Wednesday, 11 October 2017

On Alok Sharma's In-Tray


This is a piece that I contributed to the RTPI's Blog.




Which position is the most precarious? Housing & Planning Minister or football manager?


This image, which I came by via @NobleFrancis on Twitter, reveals that Alok Sharma is the fifteenth Housing Minister in twenty years, with the average tenure being just sixteen months.

According to this piece the average tenure of a football manager is also sixteen months.

An incoming football manager can typically expect to inherit a squad that is bereft of form and confidence. An incoming Planning Minister can typically expect to inherit decisions that were just too complicated and policies that were just too difficult for their predecessors to deal with. Alok Sharma’s in-tray seems particularly full, but helpfully for him a House of Commons Library Briefing Paper on Planning Reform Proposals sets out proposed changes that are still yet to be made. These include (in the Briefing Paper’s order):

  • Section 106 contributions
  • Community Infrastructure Levy
  • Local plans and housing requirements
  • Housing delivery test
  • Fixing housing land supply on an annual basis
  • Requirement to plan for housing and strategic priorities
  • Incentive to put in place a Local Plan
  • Duty to cooperate
  • Housing on commuter hubs and commercial land
  • A standardised approach to housing requirement calculations
  • Upward extensions
  • Rural areas
  • Release of land for starter homes
  • Affordable housing: change of definition
  • Consultation on planning and affordable housing for build to rent
  • Presumption in favour of brownfield land
  • Cutting red tape review
  • Roads and infrastructure requirements
  • Protected species
  • Utility connection to new homes
  • Changes to planning application fees
  • Garden cities, towns and villages
  • Completion notice reform
  • Secretary of State planning decisions: time limit
  • Fees for making a planning appeal
  • Green Belt
  • Neighbourhood planning
  • Developer’s track record
  • Sustainable development and the environment
  • Basement development
  • Designation for poor performance
  • Draft airports national policy statement
Some big things and some less big things, but they were worth listing in full, I reasoned, because in one way or another something in that list will be significant to everybody involved in the planning process, and the planning for new homes particularly. Waiting for these changes to be made, or not to be made, is influencing, to a lesser or greater degree, how planners are going about their business. Leadership is sought.

A number of the proposals, for example, will influence how people will bid for land. If bidding on a subject-to-planning basis the bidder has to anticipate what the policy regime will be when consent is granted, which might be eighteen months away. Does the bidder adopt a ‘worse case scenario’ and risk losing the site with an uncompetitive headline offer? Does the bidder adopt a ‘best case scenario’ and present, in headline terms at least, the best offer, but risk either having to ‘chip’ the purchaser when the policy requirements finally emerge, or wrangle with the LPA over what then, to them, is viable.

A number of these proposals, for example, will influence how people will promote a local plan. The planning policy manager might be prepared to trust in the evidence base, build in as much flexibility to emerging policies as possible, and try to convince an Inspector that there is no future problem so serious that an early review cannot remedy it. The Leader of the Council though, perhaps faced with local elections next year, might adopt a more circumspect approach. What if? What if the draft standard OAN methodology is adopted and does mean we can reduce our housing targets? What if the large strategic sites policy falls foul of a housing delivery test? Our fragile pretence of a 5YHLS will be shattered for good. Let’s just wait and see. There is an irony, of course, in one of the proposals being focussed on incentivising the production of local plans.

The pond of planning policy and guidance is seldom still, but in the recent past the sector has had to anticipate the waves from the Housing & Planning Act 2016, tossed in by the Cameron and Osborne Government, and the waves from this year’s Housing White Paper, which signalled the change of direction being attempted by May and Javid. What hope for a period of tranquillity? Philip Hammond has suggested that the Budget might again include planning reforms, which would be in addition to the revised draft NPPF, expected early in the New Year and the Green Paper on Social Housing that Sajid Javid has announced. Even more for the Minister’s in-tray.

Mr Sharma has noted that Planning Ministers are a bit like Doctor Who and that he is the latest incarnation, but has said that he “hopes to be in place for a decent length of time and to see through many of the reforms that are laid out in the Housing White Paper”.

“We need an evolution over a period of time”, said Crystal Palace Chairman Steve Parish in June when announcing the arrival of manager Frank De Boer. De Boer was sacked after 77 days and 4 matches.

Friday, 11 August 2017

Devolution & The Birmingham Shortfall 3

I first wrote about the Birmingham shortfall in June 2015. Mike Best of Turley provides the background to it’s emergence through the Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) here, but by June 2015 it was becoming clear that the challenge presented by accommodating some 38,000 homes beyond the city’s administrative boundary and across a housing market area (HMA) represented by 13 other LPAs would not be met by the Duty-to-Cooperate (DtC).

The mechanism introduced into the BDP (late in the day as a main modification) is little more than a commitment on behalf of Birmingham’s neighbours to either review already adopted plans or have regard to the shortfall and the DtC in the preparation of new plans. Birmingham, for it’s part, is to review the BDP if the expected rate of progress is not being achieved.

What else could have been done about it though? As the BDP Inspector himself put it, “I see no other way of proceeding that would achieve a faster result”, but the optimist in me wondered in June 2015 whether the joint working that at that time was going in to the GBSLEP’s Strategic Housing Needs Study and Spatial Plan might, one day, create a framework for joint working that might, one day after that, provide the platform for a statutory development plan for the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA). Whilst there was no other practical solution available to either the officers preparing the BDP or the Inspector examining it, I optimistically speculated that the fast-evolving devolution agenda might provide the leverage for cities to grapple with cross-border challenges in a faster, multi-lateral way, rather than, as is the task facing Birmingham now, on a bilateral, local plan by local plan basis.

I revisited the Birmingham shortfall again in August 2016 when little had changed. The BDP had not actually been adopted because an intervention by Andrew Mitchell MP, concerned about the loss of Green Belt around Sutton Coldfield, had resulted in a DCLG holding direction. An agreement had not been reached on the distribution of the shortfall across the HMA, but since discussions between LPAs were being held behind closed doors it was difficult to know. What was becoming clear by then was the practical implication of the shortfall. With a recently adopted Core Strategy (CS) in place Lichfield, as an example, was faced with a choice between identifying allocations pursuant to the CS with a commitment to an early review of it once the situation with Birmingham was clearer; or reviewing the CS now, either partially or fully, to deal with both the allocations and Birmingham’s housing need. The Council went with the first option.

What had changed at that point though was the formation on the horizon of the clouds of the next housebuilding storm. The WMCA had published a Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) ("to complement and support" the SEPs of the SEPs of areas three LEPs) and it’s economic vision assumes “a higher level of housebuilding than is currently provided for in development plans, or is being delivered across the area’s two strategic housing market areas.” So even before the current shortfall had been worked through a further round of future housing need was being prepared for layering on top.

I resolved last year to revisit the situation in twelve months’ time, which is now. So here we are. August 2017.Twelve months on there has been both lots of change and no change at all. 

The West Midlands Land Commission Report has been produced on behalf of the WMCA and considers the identification and delivery of suitable land to meet housing and employment needs. It has been produced to inform decisions by the WMCA as to the nature of possible interventions required by the CA and it’s partners. The first of the Commission’s ten recommendations was that WMCA Board develops a Spatial Framework for the West Midlands, initially on a non-statutory basis, but the WMCA is still giving due consideration to the outputs and recommendations of the Land Commission Report, which was published in February.

Also in February came news that Birmingham City Council, on behalf of it’s HMA partners, was to tender for what was initially called a ‘Strategic Growth Study’ (SGS) (now a ‘Strategic Locations Study’, but let us not read too much into that). 

The brief set out that the study should build upon the GBSLEP Strategic Housing Needs Study, which ‘explored spatial options for meeting the shortfall’, by considering:
  • The level of HMA need and shortfall compared with the supply already identified (and the potential for greater density upon it) in adopted and emerging local plans;
  • The housing implications of the growth proposed in the WMCA SEP;
  • The potential supply from land outside of the Green Belt;
  • The development potential and suitability of any large, previously developed sites within the Green Belt in sustainable locations; and
  • Undertaking (where the inevitable shortfall remains) a full strategic review of the Green Belt within the HMA, taking into account ‘market capacity to deliver’.
It has been confirmed subsequently that GL Hearn, which won the instruction, will include shortfalls identified elsewhere in the HMA. This includes Tamworth’s shortfall, which is small, and the Black Country shortfall, which is not small. The recently published Black Country Joint Core Strategy Issues & Options document identifies a shortfall of 22,000 homes. 

What this study will do then is to provide:

Clear recommendations on the broad locations for growth, a range of potential housing capacity from each growth location and an indicative delivery timetable. The merits of these growth locations will then be tested through the Local Plan process.

What this study will not do then is result in the apportionment of the now 60,000 home shortfall, plus the implications of Super SEP-level growth, across the 14 LPAs. There will remain no clear path between the recommendations on the broad locations for growth and the proportion of the shortfall that each LPA will test through it’s respective local plan review. Given that a GBSLEP Spatial Plan is still a stated aspiration, and given that the Black Country Core Strategy, which is aligned with the South Staffordshire Core Strategy review, is likely to draw in more LPAs than the current 14, and given that Stratford upon Avon and North Warwickshire also straddle the Coventry & Warwickshire HMA, this path will be a very difficult one for LPAs acting in isolation to navigate.

If you are a glass half-full kind of person, just reaching an agreement across the 14 LPAs to commission the SGS represents a positive step forward and it could provide a firm platform for discussions about the capacity for development in each LPA. If you are a glass half-empty kind of person though then anything other than a definitive piece of work published punctually and with the public endorsement of 14 Council leaders could give the impression of a can with Green Belt written on it being kicked down the road.

Another thing that has changed in the past twelve months is the election of Andy Street to the West Midlands mayoralty. Is Mr Street the man to grasp this nettle? Whilst acknowledging that Mr Street is still new to a new role within a new organisation that has been placed atop an already complex web of public administration (see graphic from Turley below) the early signs are not encouraging. Mr Street spoke during his election campaign of the need for ‘a joined-up approach to housing across the West Midlands region’, but has stopped short of endorsing the recommendations of the WMCA Land Commission. He also campaigned on the basis that Green Belt is a development option of last resort.



Mr Street also spoke during the election campaign of ‘knocking heads together where there are obstacles.’ In so far as the shortfall is concerned, since two of Birmingham’s 13 HMA neighbours, Stratford and North Warwickshire, have signed agreements with Birmingham to take a total of 7,090 homes, it is the heads of the eleven other Council leaders that need knocking. An important head to knock, so to speak, will be that of Solihull’s leader Bob Sleigh. Solihull Council raised eyebrows in November last year when it’s draft Local Plan proposed to ‘test’ only a 2000 home contribution to the shortfall, which the development community and eight of Solihull’s HMA neighbours believe to be too much too low. Mr Street has appointed Mr Sleigh as his deputy.

Mr Street will mark his first 100 days in office on 12 August and will be buoyed by the recent announcement about second Devo Deal for the West Midlands, which could be announced in the Budget towards the end of the year.

It is almost inconceivable that brownfield land reclamation and new measures to bring unoccupied homes into use won’t be two of Mr Street’s ‘asks’, but whilst he may be moved privately to acknowledge that knocking heads together will not solve the shortfall dilemma, it is equally inconceivable that he would request statutory, region-wide spatial planning powers in order to deal with it. The mayor’s current powers are extremely limited for a reason, which is that councils did not and will not want to pass powers, and controversial decisions about Green Belt, upwards. What chance though of a solution to the shortfall being a condition of Devo Deal II. Whilst a recommendation of LPEG, and whilst ministers may be moved privately to acknowledge that the Duty to Cooperate will simply not address these issues, will anybody in Government be so moved by the significance of the shortfall to local plan progress in the West Midlands as to make resolving it a condition of a new devo deal? Perhaps one day.

Oh, one final thing that has changed in the past twelve months is that the BDP was adopted in January, which means that the clock is now counting down towards the three year deadline within which the BDP expects the shortfall to have been distributed within replacement or revised Local Plan that have been submitted for examination.

When I write about the shortfall again in twelve months’ time that deadline will be 18 months away.

Tuesday, 1 August 2017

Why The Piece Hall is my favourite building

Halifax's Piece Hall reopens today after a major refurbishment, which is terrfic news for my local town. I wrote this back in 2011 when asked to write about my favourite building.



The Piece Hall in Halifax is a Grade I listed Georgian masterpiece that encapsulates perfectly why John Betjeman described Halifax as “a town of hidden beauty”.

Following a public meeting in March 1774, a group of wool manufacturers resolved to build a market place to be funded by subscription. Work began in 1774 and the Piece Hall opened on 1 January 1779. The term ‘piece’ refers to the pieces of cloth that were sold.

An open design competition was won by a local architect, Thomas Bradley, who had previously designed the nearby red brick Square Chapel (also Grade 1 Listed) and who would subsequently go on to become the chief engineer of the Calder and Hebble Navigation. Remarkably, when building work began on the Piece Hall, Bradley was 22 years old.

The Piece Hall comprises a large open courtyard that is surrounded on all four sides by elegant, galleried walkways. The upper level comprises a colonnade of Tuscan round columns. The middle level, which is the ground floor level at the top of the sloping courtyard, is supported by Rustic columns of chamfered square pattern.

The lower ground floor level has squared piers supporting Tuscan arches. The three ascending orders and the regular intervals of columns and levels surrounding the courtyard create an harmonious, spacious, little bit of Italy, right here in Yorkshire.

Like all good buildings, it perfectly combined form and function. The walkways provided access to 315 individual rooms that were leased by the manufacturers for the sale of cloth to merchants. One of the key requirements for cloth halls though was security for the contents, which is why the rooms are fireproof and the exterior of the building is largely unadorned.

Beyond the function though, the contrast between the unrevealing exterior and what is to be found inside still surprises visitors today. At its opening and in its early years, the contrast with the congested buildings and narrow, largely medieval street patterns of the town must have been breathtaking.

What I really love though is the fact that the wool merchants in a town in the West Riding of Yorkshire had both the brass, and the brass neck, to conduct their business in surroundings that emulated the grandeur of Imperial Rome.”

Following decades of steady decline the Piece Hall is currently home to shops, cafes and an art gallery, as well as hosting occasional events such as children’s fun days and concerts.


Calderdale Council is, though, pursuing a Heritage Lottery Fund grant that will transform the courtyard into an elegant public space and create workspaces for creative businesses, restaurants and retailing within the building itself.

An Interpretation and Education Centre is to explain the history and importance of the building to visitors. Having been described by English Heritage as perhaps Yorkshire’s most important secular building, it is hoped that these proposals will secure the building for another 230 years and act as catalyst for the regeneration of Halifax and the wider area.

Tuesday, 27 June 2017

Wirral in it together

With receipt of the Inspector's Report marking a major milestone on the Cheshire East Local Plan's long journey towards adoption, fans of planning and soap operas in the North West may be wondering how to replace what became a major part of our professional lives over the last eight years or so. The void may be filled on the Wirral.

Planning Officers reported to Wirral's Cabinet at the end of February the results of last summer’s SHMA and SHLAA consultation. In the report officers accepted that whilst the objectively assessed need has not yet been identified, it will be higher than the North West RSS. This was the 500 dwellings per annum (dpa) that the Council had sought to be adopted for the next plan period as set out in the Submission Draft Core Strategy, which will soon be five years old.

The OAN for the Borough will be between 875 dpa and 1,235 dpa, both of which represent a significant uplift and Wirral is already falling woefully short of a 5 year housing land supply, with Officer’s stating in that report that:

‘Over the whole fifteen-year plan period, even if all of the potential capacity identified in the SHLAA 2016, including a modest level of development at Wirral Waters, can be delivered, based on the latest information provided by the developer, there would still be a significant shortfall in the supply of future housing land in the Borough against the calculated OAN under both elements.’

Officers recommended that a wider review of potential development options is undertaken, including:

• employment land;
• open space and previously undeveloped land;
• increasing densities where possible;
• Wirral Waters, and when it may be implemented; and
...wait for it...
• Green Belt.

In the minutes of that Cabinet meeting Council Leader Phil Davies (Labour) states that "this administration is committed to not building on Wirral’s Green Belt", but also recognises that "failing to explore all options, including Green Belt, or not submitting a Local Plan by March 2018 carries potential sanctions from Government".

Cue a local news furore and now a resolution from the Conservative Group on the Council to "confirm its unconditional guarantee to protect Wirral's green belt and further resolves that it will not release or allow Council owned green belt land to be developed under any circumstances".

In to this mix will come the Liverpool City Region's Strategic Housing and Employment Land Market Assessment (SHELMA), which will have a growing influence on housing requirements in Wirral and is likely to confirm that none of the neighbouring LPAs are in a position to be able to assist Wirral in meeting their needs.

It was once said that when two North West property professionals meet their first talk is of the Cheshire East Local Plan. Wirral's Plan may actually take longer.

Tuesday, 7 February 2017

On the Housing White Paper

The Government is to fix our broken housing market.

It is easy to be cynical about claims of ‘radical, lasting reform’ or ‘big, difficult decisions’ and healthy cynicism is always a good starting point in politics and planning. To apply lazy cynicism to the Housing White Paper would though be unfair because it seems to be born of good intentions and does represent a coherent and comprehensive set of measures. It would also be unfair though because there are few other areas of public policy where minister's views are so routinely tested in the white heat of popular opinion. The stock answer to a difficult question on, say, Question Time is to call for a ‘national debate’. The future of the NHS; the crisis in social care funding; immigration, for example. There are no white papers on these subjects though. There is no print deadline by which cabinet ministers of different views have to agree. Politicians are able to offer platitudinous responses on these subjects because, aside perhaps to a threat to their local A&E Department, their electoral chances do not hang upon them to the same extent. ‘Save the NHS!’ ‘Hooray!’ ‘Integrate the NHS and social care!’ ‘Hooray!’ Balanced immigration (whatever that means)!’ ‘Hooray!’ 'A Green Belt fit for the 21st Century!’ ‘Wait..., what?!'

Simply producing a Housing White Paper will have been a challenge. Consider, for example, the delays in preparing it. Sajid Javid had said in the Commons in early October that it would be published by Christmas, but by November it was January and by January there were as many rumours about further delays as there were leaks about possible policies. Consider too that Theresa May's 641 word 'foreword' is over twice as long as Sajid Javid's 270 word foreword. That might not be unusual or it might be a small indication that Mr Javid was not granted the editorial control that he might have hoped for. Consider also that, despite the delays, so many of the document's details will be the subject of further consultation. 

Sajid Javid told the media that the document is exactly what he wanted and had not been scaled back. It is hard to escape the feeling though that if it did contain policies to implement ‘radical, lasting reform’ or to grapple with ‘big, difficult decisions’ then those policies did not make it into the final draft. Beyond the fruit that has been low-hanging for a while now (brownfield land, public land, SME builders, etc…) there are initiatives that might contribute to faster local plan processes, a better supply of land, and a greater focus on delivery, but, on the whole, these are matters of process and protocol. ‘Radical, lasting reform’? That might have included a consolidation of the various Acts; the reintroduction of planning across HMAs and, rather than 'looking seriously at any request from local authorities for Government powers to be used to support delivery in their local area', state-sponsored new towns and a mass council housebuilding programme . Big, difficult decisions? Even if Green Belt as a principle was not to be tested floating the idea that meeting FOAN or the absence of a 5YHLS might justify building on it would have put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Let us be realistic though. Those measures were not on the agenda, are not on the agenda and are unlikely to be on the agenda for some time still to come and so the smart money should always have been on a document that adds a tier to the main stand rather than imagines a move to a purpose-built arena. Is it cynical then to dismiss claims of ‘radical, lasting reform’ and ‘big, difficult decisions’? Perhaps, but if one imagines a Venn diagram of two circles, one 'planning' and one 'politics', the overlapping area in the middle is 'the possible' and that is where we operate.

The new ministerial team does though construct a petard upon which it can be hoisted in the future by inferring in the title of the document a degree of intervention in the planning system and in the housing market that the Government is clearly unwilling to make, but that would get so much closer so much faster to 225,000-275,000 new homes a year if it did.

Friday, 2 December 2016

A good planning system needs good planners.

I cannot remember exactly why, I may have been in a flap about a councillor or consultant giving me a hard time, but I remember being told by my principle officer and team leader to relax. ‘It’s only a game’, he said.

Now. Let’s be clear. Planning is clearly not a game. Late Victorian intervention into a laissez-faire market on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged was not a game. The need to rebuild the country after the great wars and to build homes for heroes was not a game. Looking back on my time in development control with ten years more experience myself I think that my former colleague was expressing a world-weary, cynical view that when you strip back the noble traditions of the profession and look narrowly at the ability of one person to get anything done, you have to play ‘the game’.

I was on the panel at a ‘Movers & Shakers’ breakfast seminar recently (check me out) and was asked what I would like to see in the Autumn Statement and much-trailed Housing White Paper. My answer, born out of optimism more than expectation, was that I would like to see more resources for Local Planning Authorities (LPAs).

Whilst the resource issue is seemingly on Minister Barwell’s radar…



… there was no recognition of it in the Autumn Statement and if it is to be recognised in the White Paper it will perhaps most likely be in the Government’s long-awaited position on locally-set planning application fees (which I will come back to).

As Primal Scream might have said in an early demo version of ‘Rocks’, dealers keep dealing, junkies keep scoring, Governments keep tinkering, and practitioners keep practicing. The White Paper will no doubt introduce another round of reform for planners to get to grips with and that will driven by what Simon Ricketts eloquently describes here as short-term political priorities. There ain’t no use in praying. That’s the way it’s staying. Baby.

Again, let us put to one side and return one day to the quite important question of what planning is for and how the system should be structured to achieve that purpose. Let us instead think about the system as it is presently constructured and how within it planners can get good plans in place and get good applications approved.

The tinkering does, without doubt, yield some benefits. The deemed discharge of planning conditions, for example, is sensible. But tinkering also has some unquantifiable opportunity costs because whilst planners are getting to grips with the practical implications of another ministerial missive (I also spoke at a Starter Homes conference recently (again, check me out) and, for example, two years after the concept was first trailed there are still more unknowns than knowns…) they are not progressing local plans or dealing with applications.

The case for planning is surely as strong now as it was in the Victorian or post-war eras. Consequently, the case for more LPA resource to get on and plan is surely now as strong as it ever was. In contemplating the merits of direct investment relative to further reform it is instructive to consider how many of the Government’s previous tinkerings are actually intended to remedy what good officers should be doing as a matter of course anyway.

The Housing & Planning Bill actually makes provision for applicants to choose whether it is the LPA or an alternative provider that determines their application. The Neighbourhood Planning Bill actually provides that a LPA cannot impose a pre-application condition without the written agreement of an applicant. Are we really now suggesting that even if applicants do have to make do with a LPA assessing their proposal they can be assured that, by law, an officer will at least be in touch about conditions prior to a decision? Yes. It has come to this and it is a real shame. Good officers know who is a good applicant, what is a good application, how to get good applications approved.

The reductions in local government and LPA budgets are well documented, and planning teams are clearly now tasked with doing more with less. Less well-documented though is the impact on the skills within planning teams. This is only a suspicion, but I would contend that more often than not the older, more experienced officers have either been offered early retirement or have been allowed to retire without their posts being filled. Junior staff have then been over-promoted and many development control officers may have progressed from being technical clerks with neither planning training nor practical experience.

This then contributes to a confluences of circumstances whereby ever-more complex applications are submitted by better trained, more experienced, better resourced (and better remunerated) planners into ever-more complex policy and political environments to be determined by less well trained less experienced, less well resourced (and less well remunerated) planners. The result, almost inevitably, is confusion and delay (as Sir Topham Hatt would say).

The average Barratt planning application took over a year to get from pre-application consultation to Section 106 Agreement in 2014/15. In fact it was exactly the same time that it was taking in 2013/14, despite the improvements to process made by the land and planning teams within the business and the previous Government’s attempts to ‘speed-up planning’. Again, this is only a suspicion, but perhaps those internal efficiencies and those previous reforms were simply cancelled out by fewer officers dealing with applications.

Anyway. I am nothing if not positive and pragmatic. The Government is not going to provide funds for LPAs to elevate the pay scales of planners to the extent that the bright, young things are not tempted by the bright lights of consultancy and the wise, old owls, who know how to oil and then turn the wheels, are tempted back in.

The Government might though tinker with application fees and allow LPAs the discretion to set their own. From what I can see the development industry will have no issue with the actual officer time required to determine applications being reflected in the application fee. This cost is deductible during land value calculations and there is no talk of the useful ‘free go’ provisions being scrapped.

I have some sympathy with the HBF view on locally set fees though, which is a concern that they will not actually result in an increase of the LPA’s overall budget. If a LPA currently raises, say 50% of it’s budget from application fees and the other 50% from the Council budget, and then raises another 20% in fees, will it not follow that the Council will expect the planning department to find 20% of savings?

The mythical Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) could be a way of getting funds directly into frontline development control service, but the thresholds for the use of such are typically quite high and so catch relatively few applications. Perhaps organisations, like housebuilders, that submit, over time, multiple applications that would cumulatively go over the PPA threshold could be afforded their own company-wide PPA by an individual LPA. A binding commitment on one side to issue permission by a certain date could be reciprocated by a binding commitment to start on site by a certain date. Perhaps PPAs could be created on an industry-by-industry, sector-by-sector basis. The promoters of, for example, city-centre PRS schemes or logistics schemes could make a joint contribution to the LPA that would allow department heads to identify officers with specialisms in city-centre PRS or logistics schemes. 

There is, in my humble opinion, nothing fundamentally wrong with the planning system and there are no fundamental blockages to good applications being approved. But it is hard work. At that Starter Homes conference somebody told me, for example, about a London borough that recently signed on the same day three different Section 106 Agreements relating to affordable housing and all three agreements were based upon different templates. No amount of tinkering will encourage the head of planning and the head of legal services to use a Borough-wide standard Section 106 Agreement template.

You may say that I am dreamer, but the planning system should not be confrontational. Good landowners, working with good developers and good consultants, should be working with good officers to get those good plans in place and to get those good applications approved. Let us be realistic though. Not everybody carries with them my moral rectitude, and the sometimes exponentially greater land value that the grant of planning permission confers can attract those seeking to game the system. This is the quasi-judicial regulatory process with private interest on one side and public interest on the other. As in any regulatory system, if your gamekeepers are not better than their poachers then your pheasants are going to get plucked.

Planning, to conclude, is not a game, but getting anything done, and working with the myriad of players and their multitudinous motivations within a multi-layered legal, policy and political framework, can make it feel like one. The Government of the day sets the rules of the game and, like Bernie Ecclestone sitting atop Formula 1, can tinker with them until the result is a satisfactory one. It seems to me though that for the time being leaving the rules alone and evening up the teams would make for a more rewarding spectacle.

Tuesday, 27 September 2016

The GMSF. Spatial planning in a non-spatial planning age.

How does one go about spatial planning at the city-region or sub-regional level in an era when there is no legislative and policy basis to do so? The answer, based upon the nascent Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) that is being prepared by AGMA / GMCA, is perhaps unsurprisingly 'with great difficulty'.

Progress with local plans speaks to the difficulty of even this enterprise. Evidence needs to be prepared, neighbouring authorities need to be engaged, the public needs to be consulted, the political party in control (if there is one - pity the Head of Policy in authorities with no overall control) needs to be supportive, and then finally, at the business end of the process, an inspector needs to hear more supportive voices around the examination table than there are dissenting ones.

The GMSF needs to harvest evidence from and on behalf of ten LPAs; it's neighbouring authorities account for a good proportion of the entire North West region; it's local population is over 2.7 million; and it's ten council leaders, each with very different political priorities, also each have the power of veto over it. This must be ten times harder than preparing a local plan, not ten times easier.

Oh, and whilst the GMSF is a joint local plan at the minute it is to become a Mayoral plan next year and the current favourite, Andy Burnham, has already expressed some doubt about the process undertaken to date. Oh yes, and the legislation required for a mayoral plan for Greater Manchester is not yet in place. 

What chance of more supportive voices being heard around the examination table than dissenting ones. The development community has already expressed concern about a perceived gap between the rhetoric around growth aspirations and Greater Manchester's role in Northern Powerhouse and the reality of the growth ambitions and what some consider to be suppressed housing and economic analysis. AGMA / GMCA would no doubt refute any suggestion that a politically palatable housing requirement was identified at the outset, but the publication in August of a paper on the preferred growth option, ahead of a Greater Manchester-wide SHMA, does little to dampen that suspicion.

On the other side of the coin, any GMSF housing requirement that results in an revision to Greater Manchester's thirty year old Green Belt boundaries will be unacceptable to some. Given that Green Belt release is inevitable it is also perhaps inevitable that the mayor of Salford, the MP for Bolton West, the MP for Denton and Reddish, the MP for Bury North and the MP for Hazel Grove..


https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ei9GQ_6B3ns/V-j66eEvHII/AAAAAAAAIfo/J5zM8P3KE4EN2-DTHT0Ku8NCYgw40LgTwCLcB/s320/Wragg.png

...will be requesting a seat around the examination table.

The draft GMSF is now expected to emerge ahead of an AGMA / GMCA Executive Board meeting at the end of October and it is noticeable that ahead of that some 'pitch rolling' appears to be going on. Compare and contrast these two pieces from Platform, a new magazine-style website that has been launched to 'share knowledge and opinions on sustainability across Greater Manchester'.

In the first, dated 14 September 2016, Councillor Richard Farnell, Leader of Rochdale Council and new GMCA lead on housing and planning, states that:

Altogether we’re going to need up to 230,000 new homes by 2035, approximately 70% of this supply is on brownfield sites within the existing urban area. We’re going to work hard to make sure these are developed and you could call our approach ‘urban first’, but as we still have a shortfall we will also need to identify some limited areas of green belt to release for development.

In the second, dated 26 September 2016, Steve Conner of Creative Concern states that:

To help deliver on this aspiration, in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework we’ve deliberately chosen to release fewer, but larger, sites that have the scale needed to create entirely new neighbourhoods that are of a high quality in their own right but that also bring some great benefits to neighbouring communities, too.

That is quite a leap to make in twelve days. From 'limited areas of Green Belt' to new 'Garden City Suburbs'. Either a bullet has been bitten in between and agreement has been reached to take a generational, transformational 'confident bite' out of the Green Belt, or, different messages are being given at the same time to those both supportive and against Green Belt development. Both scenarios illustrate the challenges that lie ahead for the GMSF.

Just getting to the examination table will be a major achievement for those involved.