Blake Lapthorn and Kemp & Kemp Planning Post Pickles Seminar

732 views

Published on

Blake Lapthorn and Kemp & Kemp co-hosted a "Planning-Post Pickles" Seminar on 22 July 2010.

Published in: Real Estate
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Blake Lapthorn and Kemp & Kemp Planning Post Pickles Seminar

  1. 1. Planning post-Pickles Blake Lapthorn and Kemp & Kemp Property Consultants breakfast briefing Thursday 22 July
  2. 2. Planning for Climate Change “ ..climate change represents a potentially catastrophic threat but it is within our control to address it – and address it we must.” Henry Gordon-Lennox , barrister Blake Lapthorn
  3. 3. Sustainable development and climate change <ul><li>Planning already has the concept of “sustainable development” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sustainable development enshrined in PPS1 (Jan 2005) which says it is “the core principle underpinning planning” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Climate change has, to date, been just one aspect of sustainable development so it has been recognised that more drastic steps required! </li></ul><ul><li>Consequently Governments are responding with legislative and policy initiatives. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Kyoto Protocol and in UK the Climate Change Act 2008 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Copenhagen Accord? </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Tackling climate change – current position <ul><li>Supplement to PPS1 – ‘Planning and Climate Change’ </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Tackling climate change is a key Government priority for the planning system” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Addressing climate change is therefore the Government’s principal concern for sustainable development” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Sets out the role climate change considerations have in determining planning applications and development control decisions </li></ul><ul><li>Stand alone national policy document - material planning consideration now </li></ul><ul><li>Underpinned by Planning Act 2008 – requires policies in LDD to secure development contributes to mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change </li></ul><ul><li>It specifically states that it takes precedence where there is any inconsistency / difference between it and the other PPSs </li></ul>
  5. 5. Review of PPS1 <ul><li>Current consultation draft out which is to replace current PPS1 Supplement and consolidate it with PPS22 (Renewable Energy) </li></ul><ul><li>Published 9 March and closing date for comments was 1 June </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Publication or further review? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>It continues to provide a planning framework to drive progress towards meeting the UK’s targets to reduce greenhouse gases, use more renewable and low-carbon energy and plan for the effect of climate change </li></ul>
  6. 6. Draft policies <ul><li>LCF2 – Regional Planning Approach </li></ul><ul><li>LCF4 – Local renewable and low-carbon energy </li></ul><ul><li>LCF5 – Adapting to changing climate </li></ul><ul><li>LCF6 – Site for new development </li></ul><ul><li>LCF9 – Requirements for sustainable buildings </li></ul>
  7. 7. Of interest? <ul><li>Previous Government pledged £10 million to boost Council’s ‘green’ expertise – by way of providing training for Members and planners (particularly on provision and use of renewable energy) and also on CPD. </li></ul><ul><li>£70 million fund to assist in master planning new eco-towns </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Coalition have reduced by 50% for 2010 / 2011 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Also require evidence of ‘local’ support </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>DECC has published new guidelines designed to help regional authorities assess the potential for renewable and low-carbon energy </li></ul>
  8. 8. Coalition – what impact will this have? <ul><li>Government reiterate that “climate change is one of the gravest threats we face, and that urgent action at home and abroad is required” </li></ul><ul><li>the Coalition’s programme for Government; </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ push EU to adopt emission reduction target by 30% by 2020” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ seek to increase target for energy from renewable sources” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ public sector investment in carbon capture and storage for four coal fired power stations” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ introduce measures to encourage marine energy” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ take measures to improve energy efficiency in business and public sector buildings” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ encourage community-owned renewable energy schemes” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ work towards an ambitious global climate deal that will limit emissions” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Communities to be given a greater say over their local planning system </li></ul><ul><ul><li>abolishment of RSS </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Conclusions <ul><li>Sustainability as was (the green roof, shower and cycle racks) will no longer do </li></ul><ul><li>Authorities and applicants will be under increasing pressure to demonstrate that policies and individual developments make a positive contribution to reducing carbon emissions </li></ul><ul><li>If this is to be achieved, it will require innovation by the developers and support of the LPAs </li></ul><ul><li>Change in Government unlikely to alter the stance on climate change –probably even stronger policies </li></ul>
  10. 10. The Coalition’s agenda for change Guthrie McGruer , partner Blake Lapthorn
  11. 11. Planning <ul><li>At the national level </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Abolition of CIL </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No mention in coalition agreement but Conservatives promised abolition </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>In answers to questions in the Commons on 9 June 2010 “ announcements on the future of the related Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will be made in due course ” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Will require primary legislation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No impact on S106 obligations whilst no ‘charging schedule’ in place </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Replacement with ‘local tariff’ – differences? </li></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Relationship with S106 Agreements <ul><li>The five policy tests of Circular 05/05 now codified </li></ul><ul><li>(a) necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms </li></ul><ul><li>(b) directly related to the development </li></ul><ul><li>(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development </li></ul>
  13. 13. <ul><li>Overlap of CIL and S106 </li></ul><ul><li>CIL mandatory (if adopted) </li></ul><ul><li>S106 not suitable for pooled contributions </li></ul>
  14. 14. <ul><ul><li>Abolition of Independent Planning Commission </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Problem: unelected / unaccountable </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Requires primary legislation to achieve </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>IPC will continue to determine applications as NPS are produced until abolished to ensure no delay </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>If NPS in place then IPC will determine </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>If no NPS when application to be determined then recommendation to SoS </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Solution: new arm at PINS called ‘Major Infrastructure Planning Unit’ which is accountable </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Will determine applications in same statutory time frame </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Will keep NPS as the policy basis but to be ratified by Parliament </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Nuclear? </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  15. 15. <ul><ul><li>Radical reform of planning system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Intention to give ‘ neighbourhoods far more ability to determine the shape of the places in which their inhabitants live ’ </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Based on Conservative’s ‘Open Source Planning’ Green Paper – some examples include; </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>New designation similar to SSSI to protect ‘green areas’ of particular importance to local communities </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cross boundary co-operation required where cross border issues arise </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National Planning Framework </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Simple and consolidated!! </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Covering all forms of development and setting out national, economic, environmental and social priorities </li></ul></ul></ul>
  16. 16. <ul><li>At the local level </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This is where ‘localism’ agenda intended to operate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Local plans to be ‘bottom up’ derived from aspirations of local people </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Will develop policies – not just consulted on ‘options’ </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Presumption in favour of sustainable development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>incentives for LPAs for delivering this </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Amend Use Classes Order so that people can change the use of land within a range allowed by the Local Plan </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborative design of ‘significant local projects’ to ensure involvement by the neighbourhood </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“fast track” consents where agreement is reached with neighbours, including payments to offset impacts </li></ul></ul></ul>
  17. 17. <ul><ul><ul><li>THE BIG ONE – third party rights of appeal </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Limit scope of appeals (by developer / residents) to abuse of power or a failure to apply the local plan </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SoS has confirmed that LPA’s to be given an opportunity to revise LDD to reflect abolition of RSSs and removal of imposed targets </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>However stated ‘should not take a long time’ </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>‘Home on the Farm’ </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Schemes to encourage farmers to convert existing buildings into affordable housing </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Planning update Steven Sensecall BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI Joint Senior Partner and Head of Planning Huw Mellor BA (Hons) MRTPI Partner Kemp & Kemp Property Consultants
  19. 19. Amendment to Use Classes Order (April 2010) <ul><li>Includes a new Use Class C4: Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) </li></ul><ul><li>Previously, HMOs were six residents and above </li></ul><ul><li>New definition: “Use of a dwelling house by not more than 6 residents” </li></ul><ul><li>Planning permission needed for change of use from Class C3 (dwelling house) to HMO </li></ul>
  20. 20. Changes to the General Permitted Development Order (April 2010) <ul><li>Permitted development: Development consisting of a change of use of a building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwelling houses) from a use falling within Class C4 (houses in multiple occupation) </li></ul><ul><li>Extends permitted development rights on industrial and warehouse buildings to research and development uses and permits new buildings, subject to constraints </li></ul><ul><li>Extends permitted development rights for schools, colleges, universities and hospitals and allows extensions and alterations to such institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Extends permitted development rights for offices and retail/catering/financial and professional services establishments subject to constraints </li></ul>
  21. 21. Changes to PPS3:Housing (June 2010) <ul><li>Brings an end to “garden grabbing” ... or does it? </li></ul><ul><li>Removes presumption that previously - developed land is necessarily suitable for housing and that whole of curtilage should be developed </li></ul><ul><li>Gives LPAs ability to set out a range of densities across a plan area rather than one broad density range (previously 30 [minimum] – 50 per hectare) </li></ul><ul><li>But ... commitment to making efficient use of land remains </li></ul><ul><li>Annex B excludes “private residential gardens” from definition of previously – developed land </li></ul>
  22. 22. Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) <ul><li>Trailed in Tories ‘Open Source Planning’ Green Paper </li></ul><ul><li>Abolished on 6 July 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>How will this affect planning applications? </li></ul><ul><li>How will this affect the preparation of LDF documents? </li></ul><ul><li>Determining housing numbers </li></ul><ul><li>Do Councils have to maintain a 5 year land supply? </li></ul>
  23. 23. Local Enterprise Partnerships <ul><li>Pickles and Cable letter 29 June 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Reform of sub-national economic development </li></ul><ul><li>Enables councils and business to replace the existing RDAs </li></ul><ul><li>Role - to provide the strategic leadership and to set out local economic priorities </li></ul><ul><li>Governance structures? </li></ul>

×