Brandon Lewis Announces Triumph of Spending 3.2 Billion to Influence 150 People

The Minister for Housing and Planning today announced the triumph of spending 3.2 billion pounds of government spending on the New Homes Bonus the only positive impact his own departments review has found being that less than half of Heads of Planning thinks it acts as a powerful incentive to housebuilding.

He denied the government planned to more directly influence the remaining 180 heads of planning by sending them 1.6 million pounds each.

The RTPI commented – of course Heads of Planning will favour a grant which props up the budget in some authorities.  But that has nothing whatsoever to do with their support of this policy.

Government Review Finds 3 Billion spent on New Homes Bonus for ‘Limited Impact’ Yet Brandon Lewis Lies and Says its Working

Today Brandon Lewis announced the latest tranche of New Homes Bonus saying ‘incentives like the New Homes Bonus are working well.’ even though his own departments review published today says it has limited impact.  He doesn’t even provide a link to teh report in his press release – showintg he is trying to cover up the news.  Ill provide a link here.  Government press releases are issued by civil servants not political spin doctors – time for a letter of complaint.

Some findings

The Bonus was seen to be a contributory factor towards reinforcing attitudinal shifts towards new homes, but was not found to be directly shaping attitudes so far. (pg3)

The Bonus was so far found to be having only a modest direct impact on Local Planmaking. Although recognising the Bonus was just one of a number of factors influencing the number of new homes in Local Plans, only 11% of officers agreed ithad been an “important influence on the number of new homes proposed or adopted” in their Local Plan, and few felt it was a “significant factor” in the
consultation and discussion of Local Plans so far (pg 4)

Similarly the Bonus was seen to be having only a limited role and impact on planningapplications and decisions. Just over a third of planners stated they took into account Bonus receipts when considering planning applications, with over half saying they never took such receipts into account. There were also only a very small number of authorities using Bonus receipts to spend on activities that might be
directly related to developments, and as such there was limited potential for theBonus to be seen as a “material consideration” when making a decision. (pg 5)

Although there was evidence the policy was beginning to impact positively on attitudes, the impact has been more limited in relation to plan making or planning decisions so far (pg5)

Im sure the ‘so far’ bits were added by SPADS or Bungalow Bob to massage the conclusions of a devastating report – 3 billion down the drain when it could have financed half a dozen Garden Cities.   There is no evidence in the  report that it will ever work.   Its pious hope. When someone comes  to write teh history of the colaition the NHB will be seen as one fo the greatest failures.

What is the purpose of NHB, incentive or grant aid for growth.  It was launched as incentive. If it is now being justified as grant aid just add an element to teh gneral needs formula based on housing need or past growth.

Brandon Lewis what a lair, even more blatant than Grant Shapps, at least Shapps just selectively misquots  statistics, Lewis just outright lies.

“Councils have received more than £3 billion for their part in getting Britain building, and as a result housing construction has reached its highest level for 7 years.

What evidence does he have that this is ‘as a result’, one whatsover, as opposed to the housing shortage and house price boom

Do Gladmans Know What County They are In?

In a Daily Mail profile

Here in Bampton, there have also been concerns about some of Gladman’s claims. The company literature states it has ‘proactively engaged’ with Bampton Parish Council and the Society for the Protection of Bampton.

‘They never contacted us,’ says parish councillor, Richard McBrien. ‘Haven’t heard a thing,’ says Trevor Milne-Day, chairman of the society. Hilariously, the Gladman bid also refers to the local town of Witney as ‘Whitney’ (perhaps the author is a Whitney Houston fan) and calls the local authority Cheshire East Council.(its West Oxfordshire).

Jeremy Bentham Gives Oliver Blanchard Some Economics Advice

Today at UCL

The DCLG Select Committee thinks Local Plan Approval Rates can increase by Ten Fold – A Fantasy

Why so much faith that the ‘fix’ to the build what you like where you like world of teh NPPF is to have more local plans?  As the DCLG Select Committee thinks.  For a while Brandon Lewis seemed to have given up on local plans but now he criticizes ‘slow coaches’ = learning from his boss to bash local government for your own policy failings.

But this is completely impractical.  Only 12 plans were found sound in  2013. I havent kept a running total for 2014 but it has to be less or around that number.

The recent National Trust report showed that over half of local plans were now out of date in terms of 5 years supply.  That figure will surely grow especially as dozens of authorities now have to deal with Brum and London overspill, and they have no idea just how much OAN they should take as a result.

To get every local authority to have adopted plans within 3 years as the DCLG select committee suggests is a non solution.  It would require a 5-10 fold increase in plan adoptions, at a time when local planning authorities will have to do cuts again on top of the 57% cuts they did to planning during the coalition.  Where are all of the inspector sot come from?  How will the LPAs work out their overspill OAN given the lcak of regional studies (except for Greater Brum) and in the absence for mechanism for agreeing overspill (including Greater Brum).  Its a total fantasy it wont happen.

The only way to have planned housing meeting need rather than speculative bloat of villages is to abandon the idea that local plans can fill the gap in the timescale needed whoever wins the next election – they cant.  Local plans are a good answer to a different question – where you know how much shortage housing in a local area you need to build where to build it.  But local authorities dont know the scale of metropolitan overspill so they cant. The only solution is to recognise that a big gap needs big solutions – that:

1) We need to dramatically bring forward regeneration of  major brownfield sites in urban areas – which will meet about 20% of the housing need from even the CPRE figures

2) We need to bring forward a new wave of Garden Cities and Sustainable Urban Extensions – which from the Shelter calculations similarly meets 20% of the need.

In neither case is putting all of our hopes and no money into local plans is not the solution.  We need masterplans and strategic plans – then local plans can catch up once we have done the real big boy grown up planning.

Daily Mail – Planning Policy Warning #NPPF

Daily Mail

The Government’s flagship planning policy is leading to “inappropriate and unwanted housing development”, MPs have warned.

The cross-party Communities and Local Government Committee also raised concerns that town centres were not being given proper protection against the threat from large out-of-town retail developments.

They called for the Government to scrap rules allowing small shops and offices to be converted to housing without the need for planning permission, arguing that the changes could lead to town centres becoming “an unattractive place to visit or, indeed, live”.

 MPs have warned the Government’s planning policy is not giving town centres enough protection

The MPs welcomed the intention behind the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which ministers said slimmed-down 1,000 pages of “often impenetrable jargon” to 50 pages.

But the MPs said changes were needed to ensure that the NPPF’s goal of sustainable development was met, by ensuring that “the same weight is given to the environmental and social as to the economic dimension”, with “due emphasis on the natural environment”.

The committee said: “Our report has identified a number of issues with the operation of the NPPF: that it is not preventing unsustainable development; that it is leading to communities being subject to inappropriate and unwanted housing development; and that it is giving insufficient protection to England’s town centres.”

But there was no need to “tear up or withdraw” the controversial document, but insisted ministers should ” reinforce its provisions and ensure it does the job it was intended to do”.

The MPs called on councils to ensure that they had a local plan in place for their areas, as it was “vital to the success of the NPPF that all local planning authorities have in place an adopted, up-to-date local plan”.

They said: “Councils that fail to produce a plan surrender their ability to influence the future development of their local areas.”

The committee’s Labour chairman Clive Betts said: “Councils must do more to protect their communities against the threat of undesirable development by moving quickly to get an adopted local plan in place.

“The NPPF is designed to work side by side with local plans. At the moment, 41% of local authorities do not have an adopted local plan which is simply not good enough.

“To put an end to councils dragging their feet on this issue, we call for the Government to make it a statutory requirement for councils to get local plans adopted within three years of the legislation being enacted.

“We must also close the loophole that allows developers to challenge the inclusion of sites within a council’s five year supply on the grounds of viability.

“We heard that developers were claiming sites were unviable in order to obtain planning permission on other, more lucrative sites against the wishes of the council and community.

“In doing so, they are undermining and delaying the local planning process. Requiring all sites with planning permission to be counted towards an authority’s five year supply will help put a stop to this behaviour and give communities greater protection.”

The committee warned that the Government’s planning policies are not doing enough to ensure the health and vibrancy of town centres.

Mr Betts said: “The internet has revolutionised the way we shop and yet too often the way we plan for our town centres seems preserved in aspic.

“Planning needs to develop greater flexibility to adapt to changing trends and be sharp enough to offer our town centres greater protection.

“The Government should scale back ‘permitted development’ which allows shops and banks to become homes without planning permission. It is too random and is hollowing out the commercial heart of our town centres. Councils have to be able to plan strategically for the future of their communities.”

The National Trust said the committee’s report was the latest sign that the NPPF was allowing developers to ignore the wishes of local communities.

Rick Hebditch, the charity’s assistant director of external affairs, said: “”The National Trust welcomes the findings of this cross-party report. The Government needs to tackle loopholes in the NPPF which mean it is too open to challenge from streetwise developers.

“The committee’s findings are the latest in a growing body of evidence that the NPPF is allowing developers to ignore the local communities it said would be at the very heart of its new approach.

“New National Trust research shows that even where a council has a local plan in place, these are being challenged by developers.

“The Government’s planning rules need revising so that they put people and places first.”

Planning Minister Brandon Lewis stressed the importance of councils having a local plan and criticised “slow-coach” authorities who had not published one.

He said: “This Government’s planning reforms have ensured strong protections of the open countryside and the Green Belt, while at the same time putting power back in the hands of local people through the abolition of top-down regional strategies.

“Our locally-led planning reforms are working, as 240,000 badly needed new homes received planning permission in the last 12 months.

“But the simple way for councils to send speculative developers packing is to have an up-to-date local plan – 80% of councils now have a published local plan and slow-coach councils should be held to account by local voters for dragging their feet.”

A Local Government Association spokesman said: “Councils have long been calling for an end to Government’s permitted development policy, which has seen high streets and communities changed with no consultation of those living and working in them, as well as pressure on schools, roads and health services.

“The committee is right to recognise that permitted development rights are not working and we urge government to listen to the committee’s call to end them.

“It is absolutely vital that planning decisions are made in line with the wishes of local communities. Councils work hard to engage with residents and consult on plans for development.

“Local plans provide a framework for development in communities but getting a local plan right can take time.

“This is not the right time to change the NPPF and rather than make changes or issue new guidance, we need the Government to provide developers and communities with certainty over the system and give the framework time to bed in.”

Brian Berry, chief executive of the Federation of Master Builders, said: “The committee is right to stress the importance of maintaining adequate levels of investment in planning departments. Although councils are under a great deal of financial pressure, with more cuts to come, there are some areas which must be prioritised over others and planning is one of them.

“Our country is in the midst of a crippling housing crisis and if we are ever to start building enough new homes, we need planning departments to be sufficiently resourced to ensure these homes can be built.”

The Duty to Discombobulate – Strategic Planning Chaos in MKSM

Pickles was asked at a webchat yesterday whether he would block future Unitary Bids. He said he would look at the matter again once the current round of city deals was concluded.  Cleared the scale of cuts in local government is putting back on the agenda potential savings from mergers, shared services and unitarisation.

However for planning the real issue is no City Deals.  Most metropolitan districts in combined authority type areas can deal with their own growth, or as in Brum and London either have already strategic planning (London) and / or overspill to outside the combined area.  City Deals are irrelevant to the shires, they want a piece of the cake.  The theory was of course under the NPPF that authorities would spontaneously form groupings to sort out housing overspill.  Two years later it seems like discussions have only just begun and authorities are discombobulating.  Just look at the story below re Oxfordshire, Northhamptonshire and Buckinghamshire the top place where Garden Cities will need to go.  Spontaneous order will not emerge, even if as the DCLG seeks this is ‘incentivised’ this is pissing in the wind.  What is needed is a plan and some leadership.

As a contribution I think we can distinguish between three things:

1) Where unitaries make sense.  Such as in West/East Northamptonshire.  Within 5 years either counties will be abolished, they will abolish themselves or we just let old people get bedsores and children get abused.  A 19th century local government structure is a luxury we can no longer afford.

2) Where joint strategic planning makes sense.  Such as in MKSM.  Where unitaries would form combined authorities. Gideon should refuse to fund these unless they have majority voting structures.

3) Strategic Plans regarding overspill and regional connectivity from/to  Major Cities such as London, Brum and Bristol.  Which would be jointly commissoned by 2) bodies and the SoS would play an oversight role in cases of dispute.

This variable geometry approach would make much more sense than trying to unscramble the omlette of abolished regions – which never worked well anyway (outside the East Midlands) and inevitably broke down into a series of sub-regional cabals.

Local Government Chronicle

Plans for a “landmark” tri-county combined authority have been unveiled in the same week one of its districts launched a unitary bid and three others announced plans to adopt a ‘confederal’ structure.

In the highest profile example so far of shire England seeking to adopt similar structures to those that have led to urban areas being offered devolved power by ministers, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire and Oxfordshire CCs launched a bid to create the first cross-county combined authority.

This would gain powers and resources over transport, skills, economic development and strategic planning.

Speaking to LGC, Northamptonshire leader Jim Harker (Con) said: “We have had talks with [communities secretary] Eric Pickles and others and we have had an encouraging response. It’s up to us now to work out the detail and put it to them.”

Buckinghamshire leader Martin Tett (Con) said the announcement was a “signal of intent”, while Oxfordshire leader Ian Hudspeth (Con) said it was about “setting down a marker”.

Cllr Tett said: “This would be a landmark as far as driving devolution to the non-metropolitan areas. We are, in many respects, the economic powerhouse of this country.”

A joint document said the gross value added measure of the value of goods and services produced in the three counties totalled £45bn – “roughly equivalent” to that of Greater Manchester.

Asked whether he had discussed the proposals with Oxfordshire’s districts, Cllr Hudspeth said: “We are still to have discussions.”

The other two leaders said they had spoken to some but not all of their ­districts. Cllr Harker said there was “no intention to usurp the responsibilities of district and borough councils”.

On Tuesday, the day of the tri-county announcement, Buckinghamshire’s Aylesbury Vale DC published a statement to say it wanted to investigate becoming a unitary, retaining its current boundaries. This could be a “more financially viable and customer focused alternative to the present county and district structure”.

The proposal rivals one by Buckinghamshire’s business community which in October called for the creation of a county unitary saving nearly £60m over five years.

Sue Smith, joint chief executive of Cherwell DC and South Northamptonshire DC, told LGC the tri-county press release, though not the actual documents, mentioned developing policy on spatial planning, a district responsibility.

“I will want to listen to what they say about spatial planning,” she said.

Cherwell, South Northamptonshire and Stratford-on-Avon DCs are separately considering proposals to share all services in a deal that would cross county and regional boundaries.

The three districts were due as LGC went to press to discuss the plan, which could also include a long-term ‘confederal’ structure in which services could become mutuals or companies free to trade. Ms Smith said the plan was not necessarily incompatible with the tri-county proposal.

“Councils have all kinds of different partnership arrangements and if each does what it is there to do that is fine by me,” she said.

Cllr Tett said he believed the two different proposals could work side-by-side but added “the elephant in the room is unitaries”.

He compared a situation in which districts merged back offices only for a county unitary to be created to “unscrambling an omelette”. He added: “How that would work, who knows? We haven’t got there yet but it’s going to happen and it’s one of the consequences of no guidance from above.”

Meanwhile, Northamptonshire CC unveiled plans to outsource 96% of its workforce. The move is at the centre of plans to save £148m over the next five years.