No Time Because of Brexit to Fix the Complex Mess of Joint Planning? – This Magic Clause allows it

Joint planning and combined authorities law is a mess, some things you can do if you have a mix of Unitaries and two tiers and some thing you cannot, provisions for LTPs and SDSs are another.

Ok in comments to this blog give me an example – there are many – for example starters for 10 that the West Of England JSP overlaps wit the proposed West of England SDS which cant include West Somerset because it did not joint the combined authority, there are many others in Greater Manchester, South Essex Everything.  Of course there are complex Henry VII clauses for combined authorities (magically allowing law on SDSs passed for London to apply anywhere) and the Deregulation Act 2015 allowing orders to delete clauses in acts which acts as a burden , bit what about adding them?

Well this clause allows it, in fact it allows anything, just work out what you want and ask for it

Section 154 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016

if the following conditions are met, the Secretary of State may by regulations make a planning freedoms scheme, having effect for a specified period, in relation to a specified planning area in England.

A “planning freedoms scheme” is a scheme that disapplies or modifies specified planning provisions in order to facilitate an increase in the amount of housing in the planning area concerned

“planning provision” means a provision to do with planning that is contained in or made under any Act;

This allows the SoS to delete or modify any planning act or regulation in any way.

So if you have a problem, unclear for example if you can get away with a single MOU, single LDS anything just write down your wish list submit it stop moaning and do it.  The SoS can hardly say no unless it breaches Human rights or European Law.

As a suggestion put time limits on an EIP, restrict duly made objections to those that would not dissapply national or European policy and require those objecting to strategic site to propose an alternative one of the same capacity and deliverability (or better) within the JSP area., removing the requirement to record names and addresses of peitions attached to forms,  only allowing omissions sites if the proposer has funded and submitted Habitat Assesment (where required) and annex to SEA and has funded consultation on them, unless they supplied the site during regulation 18 stage – the list goes on and on.  Could cute down examination time by 3/4.

 

Fudgejectively Re-bodged Need – With Stunning Sloth, Maladroitness and Spitting out of Humble Pie @MCHLG acts #Oanishambles

Here

Back to 2014 base – as we suggested on here was only way out, only done in a way whch simply adds to messiness.  More on here soon

Household projections are constrained by housing supply. If new, additional
homes are not supplied, then households cannot form as there would be
nowhere for them to live. This means that actual household growth cannot
exceed the number of additional homes which are actually supplied. The ONS household projections show that the average household size is projected to be2.33 by 2028 compared to 2.27 in the 2014 based household projections; this
means that in order to just keep household size constant at the 2014 based projected level, 64,000 additional homes per year would be needed in excess of the current projections;
2. The historic under-delivery of housing means there is a case for public policy supporting delivery in excess of household projections, even if those projectionfall. Cheshire4 estimated that “between 1994 and 2012, building fell short of what was needed by between 1.6 and 2.3 million houses”. Given that households cannot form if new houses are not built for them to move into, this undersupply will have resulted in pent-up demand;

Hmmm where did that phrase about households not orming unless there are new homes for them to move into come from – try looking back at past posts on this blog.

The Government considers that the best way of responding to the new ONS
household projections and delivering on the three principles in paragraph 18 above is to make three changes:
1. For the short-term, to specify that the 2014-based data will provide the
demographic baseline for assessment of local housing need.

2. To make clear in national planning practice guidance that lower numbers through the 2016-based projections do not qualify as an exceptional circumstance that justifies a departure from the standard methodology; and
3. In the longer term, to review the formula with a view to establishing a new method that meets the principles in paragraph 18 above by the time the next projections are issued….

The Government has heard from a number of authorities that the extent of
change associated with 2016-based household growth projections, when compared to 2014-based projections, is already resulting in delays and uncertainty in the planmaking process.