He is on top of his brief but in his first two months he has:
Very nearly screwed up the massively important CaMkOX project by writing a bombastic letter free of any due process, immediately ‘clarified’ by his civil servants;
Called for the privisation of social housing
Poo poohed land value capture (the only way private and philanthropic affordable housing ever worked of course} contrary to his own manifesto and despite the Treasury not wanting to fund his 300,000 homes
Made clear he considers Brexit much more important
Blamed the housing sector for lack of delivery, the guys who will have to deliver for him
Gone totally soft on all of the authorities on the local plan naughty step just as it was working (even though one now employs no policy planners).
Blames local authorities for lack of progress on local plans whilst calling in the East Hert’s Plan on the day it is due to adopt.
Make Friends in the sector and listen
Employ a good SPAD
Don’t perpetuate your predecessors disasters like Help to Buy
Make sure you stay on message giving speeches and interviews even if you sound anodyne.
Learn from Grant Shapps and do the opposite – like making sure you don’t make up statistics or re announce the same programme 10 times over.
Realise anything a planning and housing minister does wont bear fruit for three to five years after you have left office.
Leave Brexit to Raab and May. If you arn’t 100% focused on the government’s number 2 priority you will become Northern Ireland Secretary and have to bear endless meetings with the DUP.
How to make friends and influence people. Opening a book now on whether the length of his tenure beats the recent Spinal Tap drummer average.
During Mr Malthouse’s speech, his audience – made up of a mix of developers, housing associations and local authorities – was polled on whether it thought the government will meet its target of delivering 300,000 homes a year by 2025.
After 93% of the audience voted no, Mr Malthouse compared them to Kodak, the camera company which failed to adapt to the growth of digital cameras, and criticised them for “a lack of ambition”.
The shapefile format is an increasingly archaic format.
The decision by ESRI to make FGDB open source was great news and more and more programs support it – though sadly still not Bentley for example directly.
The ability to store BIM data in geodatabases to my mind has been the news of the year. The future of CAD and GIS being to use a spatial database to store and organise every aspect of a project from city scale down to every last screw. On large projects you soon realise the world isnt flat as out of the box CAD assumes, and over several sq km you need to respect the projection or you run into serious errors.
FGDB also has some technical advantages over SHP. For example it can store lines and curves not just lines, essential in use of road data.
Increasingly I have been testing FGDB as THE datastore for masterplanning projects. All kinds of problems. Firstly FGDB cant understand anything other than arcs and straight lines, not clothoids. With roads you need transition curves to stop cars and trains flying off corners from centrifugal force when you change speeds into curves. So they come in as lots of points arrrrgh. Secondly it just isnt robust. As FGDB files enlarge they become corrupt. You can restore them but the new files loses all structure and much data is lost.
Lets hope as ESRI cooperates with Autodesk (and one hopes Bently my own tool of choice) they can develop a robust and universal spatial database solution with the robustness we see for example in the new pool based file storage solutions from Apple and Microsoft.
Since some Green Belt in Park Street was included in the draft St Albans Local Plan, Taylor Wimpey has produced a document outlining housing proposals for the land, which they intend to use for a garden village.
However, SRFI developers HelioSlough also have planning permission for that same site, and have threatened legal action if St Albans district council (SADC) continues to pursue housing.
Taylor Wimpey is now asking residents of St Albans which they would prefer – SFRI or housing – in an online poll.ADVERTISING
Land and planning director at Taylor Wimpey North Thames, Andy Holloway, said they have been eyeing up the site for years: “Although we do not own the site, we believe that the garden village brings many benefits and will be the best option for the local area.
Computer-generated image of the proposed rail freight terminal in Park Street
“For that reason we have produced this indicative plan of what could be achieved and would like to understand whether the local community would prefer the garden village option to the rail freight option.”
The plan includes one new secondary and two new primary schools, parks and open spaces, health facilities, a central social hub with commercial opportunities, and 2,300 homes – 920 of which would be affordable.
There is also the potential for a new bypass to Frogmore and links to How Wood and Park Street stations.
St Albans MP Anne Main said: “Clearly considerably more work would need to be done and lots of studies undertaken, but this initial masterplan is a good starting point to have the discussion around the garden village.
“What I am very clear on however is that a garden village is far better for St Albans than rail freight. I would encourage everyone to take the poll and send a clear message – garden village not rail freight.”
Former St Albans MP Kerry Pollard said: “For many years I have been arguing that this site should be used to provide much needed homes in St Albans, particularly affordable homes.
“Rail freight provides no local benefits and will cause major disruption; I would ask everyone to take this poll and support new housing.”
Have your say in the poll above, which will run throughout September.
Contact PSGV@fourcommunications.com for more information about the masterplan.
Some comments on the Masterpla – though these reflect too a few problems with the local plan. By the way I have long advocated on here housing on the SFRI site
Masterplan, not very good, far too much screen planting and too little open space at heart of area, implies a very low density, cul-de-sacy arrangement.
Park Street? The name very little along Park Street, where there are two stations where a rapid transit frequency is proposed, also the density and intensity hardy steps up along the proposed station on the eastern side. Unless is does there will be no business case for the station. the areas of structural open space and development need rethinking.
So Park Street Garden village is a daft name. It isn’t a garden village. I suggest Broadhand Garden Suburb. St Albans is the oldest named placed in the UK and its original name meant broad hand.
Lots of roads shown but what about the cycle routes? The key to achieving modal shift.
A couple of afternoons work, must do better Taylor Wimpy, better still St Alban’s commission a proper masterplanning exercise and shape your submission plan around it. You can bid for the funding to do so this funding round.
Extra funding for new local infrastructure and affordable housing could be raised by wide-ranging reforms to how the increase in value of land resulting from public policy decisions is captured, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has concluded.
Government statistics show that agricultural land, which is granted planning permission for residential use, would, on average, increase in value from £21,000 per hectare to £1.95 million per hectare. The report published today on land value capture makes the case for local authorities and central government to capture a ‘significant proportion’ of this uplift in value to invest in new infrastructure and public services.
Capturing land value
The Committee argues that there is scope for raising additional revenue from reforms to existing taxes and charges, consideration of new mechanisms for land value capture, and reform of the way local authorities can compulsory purchase land.
Reform of the Land Compensation Act 1961
The Committee also highlights the success of the first generations of New Towns, which acquired land at, or near to, existing use value, and captured uplifts in land value to invest in new infrastructure. It calls for reform of such powers – through amendment of the Land Compensation Act 1961 – which would lead to a ‘much-needed’ boost to housebuilding
Among the main recommendations are:
Reform of the Land Compensation Act 1961, to give local authorities the power to purchase land at a fairer price. This reform – which has growing political support – would provide a powerful tool for local authorities to build a new generation of New Towns, as well as extensions to, or significant developments within, existing settlements.
Further simplification of the CPO process, to make it faster and less expensive for local authorities, whilst not losing safeguards for those affected.
Reform of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to remove complexity and the extensive range of exemptions that currently limit its effectiveness.
More resources for local authorities to ensure they are able to negotiate robustly with developers to secure the appropriate level of planning obligations.
Securing the maximum value for new infrastructure and public services from public land put forward from residential development, with much to be learned from Germany and the Netherlands in this respect.
Land value capture is fundamentally about fairness and necessity
Clive Betts MP, Chair of the Committee, said:
“Land value capture is fundamentally about fairness and necessity.
Fairness, because the current system allows landowners, through no effort of their own, to make multi-million pound profits from the substantial increases in land value that arise from public policy decisions, such as the granting of planning permission. As these increases are significantly created by the actions of the State, it is right that a significant proportion of this should be shared with the local community.
Necessity, because if the Government is to meet the challenge of providing enough new homes over the coming years, then they will also need to find the funds for improving the surrounding infrastructure.
Our proposed package of reforms to taxes and charges will ensure a fair proportion of the increase in value arising from public policy decisions can be used by national and local government to invest in new infrastructure and public services.
In particular, there is a growing consensus that the Land Compensation Act 1961 requires reform. The present right of landowners to receive ‘hope value’ is distorting land prices, encouraging land speculation and reducing revenues that could be used for affordable housing, infrastructure and local services.
Ensuring local authorities have the power to compulsorily purchase land at a fairer price will provide a powerful incentive to build a new generation of New Towns and the extra homes that we so desperately need.”
Option B1 or B3 – Rejecting B2 Straight through Otmoor. The options the local wildlife trusts strongly recommended against.
Following technical analysis and stakeholder engagement, Corridor B has been identified as the best performing option. This will deliver better benefits for the region as it out-performs Corridor A and C in supporting strategic transformational growth, regeneration and redevelopment.
We have rejected Corridor B2, whilst it offers similar benefits at a similar predicted cost to B3, the environmental impacts around the Horspath and Wheatley areas are substantially more difficult to overcome. There are also a number of significant constraints as the corridor heads north toward Bicester, including Otmoor Nature Reserve.
We will be developing viable route options for Corridor B1 and B3 (see description below) for public consultation next year:
Corridor B1 – a central corridor broadly aligned with the proposed East-West Rail route from Abingdon to south Milton Keynes via Winslow. This option passes to the west of Oxford
Corridor B3 – a central corridor broadly aligned with the proposed East-West Rail route from Abingdon to south Milton Keynes via Winslow. This option passes to the south east of Oxford.
You can see the area for the development of route options in our map.
Now we have established the corridor we will provide everyone with the opportunity to get involved and help shape the final project. In the next stage we will continue to engage a wide group of stakeholders to help us identify all the information we require in order to shortlist viable routes. We will consult widely before making any decisions on the route’s location. We will then consult again, asking for your feedback on more detailed plans before we submit the planning application to build the scheme.
*Indicative timetable, subject to preferred route options.
The BCR between the three options ranged between 1.1 and 1.2 nothing, and the locations for new strategic scale development havn’t even been chosen yet. It is inevitable that west of Calvert the route would have to take a sharp southwards turn to avoid the most sensitive woodland and marsh areas, removing completely the time advantages of option B. The scoring of the three options biodiversity impacts is simply not credible.
But all is not lost – the corridor chosen is so wide it almost duplicatesoption A at its southern portion. I strongly suspect this will be the route chosen. However the Highways Agency is spreading fear through huge great swath maps could as is already happening whip up such environmental opposition to the expressway it could sink the whole corridor project. It will be another two years before the final route is chosen. How is anyone supposed to plan for large Garden Cities in the area without knowing which side of Oxford the route will go in the meantime?
Well you can to a degree as the commonality between B1 and B3 is clear through to Clavert and knowing the National Trust properties etc. you have to doge you can guess the route here to a few dozens of metres.
Of course the problem is Bucks who unwisely said in 2017 that with Aylesbury chosen as a Garden Town (adding nothing to planned growth} there would be ‘no New Town’ a good example of using the Garden Communities process not to further growth but to temporally and disingenuously stop it.
Welcome everyone to the ERG’s daily news conference.
We wondered what to speak about today after pulling together our ideas for the Northern Ireland Border in two days, however my fellow and neighboring MP Liam Fox reminded me of the bru -ha-ha surrounding the West of England Joint Spatial Plan. So after tacking star wars and global military intervention in our stride, its time to be ambitious, time to be positive and solve our housing problem.
Our planning laws are sclerotic, we need more permissions, the whole system is gummed up. So we have a solution. These Garden Community Thingies are all the thing so a marvelous philanthropic landowner in the Mendips has offered the ground of his modest 16th Century Pile to build on. West Harptree Garden village will offer a marvelous opportunity for ordinary people, who simply cant afford to live in Somerset
to take in fresh air, the thrill of freshly split fox blood (sorry Liam) and the invigorating taste of lead in game.
Of course some of my chums are a bit concerned about attracting the sort of banksy, beatnik, fried, slacker,trip-hopping, crypto rasterfari-cube heads from Bristol, so they will be given work. Lots of jobs going for footman, butler, housekeeper and cook. This of course is just how it used to be, it gave us Cotswolds villages and all the places National trust members visit and it didnt need those interfering socialist town planners did it.
Whats more in the spirit of philanthropy the whole proceeds will go toward restoring a Grade I listed estate in Yorkshire.
In our post Brexit future we must take inspiration from our entrepreneurial forebears from Bristol. Not content to send empty ships across the Atlantic returning from Africa they filled them to the gunnels with commodities free from pettifogging European regulation on live animals. Why have fee movement when you can sell the same for free trade. It will make everyone richer.
Same time tomorrow.
The new NPPF strongly backs the new style of Joint Strategic Plans (JSPs) modeled on the west of England, and we have seen some commenced in Greater Exeter, North Essex (suffering a setback at examination)South Essex and South West Herts, and Oxfordshire once the current round of local plans is complete (dont hold your breath) together with full joint plans proposed in places like Central Lancs.
Progress has been encouraging but patchy, though many in the planning profession hailed the West of England plan as the new model it seemed like few had actually read it bar counting the policies and admiring the graphic design, (same I remember with the Stafford LDF) and noticed the palpably unsuitable dispersed pattern of development it proposed as well as the massive undershoot on housing targets. Despite submission it has been delayed for months to allow more evidence for what is likely massive modifications.
The setbacks in recent weeks to Greater Exeter, and North Essex and the difficulty of Oxfordshire to agree locations to support its growth deal and Cambridgeshire to agree transport proposals to agree its growth deal are reason to pause for breath.
It is far easier if you are all Unitary. Like West of England, the reason it was first out of the gate. There are byzantine difficulties, especially with combined authority structures, and where there is a mix of two tier and unitary. The government in pushing strongly the new style SDS, but these just seem to duplicate and complicate matters where they are not possible (such as for North Somerset for example which isn’t part of the combined authority)
They need proper governance, PMO and funding. They cant be done as a part time adjunct to the day job, they need a full time executive, and requiring every decision to be done unanimously across half a dozen committees, you can predict what happens.
Take transport seriously. It is equally important to housing and should drive the housing. We have yet to see a JSP with seriously evidenced and deliverable proposals for transit.
We have not yet seen a JSP which seriously shapes development patterns (around Garden Communities for example) rather than passively accepting developer led blobs.
We have yet to see a JSP with a serious choice of realistic options for strategic growth locations and lead by an impartial IIA process.
Combined Authority Mayors more likely hinder than help – in all cases where they have intervened hesitating to make tough choices and proposing in some cases like Cambridgeshire Unicorn choices to defer the hard ones.
Despite everything they are still worth doing, they are the only hope for some highly constrained authorities in high growth areas.
At 2.15 pm, the Director of Planning at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government notified the Chief Executive of East Hertfordshire District Council that the Secretary of State, Rt. Hon James Brokenshire MP has today issued a holding direction under section 21a of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (inserted by section 145(5) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016) on the adoption of the East Herts District Plan, due to be adopted this evening.
Accordingly items 9 and 10 are being withdrawn from tonight’s Agenda, because this means we are currently unable to adopt the District Plan.
I am, of course, very disappointed with this decision both because it has been made at such a late stage in the process and also because the Plan was inspected by a senior and experienced planning inspector (appointed by the Secretary of State) and the Council has fully accepted all of her recommendations and suggestions.
We remain confident in the soundness of the Plan and will work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to resolve any issues it has with the Plan. Due to the impact that this will have on the local and wider community and in view of the thorough examination of the Plan that has already taken place, we will encourage the Secretary of State to act expeditiously to avoid further uncertainty. We are all too well aware of the speculative development that has taken place in parts of our district because of the lack of a 5 year land supply. None of us want to be in that position again.
Linda Haysey, Leader of East Hertfordshire District Council
What nonsense and uncertainty this relatively new power introduces. Must be Green Belt and east of Stevenage related. Previous cases no intervention -and given examination intervention would be extraordinary and throw most local plans arund London into chaos. Sadly if you get a letter from an MP the SoS either has to intervene or face potential JR so boxed it. abolish this silly power ASAP.
The cluprit – must be the local Mp which by his previous letter shows he totally misunderstands national policy on Green Belt even apply the wrong test. If there were costs involved he should pay them.
Councillors unanimously rejected the current document, saying it was ‘simply not fit for purpose’.
A consultation document outlining the vision for the future of the Greater Exeter Area has been rejected by East Devon councillors.
East Devon, Exeter City, Mid Devon and Teignbridge councils are currently preparing the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan to cover strategic matters for their area.
Consultation on the specific issues around the vision, and how to make it real, was set
But at Tuesday night’s East Devon Strategic Planning Committee, councillors unanimously rejected the current document, saying it was ‘simply not fit for purpose’.
The consultation document will now be redesigned and go back before councils before the public have the chance to comment on it.
The Greater Exeter Strategic Plan consultation document, titled “Our New Vision and How We Make It Real” includes the new vision for the area, explains what the Government has said the housing need is, with a target of 57,000 new homes to be built across the four council areas by 2020, asks people what the most important infrastructure projects they need to invest in are and includes the main points for a transport strategy for the area.
But East Devon councillors felt it lacked any kind of detail and was ‘just a PR document’.
Cllr Mike Allen said: “When I read this, thought it was a bit like swallowing a camel and squeaking out a gnat. There is a lot of work going on but only two pages of practical propositions and less as to how to provide it practically.
“I want to see this document enhanced with information about healthcare facilities, new technology, and energy systems, so I cannot agree that this can be the document for public consultation as needs to be more in the real world.”
Cllr Mike Howe added: “It is inconceivable that this can go out to public consultation without the major modifications that it needs. A connected city region is a great idea, but there is no ideas about how to get it and no mention of anything over than transport by road.”
The document says that in the last decade the population of the Greater Exeter area has increased by 34,000 people, but in that time traffic volumes on the local road network have not increased, but Cllr Susie Bond said: “They are living in cloud cuckoo land if they don’t think traffic on the road has increased.”
Cllr Howe added: “That traffic information is massively out of date and if there is one accident in Exeter, traffic around the whole area is gridlocked for hours. This is just is all wrong and they need to go back to square one and think about how communities actually work. As it is, this document is simply not fit for consultation.”
And Cllr Geoff Pook questioned what whether any useful information would be received from the consultation, as the questions ask ‘do you have any comments to make on the vision and the transport strategy’. He said: “People will either not know how to answer the questions or just write an essay what we don’t know what to do with it.
“Health and social care has be addressed as is the biggest time bomb that we have and there’s nothing in here about it. It is a nice PR document but not a real consultation document.”
Councillors unanimously voted that without major modifications, this council rejects the GESP vision document and expects a revised version to come to the committee that includes information about rural proofing, healthcare facilities, a sports and health vision, transport visions, energy provision, how it would be funded, and a clear series of questions that will provide a valid response.
East Devon District Council’s CEO Mark Williams said it was councillors’ right to say you want more work done before goes to consultation. He added: “It will go back to the team and the partners so the changes can be made for it be a properly constituted consultation that addressing the concerns are about the quality of life.”
Speaking after the meeting, a GESP spokesman said: “The GESP is an extremely important initiative and we want to ensure that it sets the blueprint for an enhanced quality of life for all our residents into the future.
“Full public engagement with the various stages of consultation is therefore crucially important and as partners we will sit down and re-design the proposed consultation document to achieve this. It may mean a revision to our timetable but we will go forward together.”
On Tuesday morning, Teignbridge District Council’s Executive committee had approved the document, subject to minor modifications that could be made by the portfolio holder and subject to call-in for further scrutiny, although councillors had raised similar concerns about the lack of detail.
Cllr Alistair Dewhirst said: “This document does concern me as it seems full of buzzwords but doesn’t address any of the big issues that affect the rural districts. It doesn’t address the reality of living in rural areas with relatively speaking poor bus service that not designed to get people to and from work.”
But Cllr Stuart Barker said that they were discussing a request to go to consultation and no final decisions, and said: “I have heard a number of valid points, but they sound like what should be responses to the consultation so the document can be revised to tak
Simon Thornley, Business Manager for Strategic Place at Teignbridge said that the GESP authorities chose to have this additional consultation on the vision, the transport and infrastructure suggestions, and on housing.
He said: “The previous version of the GESP had lots of comments which were not supportive, saying it was anodyne and not local or clear enough, so we have suggested a new vision which we are seeking comments on. It is a significant improvement, is more locally distinctive about what the plan is to achieve, and some targets to bring it to life. We are now seeking comment on the vision through the consultation.”
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.