Theplannerman

Ker..ching...£££££££ - A Planning Stealth Tax Too Far?

2012-03-10T19:37:00.000Z

So we are told, the current economic crisis has not been matched since the end of WW2. It is perhaps unsurprising therefore that - as the Coalition is just about to publish a National Planning Policy Framework which fundamentally revisits the town planning system – the same approach to taxing development values seems to be rising to the surface; this time by stealth.

Post war planning in the form of the new, bright and shiny Town & Country Planning Act 1947 sought to strip out development value for the Exchequer with a 100% land tax; the aim being to legislate development value out of existence. It didn’t last.

Now we see a whole raft of development related taxes that, quite frankly, are going to add up to a situation where anyone with any sense (and the desire to keep some money in the bank) will think more than twice about investing in the UK; England in particular.

The costs of mounting even a quite straightforward application are bad enough, given all the validation detritus one has to provide, but that is just the start.

First there is the pre-application charge levied by some local authorities for providing advice and guidance on planning applications. Helpful to some perhaps, but the cash/benefit analysis is so firmly weighted toward the heavily caveated advice of Officers one wonders what you are actually paying for.

And I note that Westminster City Council are early off the blocks with an extra service charge… for just doing their job properly! A £400,000 shortfall in its planning departments’ finances is being recovered from developers who are paying extra fees (of £26,000) in return for an agreed timetable for processing their application.

What!! So you don’t give advice we can rely on and then don’t keep to any published timetable unless palms are greased with filthy lucre. What about all those wonderful promises set out in the Statement of Community Involvement? Worthless.

Then we have the planning fee itself. Now some 30 years old it is obligatory. No pay no play. Designed to support the costs of the planning process it has worked reasonably well up to now, but as the tariff rises it is becoming restrictive on some small developers who are finding it harder to pass the costs on to future purchasers/tenants.

As I write, the Government is reaching its conclusions on whether to hand Council’s new powers to set their own planning application fees. With recent spending on planning and development services cut by up to 43% between 2009/10 and 2011/12, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to guess what some authorities will be doing if they get such a power.

And let’s not forget that planning fees include post application fees for satisfying the plethora of planning conditions.

Next up there is the Community Infrastructure Levy. Designed to provide more certainty over ‘planning gain’ costs, it is easy for CIL to become a Councillors’ charter for raiding the piggy banks of all those ‘nasty developers’, to fund everything on their self aggrandizement checklist. This will doubtless be supported by the rise of Localism and the evident belief from the populous at large that anyone carrying out any form of development is as rich as Croesus and easy pickings for a handout.

And even if you’ve managed to scrape the cash together to build whatever it is, pay something off the bank borrowing and give something back to the shareholders (or your family) the pain is not over yet. Oh No.

Apart from having to pay business rates for any vacant commercial property you have foolishly constructed without a full pre-let, you might just be shafted by a random tax levy at any time, for pretty much anything, at the whim of the Council.

You’ve gone too far now Butter, even for you.

Well, what about this.

Scotland has just voted through the ‘Tesco Tax’; a windfall tax levy on retailers who sell alcohol and tobacco; allegedly in the interests of health policy. Yeh, right! At least Northern Ireland was more honest about it. In introducing a similar Tax on retailers Northern Ireland Finance Minister Sammy Wilson has said, "The money raised through the levy will be used to provide much needed additional support to small businesses, which continue to struggle during these difficult economic times".

Hmmm. Methinks many of the larger businesses could soon be looking for similar help in the near future as they become smaller because of all the ruddy tax they have to pay.

And it’s not over yet. The pain continues.

In this weeks’ Property Week (9/3/12 p57) I see , “Nottingham’s office and industrial property occupiers may next month have to pay a new tax, which starts at £3,168 a year and could exceed hundreds of thousands of pounds for larger firms”. Why? To pay for two new tram lines. This is Nottingham’s ‘Workplace Parking Levy’ which kicks in from 1^st April at £288 per parking space per year. So what is the S.106/CIL Levy for then?

This all makes Shylock’s ‘pound of flesh’ look positively tame. He clearly wasn’t thinking big enough. What next? A window tax? It’s been done before, for much the same reasons. Think of all that plate glass on banks at Canary Wharf. Luverly!

If the proverbial development camel wasn’t already struggling under the weight of all the economic pressures placed upon it, these various stealth taxes are more than enough to break its back.

As stiff upper lipped Brits’ we may just clench our teeth and battle on until we finally collapse from levy-itis. But try explaining all that cost to your average overseas investor who thinks the UK is still a good place in which to do business. Faced with all that upfront cost and future risk he’s just going to run for the hills. Brilliant.

Will 'Premature Objection' Lead to Poor Planning Discourse?

2012-03-02T19:44:00.000Z

[Despite clear and longstanding guidance that prematurity should not be used as a reason for delaying or refusing development proposals, Secretary of State Eric Pickles MP has recently been making decisions on just that premise. How will this help give birth to much needed new development?]

Prematurity is not an unknown quantity as far as planning for families is concerned but has never been a major cause for concern in Town Planning generally; until now.

For decades the issue of prematurity in planning has been firmly under control, with a variety of helpful professional guidance and procedural treatments that relegated it to a handful of poorly arrived at decisions. Naturally the resulting outcomes were never satisfying for either party and climaxed in lengthy and time consuming court cases.

For many years, experts have tended to say that prematurity is caused by early conditioning; perhaps rushing into decisions without thinking through the consequences; applying the same basic philosophy of restraint to wildly differing proposals. However, modern research has identified that a natural propensity to prematurity may in fact be inherited rather than learned.

This unfortunate affliction seems to have struck again in a most unlikely quarter and, sad to say, seems to be taking hold in a potentially uncontrollable manner, with the affected party unaware of the problem (or perhaps unwilling to talk about it in front of others).

Three similar planning appeals concerning housing development were rejected by Secretary of State Pickles last autumn on grounds of prematurity. Their respective Development Plans not being sufficiently far advanced, the potential for the schemes to undermine decision making and planning for the future under the Localism agenda was (allegedly) the determining factor. I say ‘allegedly’ as clarity on this point still remains somewhat vague.

However, this week the High Court has ordered Mr Pickles to quash his decision regarding a scheme in Sandbach - following a similar referral back to him last month where he consented to quash his refusal of the now celebrated CALA Homes' scheme at Barton Farm in Hampshire. A third court case for a scheme in St Austell, Cornwall is yet to be decided. Consulting the High Court has evidently produced some sound (albeit unwanted by the Government) advice and Mr Pickles would do well to heed it.

Research has shown that couples such as Mr P Lanner and Miss Dee Veloper can find circumstances of prematurity decidedly unsatisfactory and at the extreme this can lead to costly break-ups. However, the whole point is that holding up development in the current climate is essentially self-defeating; and delaying a satisfactory outcome for too long can be just as bad as rushing things.

The issue is one of stimulating sufficient growth to meet clearly identified wants and needs, without overdoing it. But this shouldn't involve unnecessary stalling and prevarication of otherwise beneficial economic stimulus. The problem can and should be brought out into the open and treated, before either partner to the economic recovery position becomes dissatisfied and looks elsewhere for development satisfaction.

Perhaps a little distraction therapy - thinking of England before party interest – could be a helpful way to overcome the issue.

Shop Until You Drop Off - Future Retail Therapy

2012-02-11T13:52:00.000Z

"Tesco could cut its development pipeline by almost half over the next three years".
"As the Internet continues to encroach on sales, supermarkets must find a way to make the space they have work for them", so says Rachel Hunter in this weeks Property Week (10/2/12 p60)

"Supermarkets need to become more aspirational. People need a reason to go into stores", Neil Saunders of retail analysts Conlumino.

Blimey!! With even the retail master Tesco beginning to find life on the high street a tad challenging and the Government looking desperately to revitalise local shopping opportunities through Town Planning and the Portas effect, some serious questions have to be asked about whether the traditional retail format is going to survive.

Well, of course it will, to an extent, for a little while longer. There are innumerable retail offers out there and we cannot survive based on some mega mall delivering to our every conceivable need - can we?

Arguably that is exactly what the Amazon's of this world have become. I have just done a quick search on that website and can order everything from Marmite and matches to caviar and pate de fois gras; even toilet rolls are available. Combine that with eBay and the more specialist online sellers of clothing, books, software, cars etc and one wonders whether there is really any need for a 'shop' at all. Postage is low cost or free, returns are straightforward and with a variety of cashless payment options the whole thing is simplicity itself. And that's in addition to the Tesco Direct's of this world and other online grocery ordering and delivery services.

Maybe my aged contemporaries will still indulgently browse in a shop because that's what we were brought up on, but will tech savvy and time-poor future generations? Making a living is tough enough and dragging around shops with the kids on a wet saturday morning when it may be better to work, or simply rest and have some family time (having ordered online) certainly has its attractions. I think we are segwaying from a 'see it, want it, buy it now' mentality to a 'see it, want it at a good price and I'm prepared to wait a little for ease of purchase' mode. Not too catchy, but you get my point.

A clear and present danger for the 'live' retailer is Joe Public turning up to review a product, compare and contrast with the alternatives and then pop online (whether blatently in the shop or back at home) and order at a lower cost. Even Argos must be wondering whether their expensively produced and circulated 'Laminated Book of Dreams' (Bill Bailey) is simply a handy reference guide for a purchase from someone else.

And in the mean time all those costs for rent and rates, staff, heating, lighting, insurances, maintenance, losses through theft, shop soiled wastage, public liability and planning and development ratchet up to an eye-watering amount that has to be reflected in the shop floor price. It's a no-win situation.

The jury is out on the future of retail but in the short term vacant space in stores could be used in a helpful way: as a drop point for online purchases that you can collect when carrying out other shopping.

I stood in line at the post office for nearly an hour at Christmas, having missed the delivery man's nano-second appearance outside our house - just enough time for him to scrawl on a card with a collection time 24 hours hence. This is where the system falls down, as it cost me time, money and a deal of frustration to collect my online purchases.

As we all continue to work longer hours there may be no one at home when the delivery man calls and having to make a special trip to collect purchases will frustrate the flexibility of the system. So why not have an option to collect from your local Tesco's (or other such store). Delivery is more straightforward and less costly, being to fewer locations, the retailer can use space effectively and may hope to attract additional purchases at the same time. With a text/email notification of delivery the punter can collect en-route to or from work (or over the extended store times - some up to 24hrs) and if for some reason they cannot make it straight away, they know it is not too challenging to get to on the next shopping trip. Perhaps such purchases can be added to the grocery delivery service to save even that trip.

The internet age is upon us in many ways and whilst the 'High Street' is not destined to evaporate any time soon there are clearly new retail agenda's to consider and adapt too. If you cant beat 'them', then maybe joining them in a limited way could help everyone.

Caravans. Don’t you just love to hate them?

2012-02-03T12:23:00.000Z

As the debacle over the Dale Farm traveller site continues to echo around the airwaves this morning you could be forgiven for asking yourself, why for heavens’ sake am I even considering raising the issue of the potential offered by residential caravans in meeting some of our future housing needs.

“You want to do WHAT!!” I can hear you now, choking on your ciabatta and reaching for the email address of The Times letters page.

Well here’s the thing. A significant proportion of the UK population live in the modern version of residential caravans - ‘Park Homes’ – and very happy they are too. But because of some latent prejudice or simple lack of awareness they are consistently overlooked as a means of helping to address our woefully short supply of new housing. In fact over the last 20 years or so the Town Planning system has contrived to ‘plan-out’ residential caravans from the housing market.

I should know. I’ve been advising the Caravan Industry for over 30 years to an extent that some now refer to me as ‘Mr Caravan’ and I have witnessed the relentless demise of permissions for residential caravan parks throughout that period.

“Jolly good show too” you might harrumph. “Don’t need those SORT of people in our community”. “Why can’t they live in a proper house like the rest of us”. Thanks for that. I’ll let my parents know.

There are nearly ¼ million people living in some 100,000 Park Homes on approximately 2,000 licensed Park Home Estates in Britain today; and these numbers exclude the more particular needs of the traveller and gypsy community.

Who are these ‘caravan’ people then? And what do they want with our planet?

Government research shows that about a third of households living in Park Homes are made up of a couple, one or both of whom are aged 60 or over; a further quarter are single people of 60 or over. There are a small number of young singles and families, but in the main the market is targeted at the semi and retired over 55’s and the Park Home industry has evolved to satisfy their requirements.

A key driver is the opportunity to acquire a high quality home at lower relative cost than bricks and mortar, thereby releasing equity to top up a pension perhaps, whilst also benefitting from a more secure and community focused living environment. That’s what my Mum and Dad did. Having lived in London and Bristol they moved back to the family roots in Cornwall and bought a Park Home on a delightful site in a wooded valley close to Falmouth and spent 14 blissful years there, making friends, taking part in the local community and successfully eking out Dad’s pension.

Yes, they had double glazing and central heating, running water and a flush loo. No, they didn’t need to convert the settee every night into a bed and could cook quite happily on a real gas cooker. Mum pottered in the manageable garden and Dad tooled leather and turned wooden bowls on a lathe in his shed. They were happier there than I think I’ve seen them anywhere.

So what’s the problem? Let these ‘weirdo’s’ do their thing. They’re harmless enough.

The trouble is achieving planning permissions. The Park Home sector is not encouraged, and in some areas positively (and wholly unjustifiably) discouraged by Authorities to the extent that nationally the number of new planning consents has dried up to less than the dribble from a Bactrian camel on a hot day.

At a time when Grant Shapps MP (Minister for Housing and Local Government) rightly waxes lyrical about the role of self-builders and even houseboats as a means of addressing housing need, support for the long-established and arguably more straightforward proposition of creating more Park Home Estates is noticeable by its absence.

Yes. I know there have been issues about poor park management in some areas. But the same is true across the whole housing sector and we don’t see house-builders denied consents en-masse because one or two bad boys built some dodgy houses once upon a time. You might as well shut down all tenanted property on that basis too as a result of the excesses of Mr Peter Rachman. The problem for Park Homes is more cultural than that.

I have prepared a short statement (see link below) setting out the key issues and demonstrating why Park Homes should be supported and encouraged. In that document I have also drafted the beginnings of a Supplementary Planning Guidance document that might be helpful in LDF and other policy debates. Perhaps, given demographic trends, some recognition of Park Homes’ particular market role will help in meeting needs that are increasingly going unmet by the mainstream house-builders.

Next Thursday (9^th Feb) sees the Annual convention of the British Holiday and Home Park Association (BHHPA) at The QE2 Centre in London, hence the reason for my bringing this matter up now. Here is an ideal opportunity for Government to reaffirm their commitment to Park Home living as a reasonable and appropriate element of the housing market and give some much needed guidance to Authorities throughout the land that caravans should not be treated as sub-standard or an unsustainable forms of living. They have just as much right to be a part of a diverse housing market as houseboats or anything else for that matter and permissions should not be denied on (faux) policy grounds essentially founded in issues of ‘perception’, ‘appearance’ or sheer bloody minded prejudice.

Enjoy your lunch!

The Statement can be accessed here:

http://www.ruralurbanplanning.co.uk/PARK%20HOMES%20-%20Their%20Future%20Contribution%20to%20Housing.pdf

Trains, Planes and Internet Technology

2012-01-20T00:00:00.001Z

Town planning is going to have to get to grips with a fundamental shift in the way we undertake and travel to work in the foreseeable future. This will knock-on into how we will live and play in the future and will significantly alter some of the long held planning precepts that still colour today's economic development and infrastructure initiatives.

Well, what a week for transport planners. The Government gave their support to new rail travel proposals with HS2 (High Speed 2) and a new London Airport in the Thames Estuary resurfaces for consideration (again). Both have naturally attracted considerable public comment - both positive and negative - and in either case, the benefits are likely to be long in gestation and delivery.

The first phase of HS2 linking London with that distant provincial settlement of Birmingham is not likely to receive its first fare paying passenger until 2026 and the track wont reach the northern wastes of Manchester for 21 years or so.

The business cases for each are largely formulated on the basic premise of, "more of the same". The economic justification reports highlight the extrapolation of past growth as a justification of need. And what is more it's all about enabling speedier business and economic growth. The fact that HS2 acknowledges the likelihood of modal shift from plane and car does cause an eyebrow to be raised momentarily, but perhaps this is inevitable.

We have a growing population, with increasingly footloose aspirations for work and play, so it would seem that such schemes are all to the good. Right?

I wonder.

21 years ago the height of modern business practice would see your average office operating with electronic typewriter/wordprocessors and fax machines. Top executives might have a wired-in carphone and at the very upper limits possibly a ticket on Concorde. The 'New York for Breakfast' meeting was the height of business sophistication and apparent success. The colour of the travel tag on your hand luggage was your mark of progress. Whilst telephone conferencing was emerging, in order to run your business, face to face meetings were still the norm, as they had been for millennia.

But just look today at what has happened with technology in that short period of time. The rapid and revolutionary emergence of the Internet has led to a fundamental shift in the way we do business.

Mobile and smartphones, reliable video conferencing/ skypeing, texting, Google, working in the Cloud and 24 hour around-the-world team operations are the norm. A year or so back I was impressed knowing that I could dictate a report in the afternoon, send it by email for formatting to a dedicated service in Australia overnight and have it back in my inbox ready to go the following morning. Tame. I now dictate straight into my PC using voice recognition software, print out as a pdf and email in one seemless operation. I can work anywhere using my iPhone and can access my client files in the Cloud without needing to lug them around. The days of stupefyingly repetitive copying of documents for planning applications has been replaced by the Planning Portal. The paperless office finally begins to emerge.

Manufacturers can convene meaningful real time meetings between teams with interactive video and online graphical interfaces to discuss product development without needing to pour over drawing boards (now replaced by CAD) or oily lathes and never leaving their offices. 3D models of almost anything can be emailed around the world and precisely reproduced in laser 'copiers'. Feature films are now regularly produced between UK and Hollywood studios online. I'm sure there are lots of exciting things about which I have no knowledge.

So if all this can occur in such a short time period, just think how technology is going to evolve further over the next 21 years. The question is, will we really need to travel for business in the way that we used to, and secondly, is speed crucial?

From the standpoint of aviation the equivalent to high speed trains would be a replacement Concorde. But forgetting any environmental consideration for a moment, the market began to feel that such speed was not essential. Cost effective, comfortable and reliable business travel was the way ahead. For the rest, cheap, mass travel is now the watchword. Why otherwise build the double-decked Airbus A380 or the truly massive Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental.

There is already anecdotal evidence of firms beginning to encourage employees to 'work from home' or from satellite hubs using modern telecommunications to interact between employees. And this is beginning to affect the demand for and structure of workspace. Hot-desking is becoming the norm. Why spend a fortune commuting to an office an hour or more away if you can work locally or from the kitchen table - at least part of the week. We don't even need to go down the shops for our purchases.

The students of today - the next generation of employees and entrepreneurs - have a wholly different approach to the way they interact with others. Much of their learning will have been 'online' with podcasted lectures and 'webinars'.

We are in a transitory phase so the real impact of these technological advances have yet to hit home widely, but rest assured a work revolution is evolving faster than we can imagine.

So I return to the point. Why do we need to shave an hour off the travel time between Manchester and London? How is this going to better enable business? Does a 30 minute time saving from Birmingham REALLY help?

I can see that a European network may have more credibility, given the distances. But in the UK?

Regularly travelling on the West Coast line from Preston to London I can now do the journey in just over two hours. Not bad really for 250 miles. If it were non-stop - as HS2 will be - this would be even quicker. I doubt it would pay me to travel into Manchester first just to save an hour, which would be largely used up in transfer times anyway. I might perhaps want to use it to get to Heathrow for an overseas flight (if it were linked there), but Manchester already has a well connected International airport. Perhaps if Manchester became the UK hub then some reason for HS2 might be more arguable, but otherwise it seems unnecessary.

Equally, HS2 wont be cheap; as HS1 isn't. If I can put the ticket on business expenses then all well and good, but as a tourist I would be happy to put up with an extra hour or so at an off-peak time to save some money. Why otherwise do so many people use the budget airlines in preference to the rapidly declining mainstream operators?

I could go on. But it seems to me that technology developments and working practices in the future could well negate the business case for ultra fast intercity travel. This is yesterday's thinking. Yes, of course we all want to go places quickly and efficiently. But should such travel 'luxury' be at the expense of the limited countryside through which we will travel - not seeing much of it anyway. In aviation the 'need for speed' era of Concorde (wonderful though it was) didn't last long. And this at a time when 'being there' was still vital in business.

Lets not kid ourselves that HS2 is really vital for business. Certainly not based on the economic case that has been presented to date. The money might be better spent properly enabling high speed broadband in rural UK to achieve a meaningful, deliverable (and probably faster) economic benefit.

Town planning is going to have to get to grips with a fundamental shift in the way we undertake and travel to work in the foreseeable future. This will knock-on into how we will live and play and will significantly alter some of the long held planning precepts that still colour today's economic development and infrastructure initiatives.

The future's bright. The future's online.

Ten Things You need to know about the UK Town Planning System

2012-01-09T13:08:00.000Z

The British town planning system is a complex beasty at the best of times, but if you are considering development proposals or changing the use of land or buildings you may need to bear in mind one or more of the following key elements:

1. Check to see if you need planning permission. You may not!

Does your existing permission already allow your intended use? It’s always worth checking
Is there an outstanding consent that can be implemented
There are certain Permitted Development Rights available for minor activities and land use
There are also specific Use Classes for development between which you can change without the need for planning permission

2. Development in the Green Belt is rarely allowed

Very special circumstances have to be argued
Generally avoid high environmental and ecological areas (SSSI’s, AONB etc)

3. Always arrange a Pre-application meeting with the Council

It can save you a huge amount of time and money

4. Work through the Validation Checklist(s) and make sure you have all the relevant information

There is nothing worse than putting your application in and then finding you need to submit more information; that you don’t have!

5. Statutory Planning Fees are chargeable, based on area and/or type of application

Careful attention to the exact application boundary can save money
Householder applications are separate and generally cheaper

6. Development related to Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas will normally require additional permissions

7. Securing your planning permission is just the start. Make sure you satisfy all the conditions

And don't forget Building Regulations either

8. Advertisement Consent may be required for both illuminated and non-illuminated signs etc

The regulations are complex and you will need to take care in erecting signs without permission

9. Local Authorities have extensive Enforcement powers. They can and do take action against unlawful development

But always check to see if you can obtain a Lawful Development Certificate for works or uses that meet the relevant time limits. Retrospective planning applications are going to be much harder to make in the future

10. Do your research, take advice, ensure you have all the information required and allow plenty of time

You can rush planning, but all that tends to happen is that you receive a refusal on a technicality and have to start all over again. Plan ahead. It can take a lot longer than you might think

For further information and advice contact: Ian Butter FRICS MRTPI

ianbutter@ruralurbanplanning.co.uk

www.ruralurbanplanning.co.uk

Welsh Planning Policy Update - Rural Enterprise Dwellings

2012-01-07T14:44:00.001Z

It is longstanding planning policy in both England and Wales that the countryside should be safeguarded from uncontrolled and sporadic development. This remains the central policy concerning residential development in the countryside.

In July 2010, the Welsh Government published revised planning policy concerning its approach to the development needs and aspirations of rural communities in a revised Technical Advice Note TAN6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities.

It has always been recognised that, within this policy of restraint, there are particular housing needs that can only be met through the provision of individual dwellings in the countryside; primarily these have related to the operational needs of farming and forestry, where an essential need for workers to live at or close to their place of work has been established.

As a consequence of a review, the scope of exceptions have been extended to a wider range of workers in rural enterprises. This extension applies primarily to land-related businesses which, directly or indirectly, need to be located in the countryside rather than in existing settlements.

One particular problem that has been identified by the Welsh Government concerns the passing-on of farm businesses to a younger generation in the context of an ageing agricultural community. In order to encourage younger people to take on farm businesses, particular provision has been made in this guidance note to allow for additional housing on existing farms to enable the transfer of management.

The purpose of this guide is to assist applicants and their advisers in outlining the nature of the Rural Enterprise Dwelling exemption; set out the process whereby proposals will be justified and assessed; provide practical advice relevant to planning applications; and indicate sources of assistance. This guide will also assist local planning authorities in the determination of Rural Enterprise Dwelling applications.

The scope of the new policy provision is as follows:

“--- qualifying rural enterprises comprise land related businesses including agriculture, forestry and other activities that obtain their primary inputs from the site, such as the processing of agricultural, forestry and mineral products together with land management activities and support services (including agricultural contracting), tourism and leisure enterprises.” TAN 6 paragraph 4.3.2

The five groups of enterprises which are covered by the new TAN 6 policy are therefore:

agriculture and forestry;
activities which obtain their primary inputs from the site;
land management related activities;
land related tourism and leisure; and
support services related to rural-based activities

Local planning authorities may include a broader definition of qualifying rural enterprises in their development plans where this can be justified by specific local circumstances and evidence.

This is a valuable addition to Welsh Planning Policy which English policy makers would be well advised to adopt in the same way. The NPPF may appear to offer a more flexible approach, but the real issue will be its interpretation in LDF’s at the local level.

At a time when the rural economy is suffering as much if not more than urban areas, a more flexible but controlled approach to housing provision for rural businesses is very welcome.

The document can be found here:
http://wales.gov.uk/docs/desh/publications/111212redpracticeguideen.pdf

or from the latest news section at www.ruralurbanplanning.co.uk

NPPF Select Committee Report - By Snapdragon Consulting

2011-12-21T09:52:00.000Z

I am delighted to provide an excellent summary of this week's Select Committee Report on the NPPF prepared by Rebekah Paczek, MD of Snapdragon Consulting, with whom I have had the great privilege to work of late. Nice one Beks.

Quote of the Day:

"The Green Belt is a Labour initiative and we intend to build on it."

John Prescott (when he was Deputy PM)

So, just to add a bit of excitement to the already high tempo world that is planning policy, the Communities and Local Government Select Committee today published the results of their Inquiry into the NPPF. Never one to change a headline simply because it doesn't actually fit the story, the early copies of the Daily Telegraph declared 'MPs call for planning reforms to be scrapped'… Having hurriedly reread the document to make sure I wasn’t reading the Hollywood-ending style NPPF investigation, I can confirm that the Telegraph is indeed being a little cavalier with the interpretation of the report, as it was with the embargo which it merrily broke at about 9pm…

The report opens with a statement that most witnesses seemed contact with the concept and approach of the NPPF, most agreed that reforms were needed and there was no need to rewrite the NPPF as a whole (thought that was worth putting in as, although it isn't as headline grabbing as the 'MPs demand a full rewrite of this hideous document and, whilst you're at it, can you also sort out Europe and make sure that I can still afford to go to my second home in the Cotswolds which really shouldn't have any new development around' kind of headline is, it is more accurate…)

The Committee Report does strongly recommend some changes, most of which were anticipated but some others less so.

So, what are the headlines from the Committee Report?

The over-riding concern of the Committee is that it is too weighted towards economic growth and places other considerations too far down the list. The brevity of the report is highlighted as not having brought greater clarity but instead caused confusion, which it says can be addressed without turning the NPPF into an excessively long document.
Potential for an increased risk of expanded Local Plans being developed as a means of plugging the gap left by a concise NPPF
Potential for planning to be slowed down rather than sped up and a culture of 'planning by appeal'
A recommendation that the default 'yes' should be removed to prevent decisions on sustainability being undermined.
A recommendation that the five principles of sustainable development from the 2005 strategy should be reinstated – the Committee emphasises the need to seek to achieve all aspects of sustainable development, not simply trade one for the other (I suspect that can be interpreted as 'just because it delivers economic growth doesn't mean it's acceptable if it isn't sustainable on any other level) Linked to this, the Committee are keen to see better protection for environmental sustainability, including the reinsertion of brownfield first and the ability for local authorities to prioritise brownfield land more firmly when identifying land supplies.
The Committee also recommends that the NPPF should 'unambiguously reflect the statutory supremacy of the Local Plan' with the presumption in favour of sustainable development only relevant if consistent with the Local Plan. (Obviously, this is dependent on local authorities actually having a Local Plan which is up to date, relevant etc).
As expected, there is a recommendation to re-include the Town Centre First principle, with a provision to allow communities 'in exceptional circumstances' to adopt an absolute protection of a town centre from out-of-town development. (Not quite sure what determines 'exceptional circumstances' and how this absolute protection would be implemented, but it's interesting anyway…)
The Committee expresses concern over a potential lack of consistency regarding the Duty to Co-operate and the evidence bases which are used for Local Plans. Linked to this, the Committee questions just how adequate existing resources are to cope with this.
Finally, the Report recommends a further, short, consultation on the technical aspects of the NPPF.

In summary, whilst there are recommendations for change and certainly recommendations for work to be done in terms of definitions of sustainable development, clarification and rebalancing the importance of economic growth against other considerations, the Committee is not seeking a fundamental rewrite. Much of what is in the report has been discussed at length both through official channels within Government and informally across the industry – from all sides – for the months since the NPPF was first published. Irrespective of your view on the NPPF and planning policy in general, the NPPF has certainly been subject to extensive consultation and debate.

Regardless of any level of excitement over precisely what the Select Committee put forward, the more important thing is what the Government subsequently do with it. Governments over the years have been adept at proving the theory of black holes, whereby something of substance enters into and then, through some distortion of the time/space continuum (consultation, elections, economic circumstances, pique…) is never seen again in any recognisable form.

In this case, the Government have already made some noises regarding the reinstatement of Town Centre First, Brownfield First and also clarification on the Definition of Sustainable Development. However, so far, Government has been resistant to undertaking further consultation on the basis that people have already made their views clear and it is unlikely to achieve anything. Furthermore, given that the Localism Bill is already an Act, Government will be keen to get the NPPF ratified so that the two documents can work in tandem (??!) which is, allegedly, the intention.

And finally, a quote to finish it off:

"Early in life, I had noticed, that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper"

George Orwell

Have a fabulous Christmas and a Happy New Year. Snapdragon will be back in 2012 in new offices and with more staff, we look forward to more excitement in the world of planning and politics…

Many thanks Beks and very best wishes for Christmas and the New Year to you all.

Where's Eric? - A Christmas Game For All The Planning Family

2011-12-17T13:15:00.000Z

Is it just me, or has our illustrious leader been somewhat reticent of late to bring yet another exciting change to the planning system for our rapt attention.

Certainly Grant Shapps has been out on the stump as usual giving vent to all kinds of new ideas; including the all singing, all dancing, answer to everything, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) due to grace my mid-life crisis by Easter. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently expounded on planning delays and the appeal system. But where is Captain Pickles?

Since the Government reshuffle in the early autumn - when Eric didn't get Minister for Catapults & Knocking on Doors & Running Away (about the sum total of Britain's defence establishment by the look of it) - he has been remarkably absent from public view and (worryingly) very, very silent.

Could he be plotting a new planning coup - something so fiendishly cunning that even the most cunning of cunning foxes would blanche embarrassed and wonder what the devil he'd been doing with his life?

Is he hiding behind the Localism Act?

Or maybe he is simply distracted by ideas of how to repatriate all Eurozone-huggers back to France "to see how they like it for once".

So I wondered if you can help find him. Let me know if you see him. And there's a Wally in there too!!

And a Merry Christmas to you All.

The Hare & The Tortoise Approach to the Planning System

2011-12-10T22:46:00.001Z

In his Autumn statement last week Chancellor George Osborne announced a fresh set of measures intended to tackle the planning system's "lengthy delays and high costs", including a review of planning appeals procedures. But will this mean more haste and less speed in reality?

If there was ever a time the Government needed to back off and let us all get our heads around the current tide of planning changes it is now. But no. Just when you thought it was safe to update the Planning Encyclopaedia, good old George lobs in another procedural hand grenade and has us all ducking for cover again. And what the devil does it have to do with the Chancellor anyway? Are the whole cabinet closet planners?

Well Mr Osborne, if you really wanted to avoid lengthy delays and high costs here are three simple measures:

Do away with the often nonsensical and 'bottom protecting' validation procedures that have provided every 'jobs-worth' administrator with such unmitigated enjoyment over the last few years. Let some real planning common sense prevail for goodness sake.
Stop the consultation rot now. If there was ever a vehicle for delay and for costs stretching into infinity it will be letting 'locals' have free reign over planning applications. Prevarication and filibuster based on limited or no real understanding of the planning and development system is a recipe for disaster.
Go mad. Re-invest in planning departments. They have been decimated by local Government cost saving exercises and a lot of very competent and experienced planners are now 'available for alternative employment'. You want speed of decision-making? Keep the time-served guys around who know what the hell they're doing and can also bring along the next generation. And let's not forget all those nice guys at PINS.

Having made more than a few appeals in my time I cannot really see what is wrong with the present appeal system. There is a well understood structure and definite timescales, which you depart from at your peril. The short householder procedure was a sensible addition and with so many appeals now being dealt with by way of Written Representations rather than in Public Inquiries, the days of wearing out suit trousers on hard chairs in cold church halls are pretty much long gone.

There is also some suggestion that appeal decisions need to be more consistent. Apart from the general and longstanding planning premise of 'each case on its individual merits', you might just check the old home front first George. Looking at the way in which Captain Pickles has driven a flotilla through the appeal decision process in the last few months and evidently suffers from increasing prematurity - something profoundly destined to cause delays and costs beyond all reason - I would respectfully recommend the phrase, 'physician heal thyself'.

So where is the problem? Heaven forfend this is just another in a continuing series of sops to the general electorate or worse, a poorly contrived balancing act to keep the development sector engaged.

There’s Nowhere to Hide under Localism – The New Enforcement Rules

2011-12-04T13:34:00.000Z

Have you ever wondered why, when out for a quite Sunday walk in the countryside, you can sometimes hear the faint strains of the Eastenders omnibus and childish giggling coming from the direction of a large hay rick.

A brief review of any tabloid newspaper will quickly reveal that hidden deep in the straw bales will be a mansion, castle or other habitable dwelling, cunningly concealed from the wary eyes of the planning department. In truth, very few people have ever prospered from such drastic attempts to circumvent the planning system, but it has caught the imagination of the vociferous, morally righteous, rate-paying, god fearing public and the self-appointed protectors of the landscape, to an extent that this Government has decided to do something radical about it.

Few people know (or choose to recognise) that it is not actually a criminal offense to carry out development without planning permission, but it is if you then fail to comply with an enforcement notice. Equally, there is no obligation for authorities to use their extensive enforcement powers. However, the ‘public’ generally want blood to be spilt for such flagrant breaches of the rules and cannot believe that authorities would ever NOT enforce, whatever the circumstances.

Yes. There are people who deliberately and wantonly abuse the system. Tell me something new. As a planning consultant I am regularly invited to ‘ignore this’ or ‘overlook that’ in providing guidance and advice, and such inquiries get short shrift. But, like any walk of life, if you always abide by all the rules, all the time, there is very little that would actually get done. Flexibility is the key.

Not every departure from the straight and narrow is so demonstrably awful that the ‘breacher’ should be strung up from the nearest tree. Sometimes it’s a simple mistake or oversight (yeh right!), or a pragmatic alteration to a scheme in order to overcome a problem that could otherwise cause a costly delay. That’s why the retrospective application has been a means of ‘legalizing’ the situation for decades and even an appeal against an enforcement notice allows for permission to be granted under Ground ‘a’.

But things are about to change. The Localism Act 2011 (enacted late last month) now adds additional measures to the panoply of enforcement powers, founded on the general premise that:

“The Localism Act will strengthen planning authorities’ powers to tackle abuses of the planning system, such as deliberately concealing new developments”.

But it goes far, far deeper than that. Oh yes.

Planning authorities now have the power to decline to determine retrospective applications after an enforcement notice has been issued; and

There will be limits to the right of appeal against an enforcement notice after a retrospective planning application has been submitted, but before the time for making a decision has expired. So, if an authority decides to issue an enforcement notice during the consideration of a retrospective planning application, things could get a bit tasty.

A planning authority can apply to a magistrate’s court for a Planning Enforcement Order, within six months of discovery of an apparent breach of planning control. The order would allow the authority a year in which to take enforcement action irrespective of the usual time limits in the Act (the four year and ten year rules). The effect of the Order will essentially remove any immunity from Enforcement action. The Magistrates Court may only make a Planning Enforcement Order though if they are satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the breach has been ‘deliberately concealed’ (a situation yet to be defined – but I expect its one of those situations where, ‘you know it when you see it’).

The key issue to bear in mind here is that because the Act does not provide a time limit for seeking a Planning Enforcement Order, it could be backdated to breaches going back over many years. Whether this is likely to happen in practice is debatable, but the option appears to be there if needs be.

And here’s the real rub. A Planning Enforcement Order might be triggered by an application for a Certificate of Lawful Use that has been submitted to regularise a breach of planning control. The planning authority may have been unaware up to that point, but if the planning authority consider there has been “deliberate concealment” by the applicant, then the PEO procedure looks high on their list of actions to take. As I say, there’s nowhere to hide.

And, just in case you thought this is all academic as you’d, ‘never do anything like that’ yourself, do you know if there is a latent problem with the property you’ve just purchased? Is than shiny new extension actually lawful? The liability runs with you, the landowner. Best to check – or perhaps not? If you know about a problem then arguably not resolving it amounts to a deliberate act of concealment.

The provisions in the Act are likely to be introduced fairly quickly. The suggestion is by 1^st April 2012. Just enough time for the local lynch mobs to hold a committee meeting and get planning permission for some new parish stocks, or a change of use for the maypole as a gallows.

And, if you’re sat in your pseudo-medieval, 15 bedroom’ed, bijou, ‘Southforks’, mansion in the midst of a bunch of straw bales, somewhere in rural England or Wales be afraid. Be very afraid!

Consultative Planning or Planning for Conflict?

2011-11-26T23:35:00.001Z

You would have thought that after 30 years as a planning consultant I really should be inured by now to the vagaries of public opinion. Sadly not. After another two days of mind numbing public consultation I am yet again sure that Localism is going to be a monumental failure.

Well, that's a bit strong Ian I hear you retort, surely a move toward local democracy will be beneficial and lead to better planning for all?

No. Not now. Not ever. Never. The public don't want to plan positively for their area they want to stop anything and everything that could even remotely impact on their lives whether this is contrary to good planning or good sense.

In his book 'God Collar' Marcus Brigstock discusses the issue of humanity and remarks.. "I don't mean to be too disparaging but... be honest, have you seen humanity? Have you met many of them? Have a look now, peer out the window...did you do it? Ghastly aren't they?"

In the normal course of daily events I'm sure that the majority of humanity is perfectly pleasant and amiable. Willing to make a cheery greeting, hold a door open, even offer a seat on the bus to a lady or two. But make a planning application within 200 miles of them or theirs and Mr Jekyll turns rapidly into Mr Hyde.

We leafleted, posted expensive notices in the local paper and staged a public exhibition. The first person through the door (20 minutes ahead of time) complained instantly that they didn't know anything about the consultation and said it should be re-notified to all residents (about 50,000) and a public meeting held instead. Lets ignore the fact he/she managed to find the venue, at or about the right time and had a consultation leaflet in his/her hand and evidently knew all about the proposal, the real issue is that he/she was brooking no argument. Preconceived opinions were set to stun and "lets find any reason at all to phillibuster the scheme because, 'I don't like it'". And so it began.

Over 17 hours I listened pretty consistently to opinions about my client (mostly slanderous and potentially actionable), about the Councillors (definitely assuming all were corrupt), about the client and the Council (absolutely unrepeatable) about the scheme (not needed, not wanted, not appropriate, not everything) and about me (again slanderous) to my face. And all that time I had to be polite and suck it up in the interests of not prejudicing my client and maintaining a professional stance.

Well bully for you Butter.

The thing is, this is going to become the norm. I have been there before of course, but if I heard it once I heard it a thousand times, 'we will be making the decisions now, it's localism' - I paraphrase (and made it polite too).

Fine. Lets hear some common-sense justifications for your position on planning merit then.

Nope. We just don't want it.

But it is allocated in the adopted Local Plan for the proposed development.

Don't care, don't want it.

And so it went on, and on, and on.......

A particularly vicious addition to the vituperative backwash of public consultation opinion was the 'we don't want any of that affordable housing here', with wholly inappropriate references to anybody from more that 5 miles away and directly related to local crime rates that were evidently solely the province of such housing. Last December at a similar exercise the bigotry and bile vented on hapless 'outcomers' was almost too much to stand. I had to walk away from one such onslaught from a primary school teacher for goodness sake. What the hell is he/she teaching our kids? I've noticed that this sort of thing is edging into public expressions of views in planning committee meetings too.

I'm sure that there are sound and reasonable people out there who could be engaged enough to listen, consider a proposition and come to a reasoned decision one way or the other. No one minds a professional exchange of views, but in the general mass of humanity these people are few and far between as far as I'm concerned and tend not to engage in consultation processes for the very same reasons. They don't want to take the flack either. Planning Officers and committee members are going to have to be increasingly resilient and I feel for them.

Localism has its good points. The aims are admirable. It's just that it relies upon local people adopting a pragmatic and balanced stance in approaching development issues. Sadly I doubt this situation will be universal.

So, if otherwise acceptable development is allowed on sound planning grounds, local opposition will feel cheated and impotent and potentially ignored. If it's refused then planning by appeal will return to being the norm - and so the lifecycle of planning turns once again. I've been there before. And planning will take longer, cost more and be just as challenging.

Plus ca change. Plus c'est la meme chose.

Right. I'm off for a lay down with an ice block on my head, ready to do it all over again tomorrow.

HAS PICKLES LOST THE PLOT?

2011-09-17T11:42:00.000+01:00

Having warned planning QC’s earlier inthe year to expect their P45’s, Eric Pickles MP has now had another go at ‘Maseratidriving planning lawyers’ as the fountainhead of all that is failing in thetown planning system. Is it me, or has Eric finally and irrevocably lost it?

As I sit here at 35,000ft in the chambersLear Jet, en-route chez Butter in the hills just overlooking Cannes, I museonce again on the irrationality of the arguments being put forward to justifythe wholesale change in the planning system that are currently before us.

Planning is too complex and too timeconsuming and its all the fault of those pesky planning lawyers and consultantswho are hell bent on obfuscating perfectly reasonable desecration of thecountryside and (to misquote Harry Enfields’ character) ‘loads of housing’. Thisseems to be the tone – [yes, another Merlot would be lovely, thanks] – and isevidently a rather limp tactic to draw fire away from the real culprits, theWhitehall Mandarins and his fellow parliamentarians. God forbid he upset the ‘YesMinister’ possé. They’d string him up in a gimp suit somewhere in a NationalPark with a sign round his neck saying do not feed the MP (anymore). So,someone else is to blame. Those miserable planning lawyers with their flashsuits, their flash cars, and unfeasibly large expense accounts – that’s who.

But who does Pickles thinks writes thelegislation in the first place? The Government of course. All the paraphernaliaof law surrounding it has grown up simply because successive Governments haveadded and tweaked and played with the system to an extent that you need a PHDin logistics just to wade through the contents page of the principle Act.

When I first started work the Town &Country Planning Act 1971 was the size of a medium sized novelette and could beread cover to cover over a long lunch at The Ivy. Now it takes on theappearance of a gluttonous British Library with a cream cake habit. And I guaranteethe only planning lawyers who have caused that to happen are those employed bythe Government to make it so.

Put (very) simply, there are two sortsof planning lawyer; those who support the developer and those who support thelocal authority. They are generally hermaphrodite in their fee earning stance. The former seek to achieve planning permission and the latterdefend the position of the Council (representing the public at large) who forwhatever reason have declined to approve permission. That’s called democracy asfar as I know, but hey, who’s arguing. [This pate de foie gras is most toothsome.Yes, a top up would be lovely]

Town Planning law has always been theprovince of interpretation. If the legislation simply said, “all the brown bitson the local plan will get planning permission come what may” then life wouldbe potentially simpler. Except you’d have to have had some sort of debate aboutdefining the brown bits in the first place. Hey Ho.

So, will the new sunny uplands of theLocalism Act and National Planning Policy Framework be any different. Well, noactually. The Government has failed to provide any meaningful interpretation ofeven the most basic issues. And if there were ever a phrase designed to whetthe appetite of the most lackluster of planning advocates it is ‘whatconstitutes sustainable development’.

So don’t go round blaming the planninglaw fraternity for failings in the system you invented Mr Government. If youwant to create a Janet and John Book 1 planning system go right ahead. Quitefrankly I’m not bothered either way. Whatever the final outcome, there areobvious certainties in life; death and taxes are but two. A third is almost certainlythe need to arbitrate and advocate between opposing poles in the planning world.

Now, must sign off, as the seatbeltlight has just come on and I need to make a quick dash from the Executive Terminalin the Maserati to collect the family before the beach barbeque in Nice. Orshould I use the Lexus, maybe the Lambo’, perhaps the Ferrari this time …. It’sa tough life.

The Dummies Guide to the NPPF

2011-09-10T21:31:00.000+01:00

Why was I surprised? Let's face it, nobody has actually read the NPPF in detail (or at all) have they? They've simply assumed what the draft guidance says and gone screeching around the media - and anyone else who will listen - claiming all kinds of ridiculous mayhem and the end of human existence as we know it.

I was warned by my wife early on in our marriage not to mention what I do for a living at partys (or in fact anywhere) for fear of never being invited back. The mere mention of Town Planning as a profession caused eyes to glaze over at 500 metres and total paralysis within hand shaking distance. Most people think I work for MI5, but that's another story.

So why is it then that apparently mature, sensible, thoughtful and educated human beings a) get so worked up when anything approaching development involving damaging a blade of grass is proposed and b) claim armageddon on any occasion when a Government tries to sort out a new way of doing things - which in this round of changes actually tries to put decisions into the hands of those very same people.

It appears therefore that 'plotting against planning' is now the sole topic of (im)polite conversation over the samosas' and Chardonnay. How glad am I then that I haven't been 'outed' as a professional advisor, yet. I'd never get near the bar.

I cannot escape at work so easily. I had a phone call enquiry only the other day prefaced by the words, "I hope you wont think I'm a nimby but....." which (guess what) then degenerated into a nimbyesque rant about next doors porch extension being out of character with the upmarket nature of the cul-de-sac and could I suggest ways to have it removed - or some such?

I wont regail you with the unspoken response that was on the tip of my tongue, but needless to say I rapidly came to the conclusion that I really needed to get a life!

Of course. I blame the Government. All that education, access to information and increasing moves toward giving power to the people is creating a banana* public.

*Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.As a result of this veritable hysteria the Government have now issued a short question and answer Myth Buster document that endeavours to try and lay to rest some of the more extreme interpretations of the main NPPF document. (see link below)

They might as well have circulated an email to all concerned with the inimitable words of the TV Ad, "Calm down dear, its only a draft".

The Government are simply re-stating many of the principles that have been the bedrock of Town Planning since it came into being in 1947. And making sure in the process that local people have the final say. There's a great deal wrong with that approach of course; if you fail to account for the vociferous minority who will inevitably dominate proceedings at Neighbourhood Plan meetings and the like. Inertia will rule supreme.

But before you all put fingers to keyboard in response to what you may think my position is, I could not and do not advocate unrestricted development. I was however a child of planning when the developer still had a specific right to a permission - in the absence of sound reasons why not - and it seemed to work OK - well, at least as well as at any other time, and that was well before all the development plans, national and local validation criteria and the plethora of other time consuming, expensive and often pointless requirements that accompany today's planning processes.

I advocate a return to some semblance of common sense before we all take things too far or, as my mum used to caution, there will be tears before bedtime.

We have in this country a rapidly increasing population that need housing, feeding, watering and something purposeful to do. It's no good the retiring baby-boomers sticking their elbows out and repelling all boarders any more than D Vellop & B Dambed PLC assuming they have carte blanche to chuck up a load of old tat anywhere that takes there fancy. Neither cause will be satisfied by making unreasonable assumptions about what they think is being said over what is actually proposed. A balanced and reasoned response to the draft consultation is more likely to find support than the unmitigated tosh that seems to be circulating at the present time - or am I being naive (again!).

If I know one thing, history tells us that whatever finally emerges as the new sunny uplands of modern town planning in the UK it will probably be changed again: just at the point where everyone has got their heads around it.

Plus ca change (plus c'est la meme chose).

The Myth Buster can be found here:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppfmythbuster

Will CIL be the Pride of the Coalition or Prejudicial to Development?

2011-07-10T12:36:00.000+01:00

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a Council in possession of a fortune from CIL will be in want of an excuse to spend it on things other than Infrastructure (with apologies to Jane Austen)

A subtle little amendment has been proposed in the Localism Bill by two Lib Dem peers that could fundamentally alter the original premise for Community Infrastructure Levy, which became active last year.

The purpose of the Community Infrastructure Levy is to "ensure that the costs incurred in providing infrastructure to support the development of an area can be funded (wholly or partly) by owners or developers of land".

OK. It will provide a more certain (allegedly) position for developers and locals alike who can see the direct benefits of development (apart from the jobs created, circulation of economic benefit, a roof over ones head etc) translated into local infrastructure delivery and/or improvement. So far so good perhaps.

But an amendment tabled by the peers introduces a whole new way of reading the legislation. They suggest that CIL is contributed so that:

"owners and developers of land make a financial contribution to support communities in the area in which their development is situated, including the provision of infrastructure and the building, improvement and renovation of housing".

So not just Infrastructure then, but the plethora of all and any initiatives that may be on a local wish list, including building and renovation of housing. Pre-supposing of course that the development concerned is not for housebuilding in the first place presumably.

Liz Peace, chief executive of property industry lobby group the British Property Federation, said: "If CIL is diverted to non-infrastructure items, that will undermine the ability of authorities to deliver and will hold back development and economic growth."

That has to be the understatement of the year. We all know what is going to happen don’t we. Yes we do. Profligate Council members will simply view CIL as a ‘get out of jail free’ card for their poorly contrived localist game of Monopoly so that any half baked initiative will be fair game for CIL funding irrespective of the need for or benefit to the area, so long as a vote might be in it. Too cynical? I think not.

And who really thinks that ‘development’ revenues derived from CIL could really be the sole and only means of achieving all infrastructure requirements and everything else into the bargain.

Come on guys, get real. If you want to develop your way out of the recession, make sure that development actually happens in the first place and don’t treat CIL as a panacea for resolving all political, economic, social and community ills.

Is Your Planning Permission in Good Condition?

2011-06-13T19:51:00.000+01:00

Part of an occasional series of planning hints, tips and advice notes by Ian Butter FRICS MRTPI

There you are, still nursing a mild hangover from the post ‘planning committee success’ party and lo and behold the decision notice lands on the mat a few days later. Here are a few things you should do to make sure that what has been granted actually suits your requirements – what you should NOT do is file the decision and phone the builders.

The wealth of pencil lead expended on the subject of planning conditions in the courts and elsewhere would make even Samuel Pepys blanche so I will refrain from a detailed overview, but here are a few key thoughts and suggestions to get you through the next stage in your progress toward that much sought-after scheme.

There are few planning decision notices today that are not issued with an array of accompanying planning conditions. There are some standard ones (like the time limit) that always appear and then a series of others that are often drawn from a standard list, or are bespoke to your particular scheme. These conditions can run on to several pages and will include a justification of why the condition has been applied and there may also be some accompanying ‘Informatives’. I will come back to these later.

Planning Conditions are just that. They define and control the scope of the development that has been permitted and the manner in which it is to be undertaken. On simple applications there may be very few (occasionally none at all), although the ubiquitous landscaping conditions seem to creep into even the most modest of development proposals these days.

In order to properly implement your planning permission - so that it is lawful - you must satisfy the requirements of the conditions. Failure to do so could invalidate your consent and may lead to enforcement issues in the future. I had a call only last week from a householder who had just bought a newly built house but been served with an enforcement notice with respect to conditions that the predecessor owner/builder had failed to comply with. And the builder had emigrated to Australia! Don’t forget, caveat emptor (the buyer beware) applies: the planning permission runs with the land not the individual.

Job 1: READ THE DECISION THOROUGHLY

This is vital. You need to make sure that there are no nasty surprises. Is the description correct? Does it match the title of your application properly? The planning authority may have re-written it slightly (which is not a problem) but you need to ensure it is for the development you actually applied for in the first place. I know what you’re thinking, but you’d be surprised.

Job 2: SORT THE CONDITIONS

There are generally three types of condition. Those that are simply there to provide information, or set out the terms of the permission, generally require no direct action. However there are others that require certain activities to be undertaken or prior approval secured and these fall into two types; condition that requires works or actions to be undertaken as part of the scheme and Conditions Precedent. Now, it is generally the latter that give people the most trouble – not least because they can be tricky little devils to identify correctly – but essentially any condition that starts with words like, “Before any development commences….” should be regarded as VERY IMPORTANT. The clue is in the word ANY. If you start work on the development before such conditions are properly fulfilled your permission may have just been instantly invalidated. Do not pass Go, do not collect £200.

Job 3: MAKE A SINGLE CONDITIONS APPLICATION (IF YOU CAN)

As is the way in town planning nowadays there is a charge for having conditions signed off. However the Regulations are clear that the charge is per submission not per condition, so if you make one submission for all the conditions it is just one fee – simples!

Job 4: IMPLEMENT THE PERMISSION

Once you have all the conditions signed off by the local authority you can implement your permission by commencing the development. And it is well worth doing so too, as permissions are hard enough and expensive enough to obtain in the first place and all that effort and money shouldn’t go to waste because the permission runs out of time before you get cracking.

A note of caution though. I am assuming you have also obtained any other approvals necessary, such as Building Regulation approval; Section 278 Approval under the Highways Act for works in the public highway; discharge licences; public health and other operating licences etc etc.

MODIFICATIONS

No sooner have you secured your consent but you come up with a cunning plan to modify part of the scheme. What can you do? Some changes are considered so minor that they can be approved by the local authority as a minor modification without needing to adjust the consent and an exchange of letters will suffice. Others may require a minor modifications application or a wholesale planning application for a variation of the relevant condition. The motto of this story is to try and get it right in the first place. You will remain friends with your Architect as well.

APPEALS

What happens if your decision notice contains a raft of unsavory and unworkable conditions (well one at least) that make the permission all but worthless – I exaggerate perhaps, but here again, you’d be surprised.

Think very carefully before you go rushing off to Appeal. If you appeal the decision on the grounds of an unacceptable condition you may be OK, but equally the Inspectorate could reconsider the whole permission. It wouldn’t be the first time an appellant has walked away with a dismissal for the whole scheme, which is then very hard to overcome.

Perhaps the condition is fundamental to the consent and without it the local authority would not have approved permission, but you feel it can be changed or removed. My advice is to submit an application for a variation of the offending condition and then appeal THAT decision if it is subsequently refused. In that way you at least protect the original decision.

ENFORCEMENT

If for some unfathomable reason you decide not to comply with a planning condition you could be served with a breach of condition notice to put the matter right. Just to make your day, there is no right of appeal against such a notice. Go directly to Jail, do not pass Go etc…

If you have carried out building works without consent you might be OK if they have been completed for more than 4 years and you can prove it. A breach of condition though must survive a long and testing 10 years before any sort of defense against the dark arts of enforcement can be brought to bear. My advice? Don’t tempt fate.

INFORMATIVES

Cunningly hanging around at the very end of the conditions (like the neigbours’ barky dog) there may be another round of what appear to be conditions, but under a separate Informatives heading (no one said that development was going to be easy). You will also need to consider the requirements set out in this section. Often they relate to other matters that are not the province of the planning department but are fundamental to the development nonetheless. Please don’t overlook them. They have a way of biting back when you least expect them too.

AND FINALLY

With the development market being so uncertain at the moment it is tempting to obtain permission and then sit on it (not literally you understand) until the market improves. Do keep a weather eye on the expiry date. Like fresh produce, planning permissions can go off (so to speak) and you could find yourself right back to square one if the permission is allowed to lapse by effluxion of time.

Most full permissions generally have a deadline date for implementation of three years (it used to be five) or three years from the date of an outline approval to submit for any detailed permission and then two years for development to commence after that.

If you are running out of time you can now apply for an extension of time. This provision was removed for some time by the previous Government who wanted to force developers to get on with things, but reinstated when a lot of us planners had a go at the Secretary of State for failing to recognise there was a national recession out there.

I hope this thumbnail overview of the word on planning conditions is of help. If you require any further detail then there is a planning document library available at www.ruralurbanplanning.co.uk or do please email me on ianbutter@ruralurbanplanning.co.uk

Neighbourhood Planning - "You've Got To Be In It To Win It"

2011-06-01T15:07:00.000+01:00

Neighbourhood planning is a key plank of the Government’s localism agenda. Local groups can draw up plans, subject them to a referendum, and thereby determine the kind of development they want to prioritise in their local area.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has made a fresh call for local planning authorities to bid for grants of up to £20,000 under the neighbourhood planning scheme, which is intended to act as a test bed for the coalition’s planning reforms. The call for applications follows amendments to the Localism Bill that are intended to open up the neighbourhood planning process to businesses.

The Government would like to see a greater role for business in neighbourhood plans; to the extent that a financial contribution toward the Plan making process itself ‘would be very nice thank you’. Because only local planning authorities are eligible for the grants under the scheme, Government is asking businesses taking part in the next wave of its neighbourhood planning 'vanguard' scheme to contribute towards the cost of the running the pilots.

Call me an old cynic if you will but what business worth its’ salt is going to chip in to a plan that could – on a democratic referendum basis – bring about its downfall through stricter planning arrangements. (sounds of turkeys singing ‘White Christmas’ off stage left).

Clearly we have the potential for (alleged - ahem) World Cup style finessing to achieve meaningful ends. Is this really what planning has come to?

Some would say planning has always been subject to persuasion by pecuniary ‘interests’ but in my view the ‘brown envelopes over the Chief Execs desk’ has only ever been a myth. Or, at worst, a lone occasion, blown up into an international incident.

Decentralisation minister Greg Clark has indicated that eight "business neighbourhood frontrunners" would develop business-led neighbourhood plans for local business areas and town centres. (see, I told you this was the Royston Vasey approach to planning)

The eight frontrunners are:

- Aldershot Town Centre

- Bankside, London

- Central Milton Keynes

- Liverpool Innovation Park

- Team Valley Trading Estate, Gateshead

- Trafford Park, Manchester

- South Bank, London

- West End, London

Liz Peace, chief executive of the lobby group British Property Federation, said the initiative heralded a "new approach to local planning". (You bet).

"The business neighbourhood frontrunners unveiled today are all areas with an enormous potential for economic growth. Designation as a business neighbourhood should help them to put together a planning and development framework for their areas that allows them to realise that potential."

It would appear that such neighbourhood plans can be set up deliberately for "promoting the carrying on of trades, professions or other businesses in such an area".

Not a bad idea but whereas, in other areas, the residents may have to recognise that businesses do actually exist and development may have to happen, the business neighbourhoods must equally recognise that there may be other interests that need to be taken into account. Who is going to balance all these competing objectives?

Clark said: "We need to involve local companies more explicitly in neighbourhood planning decisions for business areas if communities are to get the most out of them.

"Businesses have access to skills, resources and expertise that can give a real boost to getting the right kind of growth underway in many areas. Business neighbourhood frontrunners are about residents and businesses shaping their neighbourhood together."

Well I thought that was what Planning Policy Statement 4 was all about. Economic Development. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for supporting business development – it’s been my stock in trade for 30 plus years - and getting involved in the plan making process is vitally important too. But to create a financial link (supposedly out of goodwill and neighbourliness) is perhaps going a step too far toward cash for permissions. Or is this just another part of the recent suggestion of financial considerations in planning?

The closing date for the receipt of applications is Friday 8 July. And remember “You’ve got to be in it to win it”.

Coalition set to relax rules on barn conversions

2011-05-24T21:21:00.000+01:00

From +Planning Monday, 23 May 2011

"Rural landowners have welcomed government moves to ease planning restrictions preventing disused farm buildings from being converted into affordable housing.

The relaxation is signalled in this month's government response to the Commons environment, food and rural affairs committee's February report on farming in the uplands.

The response invites authorities facing rural housing shortages "to consider amending their local planning policies to support the change of use of farm buildings to affordable homes where these are considered inappropriate for employment use, or take the need for affordable homes into account in assessing individual applications".

William Worsley, president of landowners' lobby group the Country Land and Business Association, welcomed the move. However, he added: "It is a great pity the Government does not yet recognise the need for new-build housing on upland farms." This is often a cheaper option than converting disused barns, he said.

But Ian Woodhurst, senior farming campaigner at the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: "Any conversion should be done sensitively. We don't want to see suburban designs in the middle of upland landscapes."

In their response, ministers also promise a rural policy statement before the Parliamentary summer recess".

Comment: There is an important word in the midst of all this that bears consideration and that is 'affordable'.

Just how will a single barn conversion be of interest to a Housing Association or local Housing Trust who are tasked with delivering 'affordable housing'? I doubt any current affordable housing providers property criteria could be achieved and management of a remote single unit is just not practicable. I rather think the Government have a broader agenda or, alternatively are yet again playing to the crowd. Perhaps we are seeing a change in interpretation of that particular planning word than has been the case in the last decade or so.

Perhaps the Rural Policy Statement will shed some further light.

Community Infrastructure Levy - An Update

2011-05-11T10:54:00.000+01:00

Just how excited can one human being get about such an arguably dry topic as the "Community Infrastructure Levy". If I had a life, probably not very, but as a planning consultant this legislation will rule my world (not rock my world sadly) for some time to come.

Why I hear you ask. What could possibly be so fascinating?

Well, put simply, CIL is designed to extract cash from developments in order to pay for the infrastructure to support it. A pre-determined charging schedule will be applied to most development projects at the planning application stage so that everyone knows what is expected of the scheme, especially the developer.

The justification for this is wrapped up in the smoke and mirrors of the planning system, but essentially the Government cannot afford to fund infrastructure out of our taxes by the look of it so the 'developer pays' principle is moved heavily front and centre. Arguably this has been the case for some time, but the whole 'Planning Gain' system will now be consolidated into a cash-card based contribution.

All local authorities will eventually have a charging schedule and a small number of authorities are trialling the system at the moment.

Draft CIL schedules have recently been produced by the Mayor of London [ http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayoral-community-infrastructure-levy ]and Newark & Sherwood District Council [ http://www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/pp/Gold/ViewGold.asp?ID=5531 ].

The latter is very informative and shows differential charging rates for various parts of the District. It also shows the detailed assessments made that have lead to the charging schedules in accordance with the guidance. £50 per metre seems to have become a common benchmark figure, but rates vary by type of project. A zero charging sum is evident in the schedules - for affordable housing for example. Average charging rates are calculated based on development value assessments for differing projects types.

Originally introduced by the Labour Government and initially scheduled to be revoked by the coalition, CIL has evidently had a reprieve and been updated. Last month saw an amendment to the original Regulations to clarify certain technicalities and a new guidance document has just been released
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/communityinfrastructurelevymay11 ] which provides the whole story.

In the mean time what will this mean for day to day planning?

Developers will be able to assess their CIL at the outset based on the sq m to be built. There will be certainty over commitment and locals will know just how much is being generated from the scheme and what it will be applied to. (Well that's the theory anyway).

Planning consultants will have to become mathematicians and start applying the CIL calculations to development schemes (my head is already beginning to hurt). The new Regulations do allow for undertaking works instead of paying the charge so there will still be negotiations. And Section 106 agreements will still be required, but this time to ensure that the authority that is trousering the cash actually provide the relevant infrastructure - rather than just putting it in the Council coffers to pay for the next fact finding mission to the Seychelles or whatever. You can imagine a situation where a scheme is dependent on a new bypass, or trunk sewer that never materialises. That is going to put a crimp in anyone's development delivery programme.

I rather think that - in the end - developers may start comparing and contrasting charging rates within and between authorities in order to find a site at a lower CIL cost. There would be opportunities for authorities to outbid (i.e. under-charge) their neighbours to gain beneficial development, although I expect location, location, location will still be the predominant market driver.

What the CIL may do is help reduce land values - and this is perhaps the eventual outcome.

In the mean time, enjoy the read and watch this space for further info as CIL begins the evolve.

Neighbourhood Plan pilots announced

2011-04-21T09:19:00.000+01:00

(from the Planning Portal 7th April 2011)

The first 17 communities to test neighbourhood planning, a key feature of the Localism Bill, have been named by Decentralisation Minister Greg Clark.

People in these communities - a mix of cities, urban and rural areas - will be able to decide the types of development given automatic planning permission through a Neighbourhood Development Order.

If approved by a local referendum, a council will need to adopt a neighbourhood plan providing it is line with wider ambitions for growth in their area.

Greg Clark said:"Planning has increasingly become one of the most contentious issues in Britain, with communities becoming pitted against development. By giving local people a greater say together with new incentives to share in the benefits of growth, our reforms will help to create the conditions where communities begin to welcome development rather than resist it at all costs."

The 17 neighbourhood planning front-runners will be led by local authorities who will work with community groups and parish councils to prepare draft plans and Neighbourhood Development Orders.

Each of the 17 areas will receive £20,000 towards developing their plan from a £1m fund set up to help communities eager to trial neighbourhood planning.

A further 33 grants of £20,000 will also be awarded from the fund to projects that applied to be front runners. This is to help them carry forward their plans on their own.

The 17 pioneers involve the following local planning authorities and communities:

· Birmingham City Council - Balsall Heath (Birmingham)

· Bristol City Council - Lockleaze (Bristol)

· London Borough of Southwark – Bermondsey

· London Borough of Sutton – Hackbridge

· North Tyneside Council - North Shields Fish Quay

· Wirral Borough Council - Devonshire Park

· Allerdale Borough Council – Cockermouth

· Blaby District Council – Blaby

· Cherwell Borough Council – Banbury

· Exmoor National Park Authority – Lynton

· Gedling Borough Council – Newstead

· Lewes District Council – Ringmer

· Northumberland County – Allendale

· Shropshire Council - Much Wenlock

· Teignbridge District Council – Dawlish

· West Dorset District Council - Cerne Abbas

· Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – Bray

Meanwhile the Town and Country Planning Association has launched a new guide to help communities deal with neighbourhood plans. The guide ‘Your place, your plan’ http://www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/your_place_your_plan.pdf is designed to help local people get involved with shaping their area through the planning process and is aimed at people with no previous knowledge of the planning system.

Hugh Ellis, TCPA chief planner, said: “All the jargon around planning can be a real turn-off. But people don’t need to learn a new language. At its heart, planning is all about creating a picture of your community’s future. This guide is all about showing how local people can really influence their area, either through the newly proposed neighbourhood plans, their local plan or other community-led vision documents.”

Planning Issues in the Budget 2011

2011-03-23T19:50:00.002Z

Everything changes and everything stays the same.

Those of us long enough in the tooth to remember the town planning system prior to 1989 will recall that the developer had the benefit of the doubt in terms of gaining planning permission, unless the local authority could justify reasons for refusal.

So the Chancellor's comments today concerning a presumption in favour of sustainable development (whatever that is - and trailed mercilessly by Eric Pickles for the last ten days) seems no more than an echo of Conservative planning policy from 20 plus years ago.

The speech contained the following statement on planning:

"And we are going to tackle what every government has identified as a chronic obstacle to economic growth in Britain, and no government has done anything about: the planning system.

Councils are spending 13 per cent more in real terms on planning permissions than they did five years ago, despite the fact that applications have fallen by a third.
Yes, local communities should have a greater say in planning, but from today:
We will expect all bodies involved in planning to prioritise growth and jobs;
We will introduce a new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to development is ‘yes’;
We will retain existing controls on greenbelt – but we will remove the nationally imposed targets on the use of previously developed land;
And we will allow certain use class changes, introduce time limits on applications and pilot for the first time ever auctions of planning permission on land"

"no government has done anything about: the planning system" - Interesting. Every Government has tried to do something about the planning system - usually badly. The last mob actually believed that their 'baby and bath water' approach was destined to improve things. Nope. That never happened.

"local communities should have a greater say in planning, but from today:" What an interesting 'but' that is. Yes, you can have localism and devolution of decision-making to the Parish Pump level, but if that means no to economic development you can forget it.

Now, as a hard bitten planner I could be hanging out the flags and welcoming my bank manager round for a glass of bubbly to look at the pile of fees from all that 'open season' development - somehow I don't think that will be the eventual outcome, but a presumption in favour of economically beneficial development may help overcome some of the more disingenuous objections from the NIMBY lobby.

Removal of the targets on the use of previously developed land appears to infer release of greenfield land. However, saying that Council's don't now have to meet targets for the redevelopment of brownfield sites does not imply such an automatic right. The Chancellor said nothing about the continuing prioritisation of sites by way of sequential testing.

"certain use class changes" such as? We have no real guidance as yet but the more extreme 'office blocks to residential use' did not (sadly) make the speech as expected earlier last week. I would have loved to see the reaction to that!

"Time limits on planning permissions" - reduced by the last Government from five to three years to speed up implementation of consents, one wonders how much further this Government might go. Will they also alter the right to renew, which was reinstated because planning permissions (that had cost a fortune to secure) were running out before the economy had recovered to a point where a commercially successful development could be carried out.

"auctions of planning permission for land" - WHAT?

And as for Enterprise Zones - well, the sense of deja vu is complete. We've been here before.

Everything changes and everything remains the same.

“You were only meant to blow the bloody doors off”

2011-03-09T22:26:00.000Z

As the government endeavours to mop up their predecessors’ apparent mistakes, reduce the red tape and seeks that ‘sweet spot’ in planning management and development delivery, the already complex planning system is rapidly being made the more so by a constant round of vague political dictates that appear to be sound in principle, but in fact do not appear to have been thought through at all. Well, if they have, someone is “avin a larff”.

As I understand the story so far:

The Big Society will aim to empower local people through the Localism Act (in combination with what’s left of their local authorities and one or two LEP’s) to generate sustainable economic development and significant infrastructure benefits, with local-vernacular designed (non Lego based) housing of which a great deal will have to be affordable in format, within socially mixed and sustainable communities, based on a Core Strategy (where only 20% are currently adopted) and Neighbourhood Plans of varying context and nature that are in conformity with those Core Strategies, created by Neighbourhood Forums (maybe a quorum of 3, or 20, or something) that have yet to be provided with the means to convene. Oh, and with a scythe being taken to the long evolved planning structures and policies that have helped to manage development in this crowded country for the last 60 odd years.

So, where does this leave the development industry which has to interpret all this and convince financial backers and shareholders that they can still make a commercial return undertaking the right development in line with the right policy framework, and in the right place, at the right time, delivering eco-friendly, energy-efficient and well-designed edifices for a continuously growing population, that minimise their carbon footprint to that of a microbe and reduce car use to an afterthought, do not tread on flood plains, the countryside, anywhere where a bat may have been, or brownfield sites that have stupidly gone and got themselves some ecology, whilst being just profitable enough for the benevolent, if not positively philanthropic, smiley-faced old developer, to fund the full cost of the whole planning service, from community engagement to the inevitable appeals, plus pay the pre-determined ‘planning gain’/CIL uplift, deliver full infrastructure and public transport provision, together with a 150 per cent affordable housing quota, in a fully integrated, socially and culturally diverse eco-heritage-futurist–village/town/metropolis with jobs for all, that has taken less than 12 months to receive all its relevant consents from inception, following a public consultation exercise involving every means possible, including the ‘X-factor’ and ‘Strictly Come Planning’, and is fully operational within one Parliamentary cycle!!

Nurse, the screens!

Maybe the big boys can take all this on the chin, but what of the small guy? The simple everyday builder or local businessman, who has enough trouble trying to keep his head above water to pay his staff and the Inland Revenue, let alone spending time and money going through a new and poorly outlined planning minefield in order to secure a small extension to his factory/ office/ restaurant etc.

The planning service is pressing for full cost recovery, which will put existing planning fees through the roof. Early CIL drafts suggest that this too will become rapidly quite expensive and then there is all the ‘gain’ stuff. And all he wants is to keep his business alive.

As a practitioner working daily for many small clients across the country I already have cause to agonize over their future chances of survival. They don’t have time to understand all that is happening and really cannot afford to invest so much in their ‘community’ beyond the economic benefits they create from their business and the jobs they are sustaining.

This country is running on the back of a myriad of small businesses (both in urban and rural areas) and THEY are the ones who really need to have a clear and accessible planning framework so they can get on with keeping the economic machine going. It’s not all about building houses for goodness sakes.

If there is anyone out there in ‘Whitehall Mandarin Land’ who is applying any sort of testing to all these wonderful and innovative new ideas, you would do well to run them against a simple proposal for a small business and then demonstrate how this is going to work within the new planning regimen, costs and all.

Government Launches New Tourism Strategy – But hey. Let’s keep it quiet.

2011-03-06T15:44:00.001Z

After 30 plus years of advising various sectors of the tourism industry it should have come as no surprise that the Government launched their brand new tourism strategy in a ‘blaze’ (for which read small sputtering candle flame) of underwhelming glory. In fact you’d have been hard pressed to notice anything had indeed been launched at all. The recent NASA satellite launch failure had more ‘get up and go’. And it clearly hasn’t impressed the market either.

Thomas Cook has condemned the government’s new Tourism Strategy for barely mentioning the role of the buoyant outward-bound holiday sector (that’s people travelling abroad not to scout camps). And the World Travel and Tourism Council said ‘the government had to realise that outbound was as much as part of the tourism mix as inbound and domestic’.

This may be something of a response to not having been invited to chat through the strategy. Apparently Thomas Cook (the UK's largest wholly owned tourism business and the largest provider of holidays in the UK) had been asking repeatedly for a meeting with the Minister to no avail. Probably on holiday, or something.

The British Hospitality Association is not a happy bunny either. Ufi Ibrahim, chief executive of the BHA, said that details surrounding the organisation and funding of Local Enterprise Partnerships and Destination Management Organisations were vague and too many policies were being left to the industry to handle.

“VAT has become one of the most pressing issues facing the industry. The present high rate is making UK tourism very uncompetitive. In the latest World Economic Forum Global Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Monitor, the UK ranks 133rd out of 133 countries in terms of price competitiveness.

“So we are spending £100m on seeking to attract 4m additional visitors to the UK just at a time when the UK is bottom of the international price competitiveness league. This serious price disadvantage also encourages potential staycationers to vacation overseas.

“This is completely counterproductive to the Prime Minister’s objective to grow domestic tourism from 36 per cent to 50 per cent of total tourism spend by UK residents.”

A quick squint at the Executive Summary left me rather bemused too. The emphasis is clearly on dredging back the ‘staycation’ market (one of the lowest in Europe). However, under the heading ‘Increasing Domestic Tourism’ the great initiatives for this essential aspect of the Strategy were – yes you’ve guessed it – discussions about relocating a bank holiday to October and tackling the (evidently pressing issue of) brown tourism signs? Well. They’ve got their finger on the pulsing heartbeat of UK tourism there then haven’t they? Sorted!

On the tricky issue of town planning the Strategy notes that:

“One of the most frequently-cited restrictions on our visitor economy is the difficulty of getting planning permission to develop or expand a tourism attraction. The current system is too complex, slow, expensive and hard to predict, which makes business investments harder and creates a permanent drag on our economic performance”.

Agreed. And the remedy?

Abolishing centrally-imposed development strategies (such as the much-hated and unlamented Regional Spatial Strategies) [really?] and replacing them with local decisions on development and land use in each area, taken by local Councils which are accountable to the residents who elected them.
Abolishing the Infrastructure Planning Commission.
Creating a fast-track approval process for any planning application which receives no objections from neighbouring properties.
Creating a presumption in favour of any application which satisfies the criteria of being a genuinely sustainable development.
Increasing the number and type of small-scale changes to a property which count as ‘permitted development’, so they don’t need planning permission at all.

Fast track planning where there are No objections from neigbouring properties - to a tourism development? You’re kidding, right? In 34 years I haven’t made a planning application for any form of tourism development that hasn’t been objected to by someone, however spuriously. And whilst were on the matter of ‘fast-track’; driving a high speed rail route through some of southern Britain’s best and most loved high quality countryside is somewhat contrary to the aims of the strategy methinks. Or is it that HS2 is designed to move visitors rapidly past all that into the Lake District?

What is more, this assumes that the locals actually have a grasp of their tourism needs and are prepared to support them sensibly. In one well known seaside resort I have been battling with the business faction on one side wanting high end, top class, big spender tourism development (something which the strategy actually says correctly is the wrong way to go – niche we ain’t) and the local residents who would rather it all went somewhere else and didn’t clog up their life with additional traffic and disturbance. Go figure.

And there is precious little on the Permitted Development front that will apply in reality. So, situation normal then.

While we’re at it, What is a ‘genuinely sustainable development’ in tourism terms? Tourism is by its very nature unsustainable to a degree. Taken to its ultimate (genuine?) sustainable position that would mean people would stay at home. Literally.

The real problem for UK Tourism PLC is that there has been such substantial underinvestment in many sectors of the industry for so long that it is proving challenging, if not impossible, to recover to a meaningful level, especially in the depths of a recession. Tastes and aspirations have also changed markedly. The bucket and spade beach holiday for a week or two has now moved abroad - aided and abetted by ultra low-cost flights and cheap accommodation on the Spanish Costa’s - leaving the UK to those seeking short breaks.

This has been OK when people had the money to take several mini-breaks in a year (in addition to their main holiday in the sun somewhere). But as belts tighten and job prospects diminish so these marginal holidays have been pared back, leaving the domestic market struggling. Those who can deliver good quality and consistent product at a value for money price will survive (witness the growth in the budget hotel market) but many traditional sectors will continue to require massive cash injections. Even my home town Blackpool (arguably Britain’s biggest and best known seaside resort) has struggled to attract business sufficient to keep it alive and after serious cardiac resuscitation in the last five years and a transfusion amounting to £320 million odd in EU and other financial aid is just beginning to see itself awakening from its widely anticipated terminal coma. That’s three times the budget promoted in the Strategy for the next four years – for one resort alone!

Please don’t get me wrong. Britain has a superb ‘tourism landscape’ that I continue to enjoy on a daily basis as I assist in securing those all too easy planning permissions!! Fine and multi-varied countryside, superb hotels and restaurants and an improved culture of service. Growth investment is slowly moving toward the corporates’ in key sectors and some of our longstanding tourism assets are seeing huge remakes for the 21^st century.

Britain is definitely open for tourism business. It may take a little tracking down sometimes, but it’s all there. We just don’t shout about it as much as we might and value for money for the home market remains rather hit and miss. When it costs a family of four more to go on holiday for a week to the Isle of Wight, than a Greek Island (flights included) there is really no contest.

The Strategy rightly highlights that the tourism industry is vital to our economy and a key contributor to our economic recovery. It is already one of our six biggest industries and our third-largest export earner. Some 200,000 businesses directly provide £52bn of GDP, 4.4% of jobs, and have made tourism one of the fastest growing sectors.

If that is the case (and it is) then for goodness sake get a grip on what the Industry needs to keep that benefit going. The success of the industry in regenerating its position has largely been despite of, rather than because of any Government Strategy.

Perhaps a little more engagement with Industry leaders and a more balanced public awareness would be a good start. The Olympics will be great and will benefit Britain hugely. But it is not the only game in town.

In short the industry (significant as it is for jobs and economic growth) should be shown some respect by this Government. Tourism Minister John Penrose noted, “The next four years are set to be the most important and successful for this industry in more than a generation. The challenge is huge, but the rewards for us all could be greater still.”

So lets stop faffing around with those ‘major’ concerns about brown signs and bank holidays and establish a proper means of revitalizing the British tourism experience with some meaningful pump priming initiatives.

Here’s a starter for ten; a presumption in favour of tourism development that can demonstrate direct economic benefits. Oh. I’ve just remembered. Planning Policy Statement 4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth sort of already does and has much to say about tourism development in general. Pity that policy document is not referred to in the Tourism Strategy.

More joined up thinking please chaps.

The Full document can be downloaded from:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/publications/7896.aspx

Planning is The Root of all Development Evil - Apparently!

2011-02-20T12:20:00.001Z

The business secretary Vince Cable has said that the "market in land is dysfunctional, distorted by a slow and prescriptive planning regime and by speculative hoarding". I don't think he meant an advertising hoarding.

The Minister also stated, "Development and in particular badly needed construction, is paralysed, often in parts of the UK that need it most. That is why we are bent on planning reform, examining innovative ideas such as land auctions."

Now hold on there a moment. There is a fundamental assumption he is making here that a slow and prescriptive planning regime is a prime reason why development isn't happening. Slow? Maybe. Due to the infernal round of EU legislation that puts the future well-being of bats and bugs ahead of any realistic human needs. But prescriptive?

The whole point of the planning system is to ensure development goes in the right place in the correct way and meets an identifiable need. That's why Local Plans were invented (even though arguably they didn't prevent development in the middle of floodplains). Be that as it may, does Mr Cable honestly believe that in this increasingly crowded country a well established and time served planning system can be swept aside in the interests of 'causing construction to happen'. So, not for much needed development then, but just to get the construction industry back to work.

And how is this nirvana going to be achieved I hear you ask? Apparently a council would ask any local landowners to submit sealed-bid letters stating the price at which they would be willing to sell their land. This price would be binding and councils would be given the right to buy that land for a set period. (one wonders what with, given the cut backs, but anyway).

The council would then choose which land they would like to see developed and would grant that land planning permission (assuming I imagine that the proposal accords with any Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans) and then auction the land with permission to developers. Cable claims the system would allow local authorities to capture almost all of the increase in land value created by allowing development.

Well, No. What landowner in his right mind isn't going to put a healthy price on his land and, if there are plenty of other contributors, local valuers are going to have a high old time trying to determining the open market price.

What if the land the Council can afford is not in an appropriate location for the development they think they can give planning permission for (I assume it will be housing and nothing else) - there's a great deal more to successful land buying than simply the price. And then what about the locals? Localism is going to play its part and this will certainly affect the speed of local decision-making.

So, we have a proposal that will inflate an already over-inflated land price market, potentially granting planning permission for the maximum value form of development irrespective of the suitability of the site (in order to max the revenue) whilst assuming that Localism is going to speed up the process. And the Government - bless them- think that they are capturing "almost all of the increase in land value created by allowing development". Development economics is not their strong point is it. Spot the deliberate mistake yet?

Answers on a post card please to Vince and his team and the winner will be allowed to laugh heartily at yet another futile attempt to pump prime the residential market in the absence of any ability to buy the property in the first place. Ooops. Think I just gave the game away there. No one will notice.

The Government have evidently failed to remember the efforts by planners and developers a couple of years ago to have the renewal system for permissions reinstalled in order that developers could hit the ground running when the market came back. If they're not yet jogging its got nothing to do with lack of land, or the currency of planning permissions. Its has everything to do with a parlous and price sensitive domestic market. Find a way for banks to offer realistic mortgages that don't involve handing over your first born as surety and fund-able development loans that take into account all that Community Infrastructure Levy (oh yes, would these schemes have regard to that?) and you wouldn't have to fuss around thinking up new ways to frighten the natives.

A faster and less prescriptive planning regime? Yeh, right.

The Saga of Captain Eric Pickles - The Story in Full

2011-01-26T10:02:00.000Z

Captain Pickles

I was discussing the increasingly confused and unexplained future for planning with a colleague recently and he happened to refer to Eric Pickles (our planning supremo) as 'Captain Pickles'. I quickly googled that and found that Captain Pickles is in fact a super-hero; who'd have known? And he even has his own theme tune:

I'm Captain Pickles - what a guy!

I can run and jump and fly!

I'm a hero, through and through.

Pretend that you are too!

Well. My flabber has never been so ghasted.

The unholy mess currently being made of the town planning system must be part of some super-cunning plan that we mere mortals cannot even begin to comprehend. Much respect therefore to Captain Pickles and I take it all back - ................................. or maybe the word 'pretend' has more than a little relevance!

Captain Pickles is a character in the children's TV show Barney the Dinosaur - and he's a pirate!!!!!!

The Continuing Adventures of Captain Pickles

Captain Pickles wiped a dribble of pie gravy from his cheek with the back of his wrist and surveyed the paperwork on his chart table. This super-hero work was all well and good, but the attendant admin seriously interrupted a continuing series of speaking engagements whilst in harbour, that primarily involved the consumption of at least three courses in the finest taverns. His interim petite dejeuner didn't even get close to filling the rumbling void.

Five months in and he'd already completed a great deal of 'The Masterplan'. True, in the coming week his senior ratings would have to put down some pesky uprisings about the legality of removing Regular Seaside Sojourns and he'd had word that some of the fleet were beginning to rebel about his changes to housing crews in multiple occupation. Just what was all the fuss about. Surely they could see that this was all for the greater good, the delivery of the Big Society.

No matter. The unwashed masses clearly could not begin to comprehend the scale and cunning elegance of 'The Masterplan' and he wasn't about to go cap in hand to the Admiral of the Fleet with his petty problems. Truth to tell he was a tad worried about the impression the growing noises from some of the smaller ships might be making back at the fleet anchorage. He didn't want to give the impression he couldn't control these scurvy crews. He'd just have to be tougher - lash a few of the more vociferous to the yard arm - wield the cat to corral the mutineers - run another series of restrictive flags up the mast. He banged his hooked fist on the ships bell.

First Officer Scrapps heard the bell and instinctively leaped out of his hammock. What now? He had only just returned from shore-side after the debacle over trying to convince the dockyard that they needed a period of ship price stability. The lack of orders over the last few years had put the price of shipbuilding through the proverbial cabin roof. That was the trouble with clearing the shipping lanes of privateers, there were just too few left to keep the market going.

He'd tried to persuade them that by scrapping shipbuilding targets and co-operating with the fleet auxiliary they could begin to deliver meaningful quantities of new ships that would be snapped up immediately. They were not convinced. The previous problems of rafting fleets of rotten hulks together and flogging them off to unsuspecting pirates looking to make a fast buck on the high seas had led to very stormy waters and they weren't about to go back to making sea going vessels that didn't deliver enough gold to cover their shareholders demands.

The Captain's voice bellowed down the passageway - "Scrapps, get in here. I have another cunning plan". Scrapps winced, pulled on his sea boots and scuttled into the captain's cabin. "I need you to go and tell the fleet that they're going to have to amalgamate their crews - fewer, larger ships is the way ahead with fewer Captains. That way the landlubbers don't get a chance to divide and rule".

Scrapps alert mind went immediately to the heart of that idea. "Surely Captain, in our shallow and shoally waters we need smaller craft, able to manoeuvre at speed. If we build larger ships they'll be unable to get into harbour".

"Exactly" pronounced Captain Pickles. "We keep the unwashed masses on shore, away from the crews, so we don't get any of that landlubber dissent creeping up the mooring ropes". Scrapps was not convinced.

"How does this play with "The Masterplan" captain?" he queried. "I thought the idea was to return the control of the fleet to the people?"

Captain Pickles popped a small sweetmeat into his mouth and surveyed his junior officer with a mixture of pity and annoyance. "What we tell the landlubbers and what we actually aim to achieve are not necessarily coincident", he said conspiratorially. "It's all about the interpretation of the flag messages, not exactly what they say". Scrapps held his piece. He knew enough not to contradict his Captain. "Certainly Sir", he said, saluted, turned smartly on his heel and left.

Scrapps returned to his cabin and took a fortifying swig from a nearby bottle of grog. Grabbing his newly sharpened cutlass he made haste for the gang plank. Instinctively he knew this was going to be the start of another lousy week in the dockyard.

Ahoy, Alors

Captain E Pickles was furious. You could say apoplectic. It was difficult to tell exactly how upset he was as a third helping of plum duff was masking his increasingly blue language.

"Fwhatft doth te blithwering idioth thin heth do in", he sprayed unapologetically into the face of his First Officer, Scrapps, who was trying to duck the worst of the puddingy shower.

"I'm sorry Captain, to whom are you referring" said Scrapps in his rather public school voice. Given the twists and turns of the last week or so his Captain could be referring to any one of a number of shipmates.

Commander Cables' outburst earlier in the week - that fleet vessels should 'get their act together' if they wanted to benefit from the recently pirated doubloons - had not been helpful. Quite why the smaller ships were being encouraged to raft up together was beyond Scrapps. Yes, they might be able to share a smaller crew to keep them in repair, but that would be as good as useless if they had to go to sea in a hurry. And this was meant to help grow the fleet back to full strength! He didn't get it. The reference to a 'begging bowl culture' was equally insensitive - it was a natural state of affairs for many of the low status ships in the outer harbour. Ravaged constantly by the worst of the weather, a begging bowl would be a positive aid to some of them.

Pickles lurched out of his chair staring incredulously at Scrapps, eyes widening to the size of saucers. "Whoom, Whoooom, vu bwiverin irriot" he screeched, "Ver breedin fking, vats whooom". A mix of masticated dough and sauce oozed from between clenched brown teeth as he stared fixedly at his evidently cretinous second in command.

"Aye Captain I follow your drift now; the King".

Only that morning King David had sent message to the fleet that henceforth they would be part of a new rapid response force jointly with - he winced - the French. Saving money was one thing, but sailing into battle with the Frenchies was definitely off the Beaufort Scale, and the Captain of the Fleet was not pleased. Not pleased at all.

Captain Pickles threw back another flagon of mead. "Correct me if I'm wrong Scrapps, but didn't we stuff the French Fleet in the Battle of Sluys in 1340".

"Yes Captain your naval history is correct" Scrapps confirmed, fawningly. The slaughter was appalling apparently.

"And, if I'm not much mistaken Scrapps, the recent Cup match at Trafalgar went no better for em, even with the bloody Spanish running onto the pitch at half time". Scrapps nodded.

"So what in all that's holy does our glorious leader think he's doing? he opined sarcastically, as he slumped back into his chair - the large lunch beginning to take effect. "Why don't they just sail what's left of their flea bitten scows over here and save wasting our powder and shot?" It was evidently a rhetorical question.

Captain Pickles sighed and speared an apple from the fruit bowl with his hook. "Do we have a decision from the assizes yet"? Earlier in the year he'd been a bit rash with the keel hauling of some crews who rebelled against the removal of Regular Seaside Sojourns and now some smartass scribe had taken his decision to the courts. Was he just being used to do the dirty work of the Silent Court? Could he get out of this quartering sea without shipping too much water?

Surely the outcome was a foregone conclusion though. Even if the Judge found him guilty there was little the unwashed masses could do about it.
The Masterplan had to be delivered, at any price. Only Pickles new the real truth and it preyed on his mind.

Captain Pickles and the Ghost of Christmas Future - Part One

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the ship not a creature was stirring, not even a cabin boy, the stockings were hung by the deck hatch with care in hopes that St Nicholas soon would be there.

First Officer Scrapps was not as blissfully comatose as the rest of his shipmates. Last night's Christmas party had left him feeling very ill, a combination of grog shots and some dodgy hard tack that had been served up as nibbles. He wrestled around in his bunk trying to get comfortable as the boiling, roiling tempest in his stomach did its best to inflate him to the size of a small cutter. 'This was going to end badly' he thought and calculated his fastest route to the heads.

And what was worse he was evidently hallucinating. He was sure he could hear the Captain laughing just a few cabins away in his stateroom. He'd never seen or heard Captain Pickles laugh. Ever. The slightest crinkle of a hint of a wry smile as another Frenchy went to Davy Jones locker, but never a laugh. And here he was listening to a belly laugh that seemed to be going on and on. Was the Captain as ill as he? Had he finally gone mad? Scrapps wouldn't blame him mind you, given the grief he'd been getting from all quarters in the last few months about the shipyard cutbacks. Perhaps he should go and see? At that moment Scrapps digestive system decided to reach Peak Gas and, with a time honoured call of 'Thar she blows' he threw himself out of his cot and off toward the aptly named poop deck.

Captain Pickles was indeed laughing. He couldn't help himself. It did slightly bother him that he may not be able to stop, as it was not an emotion he had any real experience of. Yet he was thoroughly enjoying the lack of control.

The day had gone well. Finally. He'd been trying to launched the Masterplan for weeks and speculation was rife throughout the fleet. Even the pre-launch guidance parchment gave little or nothing away, and when he finally rose to address the Admiralty the sad old duffers failed to realise exactly what he was doing. Just as he planned. And this was funny, oh so funny. They had absolutely no concept of what he had in store and their lack of prescience (or even simple cyniscism for that matter) showed just how stupid they all were. They applauded what they wanted to hear and failed to read the small print. The thought of their lapdog faces all eager to receive the benefit of his wisdom set him off again and he had to cram another fish pie into his mouth to stop from guffawing so loudly he'd wake the ship.

Victory was always sweet but the coup he had just pulled off was even sweeter; made positively sugar coated with a syrup finish over rotten pineapple because they just didn't get it. Oh, the sheer, unadulterated shardenfreude.

The Masterplan, (which can now be revealed in all its glorious simplicity) was no more or less than a simple double bluff. The new wallahs at the Admiralty had been pushing him hard to make curtbacks here and savings there. Decimating the fleet. His capital fleet ships had been removed to safe anchorage to be broken up for timber to make homes for paupers and those on order would be finished but supplied with no sails. Fat lot of good that was going to do; unless he could row the buggers into battle like the old Norse boats. And what was worse, so much worse, each ship of the fleet would be allowed to make its own decisions. No more direct and unarguable orders from his flagship by running up a message or three, they could each have a cosy parlay and reach a collective crew decision by majority vote. Sick. And he knew where that would all end. Did turkey's vote for Christmas?

No more raids on foreign soil, no dashes over the channel to plunder a French winery or two and outwit the revenue men on the way back - he loved doing that - and no war making, dammit. It was all going to be fuzzy and warm and fluffy and delightful and "oh ever so begging your pardon but would you mind very much if I lay a cannonade down you port side and loot your ship". Dam and blast and unholy thoughts. He was a fighting seaman and was just about to have his raison detre surgically removed, and it was going to hurt.

But the Plan was oh so clever. Surprisingly, to most in the fleet, he went along with the idea, promoting the project as his own, passing the word around that, "Yes, Localism would be a fine way to go. Never mind the threats at our door, lets all have a group hug and make a reasoned and well thought through programme of actions, that would deliver untold riches to all and a society to bring up our scurvy brats in that would be the envy of the gods" or words to that effect. His emergent bonhomie was acknowledged and after a while crews began to think he had become a new man. The Christmas party was itself a first, and he'd even stopped the regular floggings for overspends on crew comforts.

But Pickles knew in his heart that this new age of enlightenment was no more than a false dawn (he'd read that somewhere and it sounded fitting). It was in fact no more than a Nimby's Charter (Not in My Boat Yard). If there was one thing he knew and that was his men of the line. And he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was all going to end in tears before bedtime. Some ships had already professed a wish to become traders and ditch all their cannon in the interests of establishing better relations with foreign lands. BETTER RELATIONS! they might as well open the dock gates and let any tom, dick or louse ridden harry, come sailing in without a by your leave.

Let the motley crews try and deliver this new fleet order. It was not going to be as easy as they thought. Funnily enough (and very sadly he proffered - with a look of abject regret on his face- to any who asked) there was little or no money in the coffers left to implement all the changes. The boatyards were not going to make all the necessary adaptations and alterations for the price of a pint of porter. Oh no. And, for those captains whose ships had already been mortgaged up to the hilt, any rise in the penal interest rates already being charged by those mercenaries at the banks would cripple them - and then who would they turn to. Hmmm?

Captain Pickles knew that letting crews do what they wanted was a recipe for disaster. Always had been and always would be. So he would employ the simple logic of divide and rule. He would positively encourage division in the ranks and 'Local Ships' to the point where the whole operational edifice became so monstrously unwieldy and wrought with in-fighting that the call would go up for a firm hand on the tiller again and his would be first to the helm. Combine that with a little local difficulty re-emerging in the south seas (he wondered how that would happen - ho, ho, ho) and if the plan worked he'd be back in charge of the fleet within the year.

The candle by his side flickered briefly. A stray draft perhaps. No matter. He had his girth to keep him warm. There it was again and now the cabin began to spin in front of him. Damn those sweetmeats, he guessed they had been rat all along. His laughter ceased as a spiral of ectoplasm apparated at his side. A ghostly figure shimmied within a cloud of mist that turned the cabin stone cold. Icicles formed instantly on the rafters and the candles guttered out.

The insubstantial form spoke. "Pickles" it said, "Pickles, we know what you are about and I have been sent to warn you that nothing good can come of it". "Rescind your orders, make good new ways and your soul will be spared the everlasting torment of vegetarian dining and nouvelle cuisine".

If there was one thing that really captured Captain Pickles attention and that was any issue concerning food. "Who are yee matey and what do yer want with me?" Quavered the Captain.

"I am the ghost of Christmas Future. A spirit from years to come. I will show you the outcome of your foolish desires and make you change your ways".

Rapidly recovering some of his composure the Captain rose from his seat to look eyeball to eyeball with the transient form in front of him. He cocked his head and stared, squinting slightly to see if he could recognise the ghostly face, "You don't go by the name of Gummer do yee?"

To be continued........

Part 2 of Captain Pickles and the Ghost of Christmas Future

The Ghost of Christmas Future has apparated unexpectedly in the cabin of Captain Pickles, interrupting what was otherwise a thoroughly hearty guffaw over the emergence of his masterplan for recovering the fleet from the dreaded Localism Bill. The story continues.......
"Gummer, GUMMER!!" the ghost bellowed. "What do you take me for laddy, can't you see by my hair I'm bloody Lord Heseltine?". "I will be a Minister for the Environment again in the Future despite what anyone might say".

Pickles was un-phased by the outburst, which did nothing more in fact than help him to recover any composure he might have lost at this unexpected arrival. "You need to watch your temper matey it will get you into trouble". The ghost was about to launch another outburst with the words, "How in god's name did you know about that ..." but thought better of it and returned to the reason for his visit.

"Pickles, we know what you're about and I have been sent to warn you that you're dastardly plan is doomed to fail. I will show you the future and the trials and tribulations that will flow from your actions: repent now and spare yourself".

At that, the cabin grew dim and a mist rose that swirled around and enveloped them both. "Just like the gun deck on a good day" thought Captain Pickles as the mist rapidly evaporated again to reveal a meeting in progress at the 'Bowsprit and Strumpet' Inn in the dockyard. The room was full of ships crews with all their captains sat at a top table. Pickles was noticeable by his absence.

"I call this meeting to Order" said Commander Cables (evidently the Chairman). "We are here to discuss the application by your fleet commander Captain Pickles for the laying of a keel for a new Flag Ship and to release community dockyard funds to build the vessel". A murmuring amongst the men rose, Pickles could hear comments such as:

"What's in it for us?..said one; We need more affordable tenders before we get more battleships... said another; What about the bats in the sea cliffs. Their flight routes might be affected by the mast heights...wailed an old hag; And the seagulls, shouted another. Cables raised his hand for silence.

"What's all this?" asked Pickles. "Its a neighbourhood community forum", said the ghost," convened to discuss a proposal by you. They all have a vote and if you get more than 97.63% support your proposal then moves up to the next decision deck".

"How many decks are there in this confounded process?" grunted Pickles. "Oh, only seven at the moment, but when the new Dockyard Plan is finally approved there will be another ten". The ghost seemed to be quite pleased about this. Pickles decided to keep his own counsel on the matter.

"We have the applicants agent First Officer Scrapps who will speak about the application but first I would like to hear from the assembled crews about their thoughts and wishes. Remember that we must concentrate on the key issues here - do we need a new Flag Ship, where should it be harboured and what benefits will it bring to the fleet both now and for the longer term, bearing in mind sustainability, wind energy conservation, environmental amenity and national guidance documents on war wageing, looting on the high seas and the like".

"I would now like your community planning officer Seaman Clegg to outline the last two years statutory consultation process and set out the policy position".

Two hours later Clegg reached his conclusion; "...and therefore it is with the humblest of beg you're pardons and by your leaves that I conclude the application must be denied and re-submitted in full, because no detailed assessment of the means of drainage from the scuppers and heads was submitted with the application. This was brought to our attention at the last minute by the new 'Scuppers and Head Cleaners' QUANGO in the light of a recent letter from the Minister for NightSoil and BioWaste which we consider to be a material consideration in the matter". Clegg bowed even lower than his grovelling stance already provided and sat down again.

Scrapps shot to his feet, "Mr Chairman, we were advised at the pre-application meeting that no such requirement was necessary at this stage and could be dealt with by conditions. We paid twenty doubloons for that meeting!".

"As you know Scrapps, the dockyard cannot be held responsible for anything it says, does, thinks, excretes or otherwise passes off as advice, guidance, recommendations, instructions, demands or threats. We are simply here to help. Now, does anyone have anything else to say?" Cables eyes swept the room.

A hand rose slowly at the back of the room. From his position beside the Ghost Pickles saw himself rising to his feet and walk forward to the front.

"The Dockyard Community Decision-Making and Localism Policy Collective recognises Captain Pickles", announced one of the fifteen supporting consultation advisors.

"You have three minutes Captain Pickles, we will let you know when the hourglass has 30 seconds of sand left".

Pickles turned to the seamen and his eyes swept the room.

"So, defeated on a technicality eh. What next, 'Save the Barnacles', 'Spare the Wind', You can only go to sea on a full moon in the month of September? Don't you remember that sending our capital fleet to the ships graveyard cost us the south seas and all that lovely gold? When was the last time any of you drank real rum, not this eco-friendly weasel piss". There was a murmur of acknowledgement around the room.

"And what about all those dusky maidens awaiting to be grabbed off a lee shore in the caribee, Eh? Your puny little traders wont make it past Wolf Rock let alone across the oceans". Nods of recognition from some crews. "And then there's the EU....." He left the point hanging.
"That's all well and good" - preened one Captain - "but we have agreed as a local community not to do anything to upset our wider Community associates and to trade peacefully with them. That's what we pay all that Community Indifference Levy for every year".

"And what, pray tell, do they spend all that silver on, me fine fellow?" smiled Pickles.

Turning directly toward the Ghost (and of course himself) he appeared to the assembly to be looking out of the Inn window toward the harbour entrance.

"If I may indulge ye a moment longer gentlemen yer might just want to raise your telescopes to the horizon. If I'm not much mistaken that's the Spaniards".

They all looked. The horizon was full of ships sails. "And unless they've run for home, you can expect the Frenchies to be bringing up the rear, so to speak". Pickles smiled straight at the Ghost and winked.

"Didn't expect that one did yer Hesser! Never trust yer so-called colleagues laddy, least of all those you pay to be friends with; you of all people ought to have remembered that after the East Land fiasco".

"Bugger, didn't see that one coming" said the ghost of Christmas Future and with a flick of his hair he evaporated.

Captain Pickles found himself alone in his cabin, the ghost was gone and everything was just as he had left it seemingly hours ago, or was it only seconds?
He smiled. The smile of all smiles. Then began to smirk, to stifle a laugh and without any control left whatsoever began to guffaw at the top of his bellowing voice. Even Scrapps, still unavoidably engaged on the poop deck, heard the Captain as if he was stood next to him.

"A Merry Christmas and a Very Happy New Year to all my crews", laughed the Captain. For he knew it would be a VERY Happy New Year.

Let's Play Validation

2011-01-15T22:58:00.000Z

Lets Play

“VALIDATION!”

A game that all town planners can play.

VALIDATION! is a game of skill and cunning, pitting your wits against the application validation requirements.

Players pick a card to identify the type of application to be submitted. There are hundreds to choose from. Then progress round the board collecting reports and plans from your fellow professionals before obtaining enough to make your planning submission.

Be the Authority and challenge other players to see how quickly they can get an application accepted. Your aim is to balance an oppressive workload against a limited staffing level and secure maximum planning fees, whilst meeting stringent application deadlines. Consistently ask for more information, irrespective of the need for it. Charge humungous fees for Pre-App meetings without giving too much away. Use your “Lost in the System” card to delay and send applicants back to 'the office’.

Or be the applicant and try to meet your clients’ unfeasibly tight development deadlines for proposals that appear to challenge every single policy aspect in the development plan. Guide your team through the planning application labyrinth, but beware those last minute changes and only submit when you’re convinced you are ready. Avoid those deadly “There is a problem with your computer which has had to close” cards, that loose forever the last 10 pages of your carefully crafted supporting statement.

How many additional documents and plans will you be required to submit before your application is deemed valid? Use your knowledge of the new process to argue the toss with the Council.

You’ve spent hours calculating the required planning fee only to find that you apparently owe twice as much. Use your professional skill to negotiate your way through the fee regulations.

Applicants are ranked according to ability:-

Three or more submissions before validation: Amateur – a likely outcome for beginners to the game
Two submissions: Professional – product testing suggests you will achieve this level after at least 50 submissions
First time submission: Genius (or dead jammy) – you’re spending way too much time in the office

The winner is the first person to have their application fully validated (only to find that a statutory consultee requires even greater detail - despite prior consultation - so that the application is immediately scheduled for a delegated refusal and you have to fall back on the free go).

Now buy VALIDATION Plus! – all the thrills and spills of the basic game, but this time you’re on a fixed fee basis. Control those external costs, negotiate S.106 and unilateral Infrastructure Charges and explain to the client why your timescale and cost estimates are extending into infinity.

VALIDATION!

You won’t live to regret it!

With thanks to RICS Books ( www.ricsbooks.com )

Extract taken from Ian Butter's Book "The New Planning System - Questions and Answers" (2009)