPD was adopted before finalising the SPD. In the latter case we have, where possible, produced the 2 in parallel but waited until the DPD legal challenge period was up before adopting the SPD. Would be happy to let you see some of our various adopted (and draft) SPDs if this would help. Hope this helps Submitted by: Dave Winder

Re: Missing out the Preferred Options stage

Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:33:56 GMT

For our core Strategy under the old PPS 12 we had a Preferred Options stage. The policies were fully detailed and a lot of background info was attached to the consultation document. The Core Strategy was agreed and adopted in April 2009. This time, under new PPS 12 we are having consultation on a "pre-submission draft." this followed an on-going Issues consultation (there weren't a lot of options due to the London Plan and our own Core Strategy.Again the policies will be fully detailed and a lot of background info attached to the consultation document. The text will have been agreed by a 2 party memebers panel and also by Scrutiny, Cabinet and Full Council. Time will tell if this is the right way to do it - it seemed to make sense to us! Good luck! Submitted by: Helen Cornforth

Re: Missing out the Preferred Options stage

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:05:22 GMT

Salford are out to consultation currently on a Draft Core Strategy following earlier consultation on an Issues and Options report. Essentially a PO document but probably clearer for being a draft. Whatever it is called, I think you will need a draft document on which to engage the public. Submitted by: Mike Worden

Re: The Code for Sustainable Homes

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:56:46 GMT

I write as an Architect with a keen interest in the development of planning policies to facilitate sustainable new homes. I am currently design a zero carbon dwelling for a private client, but the client does not want to achieve certification for the end product. Sustainable development is difficult to achieve, and it is an immature market in terms of building product solutions and for selling new homes. The PPS Planning and Climate Change seeks to enable and encourage sustainable design. The Government have set out the programme for implementing the Code for Sustainable Homes and for achieving zero carbon, but: (1) The Code is mandatory for affordable homes (currently Code level 3), but is only voluntary for market housing. (2) The reduction of carbon emissions and water use, which form part of the Code, will nevertheless be made mandatory through the Building Regulations. The first major raising of the bar, seeking reductions of 25% wil cut in in October 2010. It is for developers and applicants to decide which level of the Code, or degree of reduced carbon they would like to target for any particular development. In order to encourage and enable sustainable development, and the exploration of innovative technoilogies, planning policies need to be focussed IMMEDIATELY on accepting design features at ALL levels of the Code, in order to give sustainable design and the market the momentum it so desperately needs. Designers need to have certainty that their CURRENT designs for lower and zero carbon homes will be acceptable against CURRENT adopted planning policies, including the Building Regulations changes in October 2010 (which we are designing for NOW), but in reality: - most LPAs won't have suitable policies in place before 2011 - most LPAs are uncertain about the new policies required, how to adapt existing policies to cater for sustainable design features (e.g. roofs need to face south), and how to adapt standard planning conditions to suit (e.g. for replacement dwellings, removal of all demolition material from site before commencment is unsustainable). Good luck for 2010.......I hope this helps. Submitted by: Bruce Hayball

Re: Re. The Code for Sustainable Homes

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:35:09 GMT

My understanding is that the timetable in place is as per the attached document from CLG - I am not aware of anything more up to date. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/803784.pdf Submitted by: Andrew Byrne

Re: Missing out the Preferred Options stage

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:50:01 GMT

We have done a Preferred Options stage and in fact are about to do a second due to various changes! We might call it something different, but it is essentially a PO. Submitted by: Natalie Beal

Climate Change Impact Assessments

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:48:33 GMT

At a recent workshop with the Energy Savings Trust, the idea of a Climate Change Impact Assessment was suggested. Are any authorities out there thinking of doing one of these? Are there any examples? Any thoughts at all? Thanks Natalie Submitted by: Natalie Beal

Re: Adopted SPD and Emerging Core Strategies

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:08:04 GMT

Michael, At Wokingham, our submitted Core Strategy made reference to a number of exsiting SPD. I can see no problem with this. However, you will need to consider if the Core Strategy is due to replace policies from the existing Local Plan which provided the justification for the SPD. This is due to happen at Wokingham and the Council has therefore reconsulted on the existing SPD to ensure that they are compatible with the new policies within the submitted Core Strategy. If we hadn't done this, there is a risk that those parts of existing SPD that relied upon policies that had subsequently been replaced would no longer be valid as they could not be providing additional guidance to a current policy. I hope this helps. Submitted by: Graham Ritchie

Adopted SPD and Emerging Core Strategies

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:03:29 GMT

We have a number of adopted SPDs which tie in with adopted Local Plan policies, and do not want to necessarily go through revising them to ensure that they are tied into emerging Core Strategy policies - is it feasible/legal for emerging Core Strategy policies to make reference to adopted SPD ? Submitted by: Michael Hase

Decision by Council at pre-submission

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:40:40 GMT

When a DPD goes to Council for approval is it necessary to have all of the evidence base finalised, or can emerging evidence which has yet to be finalised and published be used, and then Council provide delegated authority to make any amendments to take account of the final published evidence? Submitted by: Ian Nelson

Re: Missing out the Preferred Options stage

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:19:38 GMT

We initially were going along a similar route, but after visits and discussions with both PINS and PAS, it was felt that this was too large a jump and so we have recently agreed a new LDS that now incorporates a 'Pre Publication Draft' stage, to allow extra input from stakeholders and more importantly the public. Submitted by: Charlotte Hardy

Re. The Code for Sustainable Homes

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:17:35 GMT

Does anybody have a definitive list of when local authorities must implement each level of the Code for Sustainable Homes in their policy? We have received two variations of dates to a recent consultation on our Core Strategy and therefore, it has made us question whether we are right or not. I have been searching the internet but thought I would try this forum out to see if anyone can signpost me to this quicker. Regards. Submitted by: Edward Morgan

Lets keep this to one thread

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:42:50 GMT

Please post any responses here: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/forum/thread-maint.do?topicId=309983 Thanks! John. Submitted by: John Chantler

SPORT ENGLAND, PLANNING CONTRIBUTIONS KITBAG

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:21:59 GMT

Did you know that this web-based resource is now available in hard copy from Sport England's regional offices? The Kitbag is structured under three headings: - planning contributions, what are they? (government policy covering mechanisms to secure contributions for sport) - developing local frameworks (a 5 step process to deliver benefits locally, facility costings, model S106 and community use agreements) and - good practice and local authority examples (listings of recent SPDs, site level examples from a range of locations) Submitted by: Lesley Downing

Housing Planning Delivery Grant

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:54:19 GMT

CLG recently announced this years HPDGs but my quesetion is can you find out what a Council could potentially achieve from HPDG next year. Having suffered severe budget cuts I am trying to find out what can be achieved financially, by adopting a Core Strategy and other DPDs. I can see what other Council's have been awared this year but as this seems to change slightly year-on-year I'm wondering if it is possible to find out what can be achieved financially next year? Any help on this would be very much appreciated. thanks Lisa Submitted by: Lisa Walton

Re: PPG2 Annex C - Major Developed Sites in Green Belt

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:00:49 GMT

Wokingham Borough's Submitted Core Strategy includes a general policy for the Green Belt (CP12) which sets the boundaries. The policy also indicates that the Council will apply PPG2 witihn the Green Belt parts of the borough. The supporting text recognises that the only Major Development Site within the borough would be reviewed through a subsequent DPD (paragraph 4.59). This approach has been accepted by the Inspector - the report was received by the Council on 27 October 2009. The Inspector (paragraph 7.2) commented that although the Council's Green Belt policy (CP12) added nothing to national or regional policy, it was not unsound for that reason. Submitted by: Graham Ritchie

PPG2 Annex C - Major Developed Sites in Green Belt

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:44:47 GMT

Does anyone know of any authorities which have included a policy relating to the above in their Core Strategy or Site Allocations DPDs (preferably recent examples)? Bearing in mind that our Government Office have advised us not to repeat national guidance in policies, and the fact that PPG2 Annex C includes detailed advice, it would be useful to see how other officers have approached this. Thanks, Michael Whitehead Submitted by: Michael Whitehead

Re: Examination website - Joint DPDs

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:01:02 GMT

With the joint Leicester and Leicestershire Waste Core Strategy with ourselves and the County Council we had most key documents were available on both sites, but the evidence base and changes were only on the County Council website, our document has now been found sound so the I assume what we did was ok. Submitted by: Paul Statham