Report of a workshop held by Sliver Studio – good report
Of course they are promoting their You Can Plan website, but this is quite exciting so I wont be cynical.
The Telegraph has a catty but inaccurate piece on the proposed ‘basement excavation’ (see below) on her £7.95 million Grade II listed new home, The Grove, at Highgate Hill, which was built by Blake and owned by Coleridge. Annie Lennox is a few doors down and friends Sienna Miller and Jude Law in the neighbourhood.
The application which includes basement gym and steam room
local Green Party councillor Maya de Souza has weighed into the debate by warning that the work could disrupt local water supplies.
Explaining her reservations, she said: “My concern is the impact on groundwater flows. This has been known to impact severely on neighbours and can affect water bodies like Highgate ponds as well as causing construction-related nuisance.
“Large basements can mean huge numbers of lorry movements which cause too much disturbance and a risk to other residents.”
She added: “I’ll be asking for proper reports on groundwater and the early submission of a contract management plan and if they are not satisfactory I’d like to see the application refused.”…
One neighbour, who did not want to be named, said: “Kate’s house is beautiful as it is – why is she so determined to turn it into something it is not?”
He added: “The groundwater in Highgate is easily disturbed and can easily cause flooding to neighbours if workers are not very, very careful.
“A number of basement conversions in the area have caused serious problems in the past and the people who live around here just want them to stop.”
So what about the science?
A report by Arup Geotechnics for K&C last year found
A solitary, isolated basement is unlikely to affect groundwater flows. It has been suggested that it may be useful to require subterranean developers to leave a buffer of soil between adjacent basements in order to enable groundwater to flow around and between individual basements. This provision is unlikely to be necessary as the groundwater in London’s water table can tend to find an alternative route, even under obstructions as large as “city blocks”. Concerns about theimpact of subterranean developments on groundwater levels and flows are likely to be misplaced.
However one would expect councillors to actually read the planning application notifications and look at the plans. The application is for listed building consent only. There is no basement excavation Andrew Lloyd Webber stylie.
The application is solely to for modest alterations, not excavations or extensions, as the plans show, including a tiny gym and steam room entirely within the existing sub-basement. I hope the Telegraph and the good Cllr apologise to Queen Kate.
Stewart Baseley, executive chair of the Home Builders Federation on weds;
“This is the most important planning policy since the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947. It is vital we have a sensible debate and ensure we get it right. Scaremongering by anti-growth groups has resulted in negative reports and a false impression that threatens to stunt constructive discussion over how to shape and guide development in the future. We have an acute housing crisis that has resulted in millions living in sub standard accommodation or on waiting lists and young people unable to buy their own home. To address this we need a planning system that balances social, economic and environmental concerns. The ongoing debate must focus on the wider needs of the country, not the narrow focus of a few.”
Not everyone opposing the NPPF is ant-growth, they are simply in favour of planned and truly sustainable growth. Painting arguments in this black and white way, and saying that opponents are committing some form of economic treason is not taking discussion forward. You win- we lose arguments will mean that the NPPF, in its current form, will lose because the forces of the shires have now turned so sharply against it.
Is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach?
No, neither. The presumption – or PISD as it has become known – has a central logical flaw. The fact that sustainable development cannot be achieved without certain kinds of growth doesn’t imply that all kinds of growth promote sustainable development. Strikingly there is no presumption against unsustainable development. It is unbalanced.
A related flaw is apparent if we look at para. 14 which sets out 3 logical combinations but is silent on the fourth.
|Development Plan Adopted and Up to Date||Development Plan either non adopted , not up to date, Silent or Indeterminate|
|Scheme accords with Development Plan||Approve without delay||Grant Permission|
|Scheme contrary to Development Plan||NPPF is silent||Grant Permission|
Now the assumption is that, as in the top left box, section 36(1) of the Planning and Compensation Act (2004) applies.
If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
But a reader from outside a planning background will not know this. The NPPF is a document that is supposed to be usable by non-experts but which will in fact but unusable unless you know the legal principles on which the planning system is based and on which the NPPF is silent. It will not be usable by lay people – contrast it with, for example, the opening pages of Planning Policy Wales which sets these principles out clearly.
The presumption in favour of development is quite old, dating back to the Circular accompanying the Chamberlain Housing Act of 1923
the presumption should always be in favour of the person seeking consent to interim development, and obstacles should not be placed in the way of such development, except in the case where it is clearly detrimental to local interests and needs
Over the years the wording of it, as a policy not statute law, has changed. It was given particular stress in circular 22/80. Following the passage of the Planning and Compensation Act 2001, which introduced the Presumption in Favour of the Development Plan national policy at the time (PPG1) was alteration to square with it – though there was a tension. In 2005 PPS1 abolished the Presumption in Favour of Development – Leaving only the Presumption if Favour of the Plan. This created a problem. It depended on up to date plans.
The poor, and late, plan coverage has been a problem throughout the history of British Planning. Currently around 30% of UK planning authorities have adopted core strategies. If plans are slow to prepare and late, and plan making is the primary means to provide additional housing, then they will create a continuously growing shortage of housing and an ever greater amount of new housing that needs to be allocated to catch up.
The national housing shortage is well documented. The number of households in England is projected to grow to 27.5 million in 2033, an increase of 5.8 million (27 per cent) over 2008, or 232,000 households per year. This translates into a requirement for new dwellings of roughly 240,000 dwellings a year. In Q2 2011 housebuilding fell 4% in England from the previous quarter. In 2011 we look likely to build only around half the houses needed.
When the Q1 housebuilding statistics were released the government claimed this was evidence that the policies of revoking regional plans and introducing the New Homes Bonus was working. In fact analysis of the data showed that the Q1 rise was due to a rise in London, the one region to have maintained regional housebuilding targets.
Though plan making progress has been unacceptably slow there has been an upturn in housebuilding levels since the 2004 Act, The Barker Review 2004 and the Housing Green Paper 2005 which set national housebuilding targets, progress sustained until the Great Recession. This progress has been undone, in part by the by the recession and in part by the dramatic lowering of housebuilding targets in development plans since May 2010 (this is not a political point simply a statement of fact). A reduction estimated by BNP Paribas in June as being on average 20.6% per authority.
From Planning Inspectorate Data it is clear that in early 2010 around 2/3rds of English Planning Authorities were programmed to have examinations completed and adopted plans in place by the end of 2011. So clearly despite the slowness of plan making a big ‘bulge’ of catching up was due to come forward. Finally by the end of 2010 was programmed national coverage of regional plan housing targets. So plans were coming forward, despite a desperate dragging of feet by a minority of Local Planning Authorities, with up to date numbers meeting housing need, otherwise they would not have been found ‘sound’. When these plans were adopted there was sure to be a bulge in housing starts. There always is when new plans, releasing new land, are adopted.
All of this good work was undone by the unwise, and as it turned out unlawful, ‘revocation’ of regional plans in June 2010. They still have not been revoked. The Localism Bill has not yet been granted Royal Assent. Even then the SoS has undertaken in April, not to enact Secondary Legislation until, as he is required to do under a European Directive, a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the effects of revocation, consulted on this and react to the results of consultation with an open mind. This consultation has not yet even begun, but is required to by the EU directive, be at an ‘early stage’ of the decision making process. One that the SoS needs to take with an ‘open mind’. Given ministers statements and caselaw it is likely that statements of predetermination will see a successful legal challenge. Please question minister on the reason for the delay. Please also question the minister, in the light of his wholly inadequate response to your committees earlier report on the abolition of regional plans, that if the SA/SEA finds significant adverse social, environmental or economic impacts will they reconsider the ‘intention’ to revoke? In any event it looks like that it will be at least a year more of regional plan targets before they are revoked.
Since the June 2010 statement there has been a dramatic slowing of planning for housing, as your committee found. Plans about to be submitted have been delayed by a year or more. Even plans mid examination have been delayed, with one examination (South Wilts) that should have lasted at most a few weeks now lasting over a year as the authority rewrote it to reduce housing. Even in one case a plan was withdrawn the day it the inspectors report was received (Coventry). Other plans have been withdrawn the even though they have been submitted (Aylesbury), and the SoS has allowed them to do so (the power to prevent this stalling is proposed to be removed by the Localism Bill). So for these and many other local planning authorities effectively starting again they are at least 2 years from adoption.
What we have seen is the largest and most important housing sites in England deleted. Growth areas around Milton Keynes, Aylesbury, Northampton, Bristol and many many other town have now gone, or have been frozen in ministerial induced uncertainty. The system of planning for housing has been thrown into chaos. Ministers have stated that eventually the New Homes Bonus will induce more housing to be allocated, one has to ask where? Can ministers name a significant number local planning authorities that have decided to increase its housebuilding levels above regional plan levels. Rather LPAs have overwhelmingly either kept to the same targets or significantly reduced them.
Seeing this dramatic scaling back one has to ask if Ministers are giving up on the plan-led route and are looking for a plan b.
Frustration with slow progress on plan making has affected national policy several times before and I would suggest to your committee it is the key issue regarding the NPPF.
Ensuring that plans were simpler and quicker to prepare were central to the Falconer reforms enacted in 2004, on which I advised then then ODPM putting forward the concept of ‘core strategies’. Unfortunately the implementation was poor. By creating new statutory plans rather than amending existing statutes there was the impression given that everything had to start again in new form. Wales, which instead had a one page reform of development plan law in the form I had recommended, now has 70% coverage as opposed to England’s 30%. Rather than making large ‘strategic’ housing allocations part of strategies this was shifted back – an error not corrected until 2008.
Some pre-development authorities have pressed forward, others awaited until controversial issues were resolved, a minority has dragged their heels, waiting for the election. Those recaltrants, urged on by then shadow ministers, felt they would have the ability to set what targets they liked. The now ministers have sensibly considered that this would result in a unacceptable slashing of housebuilding and plans should meet need, or ensure that it is met elsewhere. But those local authorities now feel betrayed
The problem was there was never enough carrot and stick to rapidly produce plans that local politicians saw as career destroying. The current government has rightly seen the need to have more of both. The issue is how it is done.
The tactic has been set out by John Howells MP in ‘Open Source Planning’ the consequences of which were laid out in a Speech he made to the HBF in February.- where a development plan was out of date it was then to be ‘assumed to have a completely permissive planning system’ and a developer could then build ‘what they like, where they like and when they like , provided they met new national planning guidance being worked up in tandem with the localism bill.’ This is exactly what has been introduced in the NPPF. Your committee may well ask whether this is Town and Country Planning at all?
What will happen then where a planning application comes forward following adoption of the NPPF and relevant policies in the NPPF are not up to date?
This is an issue that has been current since the Barker Review of Land Use Planning in 2006 , it did not originate with the coalition government. From this came the suggested wording that there should be a presumption in favour of development where a plan was out-of-date, absent, silent, or indeterminate. This was proposed in the draft PPS4, applying only to economic development not housing, but following consultation feedback did not find its way into the final version.
The wording of the NPPF in para 16 mean that in this case decisions makers should ‘grant permission…unless unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.’ (para. 14)
In addition where the application is for housing, and the plan cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing supply then para. 110 baldly states that ‘planning permission should be granted’ no if and no buts, effectively a ‘double presumption’.
It unlikely that there will be a single development plan in the country that will be up to date in the manner that the NPPF requires when it is finalised. Even the 30% of adopted plans will not have the extra 20% of housing required by the NPPF in the first 5 years (para 109).
So early next year where a council has not been meeting its 5 year supply, which very few will because of the recession and the NPPF raising targets, the presumption as worded means that the decision maker will be required to grant permission unless it is contrary to the NPPF.
However with the default ‘yes’ in the draft NPPF there are actually very few cases where it would contrary and could be refused. There are obvious examples where policy similar to current applies, such as AONB, European protected sites, Green Belt, the new Local Greenspace designation (for small areas when plans are adopted). But these only apply to a minority of areas. What is notable is how the NPPF strips away policy protecting most of England. I will go into the key problematic policy changes later but some are worth highlighting to illustrate just how much the NPPF has opened the taps to development in many areas:
-Firstly the policy preference towards previously developed sites is removed
-The protection of the countryside for its own sake is removed, a policy that has stood for 60 years.
-The protection for employment sites is removed, even where there is a strong demand for and local shortage of such sites.
-There is no protection for attractive or sensitive landscapes, other than national designated areas or small areas of local green space
-The ability to set a strategy to prioritise some sites over others when there is a shortfall is removed
-There is no requirement that new housing is well designed, only that its design is not ‘unacceptably poor’
What this means is, in effect, in the large majority of cases such applications will have to be approved. Realising this a flood of speculative applications, which previously would have been refused, are coming forward.
What the draft NPPF does is in effect turn back planning much of planning policy 30 years to 1980. Noted planning lawyer Martin Goodall saw the change coming in March 2011.
The general approach of the government, developed in the Conservative party’s final years in opposition, appeared to be rather anti-development, and brought joy to hearts of the NIMBYs. Now, we are getting pronouncements which sound much more like those of Thatcher and Heseltine post-1979, promoting the idea that development could and would be the engine of economic recovery……Could we be about to see the end of the ‘plan-led’ system and a return to planning by appeal? …Perhaps Pickles and his merry men should make a start by dusting off Circulars 9/80, 22/80, 15/84 and 14/85 and re-publishing them in modern form.
This is just what we have seen. These ancient and discredited circulars from the Nicholas Ridley era of planning by appeal have indeed been resurrected. Whole phrases and policies from these circulars have been reborn in and as the NPPF.
As of August 2011 local planning authorities now have 5-8 months to prepare new development plans before the maelstrom of the presumption is released. This is unrealistic, even the swiftest plan revision will take a year. Indeed many of the staff who would be preparing plans will be fighting appeals for speculative applications on unsuitable sites.
What is worse the fundamental platform on which updated plans are prepared, knowing what the housing target should be, has been taken away with the planned revocation of regional plans. Decision makers are unclear on what to base future 5-15 year housing targets. In the West Midlands and South West, where regional strategies are out of date and reviews never finished, plans in some districts are over 10 years old. This has given the SoS considerable difficulties in a recent appeal deciding exactly what the 5 year target should be based on. Indeed in that same case the scheme was refused on ‘localist’ anti-development grounds last year – and following judicial review with the reinstatement of regional plans – was approved under the post-budget ‘planning for growth’ this year. This illustrates the u-turn in national planning policy away from localism.
One saving grace of the NPPF is that sites still have to be suitable for housing. But local planning authorities will not be able to choose between the most suitable and less suitable. If a site meats the minimum thresholds of the NPPF, in terms of infrastructure, flood risk, having some potential access to public transport etc. then it will be acceptable at ‘5 year supply’ shortage appeals, even though the site might be the least suitable, least accessible and least preferred site around a settlement. This completely undermines planning and plan making.
The approach contrasts with current policy policy in PPS3 para.s 60-72 (and which certainly is too long and woolly) which requires ‘management action’ when there is a shortfall – i.e. the local planning authority deciding which additional sites to bring forward, against its strategy.
It is essential that where land releases take place it takes place against a strategy. Otherwise we could see chaotic appeal led planning of the sort we saw in the 1980s where housing is planned on a site by site basis, without due consideration, and without regard to the view of the local community about how their future should be shaped.
In many cases, particularly for many of the ‘cause célèbre’ ’ housing sites, it is not an issue of whether but when sites are developed. At many appeals local groups may oppose a site in principle, but the arguments turn not on a sites suitability, because alternative sites often turn out to be far less accessible and sustainable, but when. Does the area have a 4 year housing supply or 7, for example. Similarly at development Plan EiPs. This often comes as a surprise to local residents. But understanding this can take the heat out of many arguments about housing targets. A slightly higher or lower housing targets will in most cases simply mean whether a site is pushed back or brought forward by a small number of years. The real priority is to ensure that all English local planning authorities have a ‘rank order’ of development sites in a housing delivery plan.
Such an approach is already partially in place with almost total coverage of England now with Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAAs). This shows that there is plenty of potentially suitable housing sites, but whether or not they are acceptable depends on a strategy. Sites may be physically ‘suitable’ but not ‘acceptable’ according to a strategy which sets growth in one direction or another to ensure acceptable cumulative impact and matching development to infrastructure.
I propose a reform which will ensure that there is continuous and steady delivery of new housing at a pace to meet our nations needs – the national government’s main concern, but in a way that is planned and occurs in a manner determined by local government and communities – local government’s main concern.
Such an approach would have three components.
1) Set a strict, tough and binding statutory timetable for plan making. With a period of one year (till end of 2012) before the full force of the ‘presumption’ applies to new housing to enable local planning authorities to get new plans in place.
2) All local planing authorities to publish a ‘housing site ranking’ in advance of their final plans – with appeals determining whether sites in that ranking are brought forward or not
3) Tough new structures over the duty to cooperate’ to resolve inter-authority squabbles which are holding up plan making.
I deal with the the third issue in a later section. All three parts are crucial to an action plan that would work.
The idea of a short delay before the ‘presumption’ comes into play has been suggested in Open Source Planning and also supported by an Jack Dromy MP. It is possible to get plans in place within 1 year. The regulations allow for it and the ‘stick’ of the presumption coming into play encourages it. Amendments to the localism bill could make it statutory and set financial and other penalties, such as powers in default, or powers for planning consultancies to take over plan making in default, if plans are not in place. All or part of The main issue is a logistical one, determining many plan examinations at once in Autumn 2012. This is manageable. Local Planning Authorities can prepare joint plans to reduce the number of examinations. There were a number of plan examiners laid off in 2010 because of a ‘lack of demand’ with many plans delayed. Temporary and retired inspectors can be brought in. Planning barristers can be drafted in as temporary inspectors rather than fighting appeals (each appeal of course takes two barristers). It is doable, with resources and efforts. Resources which would otherwise be spent at appeals.
The housing site ranking is simply an extension of what many authorities are doing already. Even before an authority finalises its housing target in its submitted plan it can publish its preferred site ranking at an earlier stage. All local authorities now have consulted on directions of growth and so there is no reason why they cannot decide on a rank-ordering, even though they might argue that at a certain point development should not take place. This would be then used on appeal if an area fell short on its 5 year supply. Where a site was next in line the decision would be straightforward. If it was further down an appellant would need to successfully argue that it should be preferred over other higher ranked order sites.
This would be much better than the crude binary ‘yes’, ‘no’ approach. If a local group wanted to argue that a site they wished to protect should be ranked lower, it would require then to demonstrate that other sites should be ranked higher. The reality that tough decisions on housing cannot be dodged would be apparent.
Finally your committee might want to consider that the ‘presumption in favour’ might also be balanced by a few other positive planning presumptions in favour, to ensure that poor schemes do not slip through. I would suggest:
Cameron’s guru Phllip Blond has been approvingly tweeting links to the following article for his Respublica Think Tank Blog by Majeed Neky campaigner for Living Streets.
The rights-based approach taken by the Coalition in promoting aspects of the localism agenda is a powerful rhetorical tool. The granting of a new ‘right’ is cast as a benevolent act from Government and lends the exercise an air of permanence: once given, it is difficult to take a right away without a fight.
However, to be credible in the longer term, these rights have to help communities deliver on their own priorities.
Take the Community Right to Buy. This worthy measure has been scaled back from its original ambition that ‘local people and organisations will
be given first refusal to take over community amenities’, as in the Scottish model. Instead, the Community Right to Buy now consists of a moratorium, perhaps
as short as three months, on any asset of local value, after which the landowner can proceed to sell it at any price to any buyer. This doesn’t address the fact that many communities will simply struggle to raise the funds to make a bid for an asset at market price. Will such a right enhance the quality of many people’s lives?
Far more fundamental to most people’s experience than building or buying facilities is protecting those that are already there. Yet the Localism Bill makes no provisions for communities to safeguard the local shops and services at their heart in order to help maintain vibrant, sociable, walking-friendly neighbourhoods. Changes of use to basic local shops and services such as community pubs or banks often fall under permitted development and can therefore proceed without the need to apply for planning permission.
Some surprising changes of use can have major impacts on communities – for example, changes from a pub to a pawnbroker or a bank to a betting shop can currently occur with no voice for the local community. Planning industry technicalities can only take the argument so far: communities intuitively feel that classing banks and betting shops together is nonsensical, and 81 per cent of us think communities should have a say on changes of use in their local area.
We have the Community Rights to Buy, to Build, to Challenge – why not a Community Right to Protect?
Living Streets has exposed the isolation, lack of physical activity, inequality and neighbourhood decline caused by a lack of local shops and services within walking distance. Though committed localists may wish it were otherwise, many people will care more about being able to access the services they need in their neighbourhood than about who runs them.
With the Government reviewing the rules on permitted development, providing for communities to have a say when local shops and services change use would be simple to implement legislatively.
Another, more community-driven alternative would be to empower neighbourhood forums to amend these rules for their area through neighbourhood planning. Currently,
neighbourhood development orders are allowed to liberalise restrictions, but not to tighten them – even if that’s what the neighbourhood community wants.
Such simple, fundamental rights as having a say on a planning application are a much-needed stepping stone to the more radical end of Big Society activity such as taking over a local amenity; without them in place, the fabric of the localism agenda, already beset by cynicism, will be strained even further.
Property Week (paywall) is reporting that property groups are fearing a u-turn by the government on planning because of the rapid galvanisation of environmental groups against it and a potential revolt of the ‘tory heartlands’. Such a revolt is well under way galvanised around the coalition of groups that defeated the forestry sell – offs, but with the added effect of gathering signatures on petitions at National Trust Properties at weekends.
The government cannot win on this one. There initial approach was so gung-hu and comically pro-developers that it might actually reduce development, as similarly misconceived reforms have done in the past. Don’t be too surprised if the Autumn sees an NHS style ‘listening’ campaign. When the government actually starts to call up and listen to a representative cross section of those with ideas and experience in this field we will know it is serious about real planning (as opposed to anti-planning) reform.
New Moscow Mayor Mayor Sergei Sobyanin at a briefing with Journalists on the planned expansion of Moscow – physically and its city limits has called for
the world’s leading town planners to get involved in the scheme.
“I’m inviting the best in the world, not just our own, so they can help us see with fresh eyes,” he said.
A competition will be launched to secure contracts for the development of the entire metropolitan area, including both old and new Moscow.
The Mayor also announced that the area of the proposed city expansion is likley to more than double atking in an area of largely abandoned villages (some with a registered population of one).
Moscow has for years had a corrupt and problematic planning system, particularly under its previous (deposed) Mayor. Moscow Heritage has come under particular threat causing a popular pro-heritage movement to emerge. Moscow’s housing is the most overcrowded of any European City and it has become increasingly congested, with an 80 year old creaking public transport system. Groups concerned with protecting ecology and parklands have become increasingly active.
There are also concerns about whether the direction of growth chosen for Moscow is appropriate. It is doable in the Long terms with major new infrastructure, roads and freeways, but over the next 10 years to take the pressure off the central area Moscow needs a plan that maximises use of existing and medium term planned infrastructure, and upgrades the infrastructure of the city itself.
The ‘expansion’ of Moscow is looking so large that it might best be considered a ‘town city’ approach – like Dallas/Fort Worth or Minneapolis/St Paul which is workable, but in the short term Moscow needs to expand and rapidly.
Hongyi Lai of the University of Nottingham writes of growing social unrest in China and why policies focussed exclusively on growth have not lessened tensions they have made them worse.
Protests and riots have often been triggered by minor happenings or unfounded rumors, a reflection of the frustration among the working class that has built up as the gap between the haves and have-nots has widened. The gap, also known as the Gini coefficient in China, is now around 0.5, well above the internationally recognized warning level of 0.4. And the disposable income of the average rural resident fell to 30.5 percent of that of an average urban resident in 2006, down from 53.8 percent in 1985.
Many local governments have focused most of their efforts on catering to the needs of entrepreneurs rather than offering economic assistance and providing welfare to the lower-income classes. Using the governmental budget for social spending is viewed as economically wasteful and unhelpful for generating high economic growth. Many officials would rather concentrate on wooing investment in order to generate GDP than on collecting and channeling revenue into local welfare programs and equal income distribution….
High economic growth is no panacea for social and political problems. Stability can be earned not only through stimulating economic growth, but also by fairly distributing its benefits among the population and respecting their legitimate rights and interests. This mixture of policies is a far more effective remedy for social problems than growth alone.
Lets have a look at GINI coefficient levels and see what it tells us.
The UK has been a powerderkeg. A high and rising GINI coefficient and an absolute fall in living standards for the poorest and average segments seem to strongly correlate with social unrest. Brazil has one of the highest GINI coefficients in the world but its middle class has been booming, a recession could be dangerous. Similarly for India which has the fastest rising GINI coefficient in the world.
The latest issue of Social Trends shows that the UK is a very unequal country by European standards – we have levels of inequality that are normally found in the EU’s poorer Mediterranean and Balkan members.
Commentary on monetary policy in the spirit of R. G. Hawtrey
Exploring the issues, leading the debate
WordPress.com is the best place for your personal blog or business site.
an unofficial blog of the Planning Advisory Service team
Campaigning for a Sustainable National Planning Policy Framework
A Cognitive Dissident
The Grasslands Trust team blog about nature conservation and broader environmental issues, always with a focus on our threatened grassland habitats. The views in this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Trust.
A blog about better decisions, better urban planning and better economics
A developer blogs for Regeneration & Renewal magazine