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.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s