50 Shades of Planning

'The Planners' is one of very few programmes that my wife and I watch together. She enjoys the human interest and drama at the heart of each application and I enjoy the novelty of seeing what I do on a daily basis being processed as prime time 'docu-soap'. (We both enjoy playing the 'approved or refused' guessing game half way through each programme.) Since my wife has no idea about the planning system the programme also helpfully explains to her what I do between leaving in the morning and getting home at night. It is, I tell her, a pretty accurate reflection of my world. The individuals that are featured generally reflect the officers, members, nimbies, architects and consultants that I come across and work with (though I have to tell her that it is not typical for officers to visit objectors to explain recommendations...). Since though I do have an idea about the planning system I do not, as my wife does, take the editorial tone and narrative of th

There is coverage this morning of an open letter from seventeen professional bodies calling for 'a major rethink of how Britain plans both its towns and the countryside to prevent homes and businesses flooding in future.' In the Telegraph David Cameron is urged to lead a 'planning revolution'. The letter can be read here . From a planning point of view, calls to fit sustainable drainage systems (SUDs) for new buildings and making all new housing on flood plains resilient when built do not require a planning revolution. They are consistent with existing policy and within the gift of individual local planning authorities (though I'm not sure, practically, how you would go about fitting SUDs for existing buildings) .  What drew my eye in particular though are the calls to look at how forestry, land management and soft-engineered flood alleviation schemes can hold back water in the upper reaches of rivers, and to foster co-operation between landowners

An e-petition has been launched seeking to "amend the NPPF" before "irreversible damage is caused to our communities." The petition goes on to state that: We the undersigned support the principles of the NPPF but believe that its implementation has led to unanticipated consequences. Opportunist planning applications are being lodged around the country where planning authorities have not adopted their Core Strategy nor have a 5 year housing land supply. In these cases, all planning rules seem to be abandoned including many of the core planning principles in the NPPF. We believe that such large scale development risks massive, irreversible damage to our villages and the surrounding countryside. We do not believe that this was the intention of the NPPF and ask the Government to urgently introduce three specific amendments: to allow decision makers to take into account the cumulative effect of development as a material planning consideration; to allow pla

Trafford Council made the Examiner’s final report into it's Draft CIL Charging Schedule public this morning. The report recommends, subject to modifications, that the Charging Schedule be approved. The next stage will be it's adoption, but a timetbale for that process is not yet known. The final proposed Charging Schedule is below, and further details can be found at: http://www.trafford.gov.uk/planning/strategic-planning/local-development-framework/community-infrastructure-levy.aspx Use Proposed CIL charge (per sq.m) Private market houses in: Cold charging zone £20 Moderate charging zone £40 Hot charging zone £80 Apartments in: Cold charging zone £10 £0 Moderate charging zone £10 £0 Hot charging zone £65 Retail Warehouses £75 Supermarkets outside defined town centres £225 Supermarkets within the defined town