Policy Exchange – NPPF not Pro-Sprawl Enough!

Alex Morton of the Policy Exchange comments on the practitioners draft of the NPPF at Planning Resource

He perceptively argues that the draft takes planning back to the late 1990s, I would argue further 1980 is more like it.

the NPPF continues to endorse development planning by councils, the system created by the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 that substitutes public sector planning for market demand. The framework mentions plan or planning 453 times. It mentions price or pricing four times. It requires councils to set out the scale and location of development.

The Government needs to use the NPPF to move away from this system, as other reforms are doing, not endorse it. For instance, the coalition wants a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Given that developers build homes because there is demand, a planning application is proof of demand. So we should require councils to scrap the “predict and provide” model that invariably underestimates demand.

If the NPPF is confirming the abolition of national targets, thus allowing developers to respond to demand and provide what people want to buy, it should prevent councils from imposing targets of their own on issues such as density. It should require councils to respond to growth, not control it.

It should be no surprise Alex that a planning document mentions the word plan a lot. Similarly an Argos catalogue will mention the word price a lot.

So planning should move away from setting out the scale, location or density of development – anything else left – did you forget to leave out design? Yes im sure that was an oversight.

This is the increasingly way out ‘think tank’ that argues we should convert all our employment land to housing, pro-growth eh. A policy that would simply lead to no planning authority allocating land for employment because it would go to housing. Perhaps realising the planet size logic in their scheme he wants to do away with plans at all. So developers could build where and when they wanted, irrespective of infrastructure or transport, providing they could pay off the locals. If we had had this system in 1947 today ranch style housing would spread from London to Brighton, London would be built at Houston densities – it would be four times bigger.  The Policy Exchange has already argued for a doubling of the size of the Motorway network which this uncontrolled sprawl would require, such a good use of public funding which our public services are being cut.It has also argues in 2008 that northern cities should close down and the unemployed should move to the South.  What about the Green Belt, well it wants rid of that as well.

The Policy Exchange was founded in 1991 by Archie Norman, formally head of Chartwell Land and Asda, and its extreme and American Hard Right anti-planning agenda is little more than a front for the interests of the city firms, landowning and property interests of those that fund it.  Following Newsnight and other exposes it has gained a reputation for research backed by ideology rather than evidence.

It is a member of the European Wide network of right wing think tanks The Stockholm Network, a group with close links to climate change deniers, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute and receives funding it receives from industry giants such as Exxon Mobil as well as many big pharma firms.

It is time to throw away the sham.  Rather than being a liberal and progressive think tank on environmental and planning issues the Policy Exchange has almost exactly the same ideological position as extreme US think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation , the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where I have argued on here that originated the ideas of ‘localism’ and ‘neighbourhood planning’ over a decade ago as a veil for unrestricted exercise of property rights.

Alex with that position dont expect anyone in UK planning or local government to take you bunch of sprawl loving clowns seriously.

National Planning Policy Framework Forensics #25 The Sequential Approach

This section completes consideration of retail and town centre issues in the practitioners draft of the NPPF looking at the sequential approach and impact test, in comparison to PPS4 policies EC14-17.

NPPF	PPS4	Comment
No equivalent section	References in this policy to planning applications for main town centre uses include any applications which create additional floorspace, including applications for internal alterations where planning permission is required, and applications to vary or remove conditions changing the range of goods sold.	This is an essential clarification which took many appeals to establish.  Lets not fight them all again.  LPAs will simply and unnecessarily bulk up local plans by adding these back in locally when many have now stripped them out.
Local planning authorities should apply a sequential approach to planning applications for retail and leisure uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan.	A sequential assessment is required for planning applications for main town centres uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up to date development plan. This requirement applies to extensions to retail or leisure uses only where the gross floor space of the proposed extension exceeds 200 square metres.	Does this imply that an applicant should submit a sequential assessment or is the onus now on LPAs?  It appears the latter.  This would be a big step back.  The development community sought the clarification on extensions – it should be retained.
Local planning authorities should prefer applications for retail and leisure uses to be located in town centres where practical, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. In applying this sequential approach local authorities should ensure that potential sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability and for their ability to meet the full extent of assessed quantitative and qualitative needs.	Planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan should be refused planning permission where:[the]… applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements [sic of] the sequential approach In considering sequential assessments required … local planning authorities should a. ensure that sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability.b. ensure that all in-centre options have been thoroughly assessed before less central sites are consideredc. ensure that where it has been demonstrated that there are no town centre sites to accommodate a proposed development, preference is given to edge of centre locations which are well connected to the centre by means of easy pedestrian access d. ensure that in considering sites in or on the edge of existing centres, developers and operators have demonstrated flexibility in terms of: scale: reducing the floorspace of their development; format: more innovative site layouts and store configurations such as multistorey developments with smaller footprints; car parking provision; reduced or reconfigured car parking areas; and the scope for disaggregating specific parts of a retail or leisure development, including those which are part of a group of retail or leisure units, onto separate, sequentially preferable, sites. However, local planning authorities should not seek arbitrary sub-division of proposals In considering whether flexibility has been demonstrated local planning authorities should take into account any genuine difficulties  which the applicant can demonstrate are likely to occur in operating the proposed business model from a sequentially preferable site, for example where a retailer would be limited to selling a significantly reduced range of products. However, evidence which claims that the class of goods proposed to be sold cannot be sold from the town centre should not be accepted	Key changes, essentially a winding back to earlier wordings on the sequential approach from the first version of PPG6: ‘Prefer’, woolly ‘where practical’ unless there is a definition of this in terms of flexibility etc it will lead to arguments on appeal. Duplication of available and suitable Deletion of the ‘well connected’ test – this is critical it is no use being edge of centre on the other side of a dual carriageway with no pedestrian links. Deletion of the business model-class of goods approaches will annoy developers who will lobby to put it back.  It was a complex means of dealing with the issue ‘Needs’ is used where before on page 10 it uses the preferable term ‘requirements’ The last part ‘their ability to meet the full extent of assessed quantitative and qualitative needs’.  Is a major watering down of the town centres first approach that would mean in many cases it would not apply as sites may not be able to meet the full needs.  It is though a form of reinserting the ‘needs test’. PPS4 had curiously dropped the ‘easily accessible by public transport’ test from PPS6, this is essential to sustainable development.
When assessing applications for retail or leisure development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold.In assessing the impact of retail and leisure proposals, authorities should consider: the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice.	Planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan should be refused planning permission where:there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in terms of any one of impacts set out in policies … (the impact assessment), taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments.An assessment addressing impacts .. is required for planning applications for retail and leisure developments over 2,500 square metres gross floorspace or any local floorspace threshold .. not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan [or where not yet revised] for retail and leisure developments below 2,500 square metres which are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan that would be likely to have a significant impact on other centres, & for planning applications in an existing centre which are not in accordance with the development plan and which would substantially increase the attraction of the centre to an extent that the development could have an impact on other centres. Planning applications for main town centres uses that are not in a centre (unless EC16.1.e applies) and not in accordance with an up to date development plan should be assessed against the following impacts on centres: a. the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal b. the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer c. the impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the development plan d. in the context of a retail or leisure proposal, the impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made, and, where applicable, on the rural economy e. if located in or on the edge of a town centre, whether the proposal is of an appropriate scale (in terms of gross floorspace) in relation to the size of the centre and its role in the hierarchy of centres f. any locally important impacts on centres under policy EC3.1.	What is the SoS policy on impact, he is merely described a procedure, by itself this has no place in the NPPF.Until the local plan is in place no impact assessment is needed for out of centre schemes whatever the size, is this what is intended?The existing wording is tortuous and can be simplified.

I would suggest a rewording of this section as follows:

The Sequential Approach

Applications for main town centre uses, and local plans should apply the sequential approach to selection of sites able to meet assessed shortfalls in qualitative and qualitative development requirements, namely:

• First develop sites in town centres;
• Followed by edge-centre-sites, which which are well connected to the centre by easy pedestrian access ;
• Finally out-of-centre sites easily accessible by public transport and walking from surrounding communities;
• Other sites are not acceptable. 

It will not be necessary to demonstrate the application of the sequential approach where a site is allocated in an up to date development plan.

The scale of proposals in and on the edge of town centres should be in proportion to the role out that centre in the network and hierarchy as set out in the development plan. 

Potential sites should be assessed for their availability, suitability and viability.  Reasonable flexibility will be needed on all sides. on format etc. (for clarity it is reasonable to expect the large majority of goods to be available in town centres, but it is not reasonable to expect chains to split stores into small parcels unable to display a reasonable range of goods).

The Impact Test

Where a  main town centre use is proposed on a site not allocated for development then it should demonstrate an acceptable impact, as follows:

1.  on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal
2. on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice.

 Such assessment should look at the impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made.

Local thresholds should be set for impact assessments, until then judgement should be used on whether a development will have a significant effect under this policy.

Note: References in these policies to planning applications for main town centre uses include any applications which create additional floorspace, including applications for internal alterations where planning permission is required, and applications to vary or remove conditions changing the range of goods sold.

Pickles lashes out at ‘Planning Vacuum’ Select Committee Report

The SoS has issued his response today to the Communities and Local Government Committee’s Report: Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies: a planning vacuum (Cm 8103).

We have made it plain that our decision to remove Regional Strategies was based on clear evidence that they did not work. We are determined to address this through our clear and comprehensive approach to reform: promoting economic growth and recovery through incentives such as the New Homes Bonus and a reformed Community Infrastructure Levy; encouraging local authorities to work together effectively across their boundaries through a strengthened duty to co-operate; and driving house building by combining the incentives we are introducing with the removal of top down targets.

But what Eric about the clear evidence collected by the committee that the abolition of RSS was having a major negative impact on housing allocations?

Unfortunately we don’t know as the Parliament server dealing with reports is down.  Will post the link when it is back.

The ‘Bunnyhuggars won’t like this’, ‘Polar Bears on the Nene’ Speech in full

The speech on Tuesday by Alan Melton, a bricklayer/small developer & leader of Fenland District Council, seems to be getting a lot of attention, especially from archaeologists who mr Melton is not a fan of.

Ill post a link to the full speech here, he speaks good sense and nonsense in equal measure, but its an extraordinarily outspoken speech.

What is interesting is the focus on maxing out the new homes bonus given his is a poor authority in a county that is historically more pro-development than others.  Lincolnshire’s structure plan used to say ‘Lincolnshire welcomes development’, and one district at one point reputedly had a 50 year land supply.  Its a marked contrast with, for example, Essex where districts tend to be some of the biggest gainers from NMB but where the pressure has all been down since the election.

Banky’s tribute to Brain Haw

National Planning Policy Framework Forensics #24 Town Centres & Retail

This will compare PPS4 on retail and town centres with the NPPF practitioners draft section on this (pages 19-21).  This will not be easy as this is arguably the most complex area of current national policy.

The objective of policy on town centres is, much same as before, just precised.

NPPF

PPS4

recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support the viability and vitality of town centres

promote the vitality and viability of town and other centres as important places for communities. To do this, the Government wants:– new economic growth and development of main town centre uses to be focused in existing centres, with the aim of offering a wide range of services to communities in an attractive and safe environment and remedyingdeficiencies in provision in areas with poor access to facilities– competition between retailers and enhanced consumer choice through the provision of innovative and efficient shopping, leisure, tourism and local services in town centres, which allow genuine choice to meet the needs of the entire community (particularly socially excluded groups)– the historic, archaeological and architectural heritage of centres to be conserved and, where appropriate, enhanced to provide a sense of place and a focus for the community and for civic activity

With a bit of tweaking I think the NPPF could express a more positive tone. The High Street is in trouble, it needs a more intensive focus of efforts to secure their competitiveness.  I would suggest:

 ‘Promote town centres as the heart of their communities, needing policy and action to innovate, secure investment and compete to ensure their  long term viability and vitality.  Policy needs to be realistic to the long term prospects of an area’.

The overall focus of the policy is much as before,

NPPF	PPS4
Local planning authorities should plan positively to promote competitive town centre environments and set out policies for the management and growth of centres over the plan period.	local planning authorities should, as part of their economic vision for their area, set out a strategy for the management and growth of centres over the plan period.

In terms of planning the retail hierarchy again the policy is very similar, but much shorter.  Nothing is really lost as the rest of this section of PPS4 is grandmother sucking eggs stuff.

NPPF

PPS4

Define a network (the pattern of provision of centres) and hierarchy (the role and relationship of centres in the network) of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes.

Define a network (the pattern of provision of centres) and hierarchy (the role and relationship of centres in the network) of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes, to meet the needs of their catchments having:i) made choices about which centres will accommodate any identified need for growth in town centre uses, considering their expansion where necessary, taking into account the need to avoid an over concentration of growth in centres. Identified deficiencies in the network of centres should be addressed by promoting centres to function at a higher level in the hierarchy or designating new centres where necessary, giving priority to deprived areas which are experiencing significant levels of ‘multiple deprivation’ whereii) ensured any extensions to centres are carefully integrated with the existing centre in terms of design including the need to allow easy pedestrian accessiii. where existing centres are in decline, considered the scope for consolidating and strengthening these centres by seeking to focus a wider range of services there, promoting the diversification of uses and improving the environmentiv. where reversing decline in existing centres is not possible, considered reclassifying the centre at a lower level within the hierarchy of centres, reflecting this revised status in the policies applied to the area. This may include allowing retail units to change to other uses, whilst aiming, wherever possible, to retain opportunities for vital local servicesv. ensured that the need for any new, expanded or redeveloped out-of-centre regional or sub-regional shopping centre or any significant change in the role and function of centres is considered through the regional spatial strategy

It is important the NPPF clarifies the role of the ‘duty to cooperate’ on sub-regional centres and boundary issues.

‘Where an existing centre serves a wider catchment than the local planning authority or a new or expanded sub-regional centre is proposed it is important that, as far as possible, the duty to cooperate leads to a common strategy leading to an agreed approach on the centres role’.

Otherwise we will be back to the age of lengthy public inquiries on the Lakesides and Bluewater Parks of this world.

On planning for sites.

NPPF

PPS4

Allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, commercial, community services and residential development required in town centres. This should include an assessment of the need to expand defined town centres to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable sites. It is important that retail and leisure needs are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability. Local planning authorities, therefore, should undertake an assessment of the need to expand town centres to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable sites;allocate appropriate edge of centre sites where suitable and viable town centre sites are not available, and if sufficient edge of centre sites cannot be identified, set policies for meeting the identified requirements in other  accessible locations;set policies for the consideration of retail and leisure proposals which cannot be accommodated in or adjacent to town centres;Local planning authorities should apply a sequential approach to planning applications for retail and leisure uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan.

Local planning authorities should identify an appropriate range of sites to accommodate the identified need, ensuring that sites are capable of accommodating a range of business models in terms of scale, format, car parking provision and scope for disaggregation. An apparent lack of sites of the right size  and in the right location should not be a reason for local planning authorities to  avoid planning to meet the identified need for development. Local planning  authorities should:a. base their approach on the identified need for developmentb. identify the appropriate scale of development, ensuring that the scale of the sites  identified and the level of travel they generate, are in keeping with the role and function of the centre within the hierarchy of centres and the catchment servedc. apply the sequential approach to site selection (see policy EC5.2)d. assess the impact of sites on existing centres (see policy EC5.4).e. consider the degree to which other considerations such as any physical regeneration benefits of developing on previously-developed sites, employment opportunities, increased investment in an area or social inclusion, may be material to the choice of appropriate locations for development

The section starts off fairly well, (although it repeats almost the same sentence twice), but:

• Unlike existing policy no real definition of town centre uses, despite being used twice in footnotes in defining other concepts.
• ‘Required in town centres’ could be used by the likes of Walmart to argue that they are required elsewhere. It is less strong than the previous concept of assessing need then allocating it sequentially.  We are now talking about requirements
• It looks at the need to expand town centres to accommodate the totality of uses, not just retail and leisure.  It might usefully refer to the need to intensify and expand town centres.
• The business models qualification has been dropped, as worded it could never be met and perversely disincentivised positive site identification in town centres.  A salutary lesson in what happens when BIS official write planning policy.
• ‘Assessment of the need to’ is too limp.
• The ‘role and function in the hierarchy- level of travel’ test is important.  The town centres first approach is undermined, as has sometimes happened, if local centred are allocated excessive development (in which case the needs and impact tests dont apply – see the Sainsburys Clapham Common court cases) -‘Out of town in town’.
• It confusingly sets out the sequential approach and impact as applying only to applications on unallocated sites outside town centres, whilst a version of the sequential approach without the impact assessment, applies to plan making.  This again is a perverse disincentive to positive plan making when issues of the impact of the expansion of one centre on another apply.  Plans for expansion of one town centre could be undermined by inappropriate out of town in town at another.

I would suggest this part is rewriten

‘The key policy is that town centres are the first choice for retail, leisure and other uses attracting a lot of people (main town centre uses).  Town centres are also important as places for higher density housing and the full range of other facilities contributing to vital communities. Large office and community facilities uses are also appropriate in areas with good public transport accessibility
Plans should allocate in town centres a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of assessed requirement for main town centre uses, as well as for housing and mixed uses; appropriate to the role and function in the network and hierarchy of centres, and their accessibility to a choice of means of transport. It is important that retail and leisure needs are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability.   Therefore plans to expand and intensify town centres should be drawn up and delivered  in partnership with business and local communities to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable sites.
If this requirement cannot be met in full in existing and expanded centres other locations should be assessed:
a) in line with the sequential appproach; &
b) by an assessment of impact on existing centres and on their plans for expansion’

LPAs are required to

define the extent of the town centre and the primary shopping area, based on a clear definition of primary and secondary frontages in designated centres, and set policies that make clear which uses will be permitted in such locations.

The definitions of edge of centre and primary shopping area are much the same as before however the edge of centre defintion drops off all of the clarifications on ease of walkability that have been established in landmark appeals.  A slightly expanded defintion is needed.

In the next post ill look at the sequential approach and the impact test.

The Chinese Interbank Liquidity Freeze Continues for Third Day

A continuous theme on this blog has been the problems in the Chinese Banking sector spurred in the main by toxic loans on property, a bubble which has now burst.

As ZeroHedge reports the Chinese Interbank lending rate has shot up from 4.2% to 8.8% over the last three days and is likely to rise to over 10% immenantly (edit now well over 9%).

The Chinese government continues to raise interest rates and reserve requirements.

Clearly Chinese banks are hurting like hell with almost no liquidity – echoes of 2008.

This may be just a short term effect from the impact of raising reserve requirements, there was a similar spike in Jan the last time reserve requirements were raised – but it still indicates weak liquidity and excessive leverage by Chinese Banks.  But building up reserves will require a squeeze of chinese depositors, and most worryingly for the Chinese economy further lending for domestic investment is likely to dry up.

Little flexibility to bail out the PIGS until they restore their reserves.

Who has insured the PIGS Sovereign Debt?

We have broken things down on here in the past on who onwns various countries soverign debt.

Kash Mansori at The Street Light blog has done us the service of looking at inderect exposure from BIS data, including insurance of loans through Credit Default Swaps.  The estimate is that about 30% of the debt is insured,

 If Greece were to default, for example, approximately 94% of the direct losses would fall on European creditors, and only 5% would fall on US creditors. However, US banks and insurance companies would have to make about 56% of the default insurance payouts triggered by such an event, while European agents would make only 43% of those payouts.

In the case of Greece and Portugal, the vast majority of the losses that would be borne by creditors in Europe would be direct losses. In fact, French and German creditors would almost certainly be substantial net recipients of default insurance payments. (That’s less clear in the case of Ireland.) Meanwhile, US financial institutions would have to make substantial net default insurance payments, which would account for between 80% and 90% of all losses borne by the US in the case of default…

some time soon it seems likely that European creditors will begin to prefer a “hard restructuring” that would require default insurance payouts from the US institutions that sold such insurance. Given how strikingly one-sided the net default insurance payments will be (from the US to Europe), it’s easy to imagine how that could shape future negotiations over debt relief for the PIGs.

Second, there’s an interesting puzzle here. Why have European and American financial institutions behaved so differently when it comes to the PIGs? Specifically, why have American firms been so willing to sell default insurance to the Europeans, though they have not bought much PIG debt? And conversely, why have the Europeans systematically been so eager to buy insurance for their PIG debt, even at the very high price such insurance now commands? In essence, European firms have been betting that a PIG default will happen sooner rather than later, while US firms have been betting that default would happen later or not at all.

She goes on to note that some American banks are now making a killing selling default insurance, $9 billion in 2010 from Bank of America Alone.

 it seems reasonable to guess that the total net open positions on CDS protection sold to third parties by the big US banks is between $1,500 and $2,000billion. Attributing $35 bn of that (about 2%) to Greece, which has certainly had one of the most active markets (proportionally) for CDS contracts over the past year, doesn’t seem to be a stretch.

how will you feel (assuming you don’t work on Wall Street) when you read the headline that Big Bank X lost money because it sold billions of dollars of credit default insurance while it was on taxpayer life-support? Rightly or wrongly, I’m guessing that Big Bank X will not be very popular for a while.

A thought, if vulture funds have bought PIGS debt at less than 30 cents on the euro and then insured 30% does this explain the behaviour?