Bye bye Starmer

[V8Granite]

We had some councillors say there is no money for the leisure centre, it will cost £3,000,000 to fix, shit it down and then vote for a lewisite centre in the next town on land that was found to be owned by one of the councillors.

Now the old leisure centre is virtually fixed for £500,000 and people are wondering why his maths is so bad.

Council banning events on a field that was used for fetes, events, popular local shows etc and now magically is being sold off to build yet more houses and no more infrastructure.

Whether it be corruption or awful planning, hidden agendas it certainly isn’t sensible or logical.

Dave!

[dinny_g]

An old boss of mine once said if something can only be as a result of one of 2 options - Machiavellian Scheming or Pure Ineptitude - 9 times out of 10, it's pure ineptitude (and when it comes to council's, often tied with a little "What are you going to do about it"-ness)

Newport Pagnell has 3 roads out of the town heading in the direction of Milton Keynes (The other two head out into the countryside). There's a Major piece of development related to the expansion of Milton Keynes and as a result of this, one of these - the A509 is closed for 2 years. (For those who go to Santa Pod, this is the road you take off Jct 14 to head in that direction)

This was not ideal but it was planned. The City Council discussed it the the Town Council and residents etc and assured us that there would be no other significant building or road works impacting Newport Pagnell until it was completed.

Fast forward a year and they've decided to do another new phase of the expansion. The first road remains closed but now a second of the arterial routes is a major building site. While it's not fully closed it is often temporarily closed while construction traffic arrives or is moved. This leads to massive disruption which can take a long time to clear - very frustrating when you're trying to go to work.

Then the Highway Agency decided that footpaths needed to be replaced on the only other road out of the town. This meant closing that road from 08:00 to 18:00 for days at a time. Milton Keynes Council said it's nothing to do with us, we don't control the highways agency etc.

That meant of the 3 roads out, two were closed and one had significant restrictions. Fast forward to last week and a construction vehicle broke down on the only remaining road out of Newport Pagnell. So for about 2 hours, the only was into Milton Keynes was a 5 mile detour in the opposite direction

This is not crruption, this is pure ineptitude tied with a little "What are you going to do about it"-ness.

and Yes, TTWBBITMF

[Jobbo]

Well hey, you guys are the experts. Although I don't see how you can speak with such certainty, I doubt there's any governmental system or process that exists that isn't open to manipulation in some shape or form if you know what levers to pull.

I don't see how FOI would come into it either, it's not like any of this stuff is going to have much of a paper trail (and if it did, those are the cases we'd have heard about).

Either way, some of the developments that get approval are inexplicable, and the odd one that gets rejected comes back with a minor ammendment and seems to go through when local campaigners are not paying attention. Since I've lived here, I've never seen an application that didn't get accepted either immediately or on appeal... so far not one of them has delivered any supporting infrastructure.

It's not manipulation, it's knowing your way around the system and knowing the measures and criteria by which applications are judged. There's an industry of planning advisers and developers who know their way round the system and which levers to pull, but they are simply meeting the criteria issued by the Government: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... amework--2

If infrastructure is required to meet planning policy it will be included; hopefully our new government will as part of their stated intention to build housing making it a condition that new employment areas, transport links, health facilities etc are required to be incorporated.

To the extent that the Government which set planning policy may have included many members and party donors who benefited from a combination of a restrictive policy and absence of conditions that infrastructure is provided, that is the level at which it may have been corrupt. But it is absolutely not the local authority planners who are under-resourced and could not make a decision to permit a lucrative housing development on their own anyway.

[Nefarious]

Just to chip in from my experience small-scale developing in London.

The planning process is very much a game of 2 halves. The initial application at local level is very political and heavily weighted to keep nimbys happy. To the extent that you can follow all the rules and guidelines to the letter and you will still be refused on one of the nebulous grounds such as "overdevelopment of the site". I've even been directly told by a planning officer that a project *should* be approved, but that he couldn't be seen as the one to approve it.

Then you have the appeals process, which is at national level, and strictly assesses whether the application meets the criteria and guidance set out in the national "Unified development policy". Most of our applications were approved on appeal, rather than at local level. In fact, it became a running joke that if an application was approved locally, then you'd done it wrong in not being ambitious enough!

I'm not saying that being a national level system makes it immune from corruption, but it would be akin to backhanding a court or the DVLA.

Similarly, we've had things approved that probably *shouldn't* have been from a local perspective, simply by making sure that the application meets the strict letter of the guidance in areas where there is no discretion for planners to refuse - it's this sort of thing that probably gives rise to the allegations of the system being bent.

[Rich B]

Glasgow’s propensity to ignore listed buildings until they fall over or mysteriously catch fire has always led to rumours that developers and planning people are a bit closer than they should be.

that seems to be the standard practice everywhere to be fair.

Buy lovely old Victorian pub.
Erect Heras fencing and anti/traveller blocks around site.
Leave for x years until it looks a proper dangerous mess.
Demolish and build 9 executive flats.
And repeat.

[Swervin_Mervin]

Well hey, you guys are the experts. Although I don't see how you can speak with such certainty, I doubt there's any governmental system or process that exists that isn't open to manipulation in some shape or form if you know what levers to pull.

I don't see how FOI would come into it either, it's not like any of this stuff is going to have much of a paper trail (and if it did, those are the cases we'd have heard about).

Either way, some of the developments that get approval are inexplicable, and the odd one that gets rejected comes back with a minor ammendment and seems to go through when local campaigners are not paying attention. Since I've lived here, I've never seen an application that didn't get accepted either immediately or on appeal... so far not one of them has delivered any supporting infrastructure.

It's not manipulation, it's knowing your way around the system and knowing the measures and criteria by which applications are judged. There's an industry of planning advisers and developers who know their way round the system and which levers to pull, but they are simply meeting the criteria issued by the Government: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... amework--2

If infrastructure is required to meet planning policy it will be included; hopefully our new government will as part of their stated intention to build housing making it a condition that new employment areas, transport links, health facilities etc are required to be incorporated.

To the extent that the Government which set planning policy may have included many members and party donors who benefited from a combination of a restrictive policy and absence of conditions that infrastructure is provided, that is the level at which it may have been corrupt. But it is absolutely not the local authority planners who are under-resourced and could not make a decision to permit a lucrative housing development on their own anyway.

The problem with what Labour have said is that developers are already required to give up their pound of flesh - the issue has always been how best that pound of flesh is divided, as in any Local Authority area there will be multiple parties trying to scrabble for their bit. And in some instances - healthcare provision being the prime example - contributions can't be sought at all if those seeking the contributions haven't done their homework. e.g. if you want a new GP surgery for example, the NHS Trust will have to be able to evidence not only a shortfall in provision, but also how they have planned to resolve that shortfall. They should be doing this as a matter of course anyway, as it forms part of their requirements as a Trust. I can't remember the legal case, but this was specifically ruled upon - the Trust involved couldn't request a contribution because they couldn't suitably evidence that what they were asking for would deliver what was required. Just as a Local Authority can't just ask for money without suitable evidence to back up how it will be spent and what it will deliver.

Whilst you will have developers that seek to minimise any such expenditure, there are (imo) more that would rather just cough up if it means they get their planning permission more quickly and the site still stacks up economically.

TLDR - Public sector bodies are failing in doing their job in planning for what infrastructure is required.

That's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of issues with the planning system and strategic planning in particular.

[duncs500]

The coruption debate aside, it is clearly much more profitable to develop on green belt, so if the planning laws can be worked around, that will be the choice for a developer. It's just a shame when there are so many buildings and industrial plots that get ignored in favour of greenery.

I was delighted to see they're developing a factory we have in our village for a good amount of (hopefully relatively) affordable homes mind you, sometimes something good happens. Our estate was a former industrial area too. Too few things like that happen though. I'd be happy to see more developers incentivised / rewarded for those kind of developments.

[Swervin_Mervin]

The coruption debate aside, it is clearly much more profitable to develop on green belt, so if the planning laws can be worked around, that will be the choice for a developer. It's just a shame when there are so many buildings and industrial plots that get ignored in favour of greenery.

I was delighted to see they're developing a factory we have in our village for a good amount of (hopefully relatively) affordable homes mind you, sometimes something good happens. Our estate was a former industrial area too. Too few things like that happen though. I'd be happy to see more developers incentivised / rewarded for those kind of developments.

That's also not true. If the planning case is weak for a development on the Green Belt, the costs just to get through planning (assuming you're even successful) can be huge. The problem is a lot of people see green fields and think that is Green Belt. Actually very little of the UK is Green Belt.

As for brownfield - if it were cost-effective it would be developed on - and it often is redeveloped but people don't notice. A lot of the remaining brownfield land that hasn't been redeveloped requires remediation, and depending on the nature of the former use that can be hugely costly. Why should a developer build on brownfield if it doesn't stack up? They're a business, not a charity. Hence one logical answer would be to provide a national fund for remediation of brownfield land to enable its redevelopment.

[Swervin_Mervin]

What I very much do like is Labour's Grey Belt idea. Land that lies within the Green Belt but that has previously been developed on and is of poor Green Belt value.

[duncs500]

The coruption debate aside, it is clearly much more profitable to develop on green belt, so if the planning laws can be worked around, that will be the choice for a developer. It's just a shame when there are so many buildings and industrial plots that get ignored in favour of greenery.

I was delighted to see they're developing a factory we have in our village for a good amount of (hopefully relatively) affordable homes mind you, sometimes something good happens. Our estate was a former industrial area too. Too few things like that happen though. I'd be happy to see more developers incentivised / rewarded for those kind of developments.

That's also not true. If the planning case is weak for a development on the Green Belt, the costs just to get through planning (assuming you're even successful) can be huge. The problem is a lot of people see green fields and think that is Green Belt. Actually very little of the UK is Green Belt.

As for brownfield - if it were cost-effective it would be developed on - and it often is redeveloped but people don't notice. A lot of the remaining brownfield land that hasn't been redeveloped requires remediation, and depending on the nature of the former use that can be hugely costly. Why should a developer build on brownfield if it doesn't stack up? They're a business, not a charity. Hence one logical answer would be to provide a national fund for remediation of brownfield land to enable its redevelopment.

I think the first point is dependent on the margin of the development isn't it? I find it hard to believe that given the profit available in the south east there isn't a significant sum available to deal with planning applications. The one across the road from me is 50 properties at £750k to £1m, I'd say they can afford a bit of planning support.

I am aware that not all green land is designated green belt, we have designated green belt round here, it's still getting built on though so obviously it's a low bar to clear for planning permission.

I'm fully understanding that they're not charities, they're business that need to operate within a legal structure and make money. You can affect change through the legal structure though, and then provide incentives and support to achieve that goal where it is entirely necessary. Clearly some developers can and do make money by redevelopment, even if the margins aren't always as high as throwing up a load of new homes in a field.

[duncs500]

What I very much do like is Labour's Grey Belt idea. Land that lies within the Green Belt but that has previously been developed on and is of poor Green Belt value.

Full agree, just hope it isn't abused and used as a tool to fast track where not appropriate.

[Swervin_Mervin]

A lot of people would be surprised at the extent of costs in securing successful outcomes for controversial schemes where the planning case is difficult. And that's before you get into land costs (the landowner more often than not is well aware of the potential value post-planning), S106 contributions, construction etc.

Even now I'm horrified by some of the costs still. 1 recent example for me that killed a scheme - a quarter of a million quid to put some traffic signals in over a single-width bridge, and widen 1 of the approaches to normal road width, and that was only over about 100m.

Bus transport provision? Potentially half a million quid for a limited frequency service, and that's if you can convince the operator to get on board with it at all.

What I would say is don't ever assume that a developer hasn't made contributions - that would be a very rare thing indeed. Chances are you just haven't seen how it's been spent by the Local Authority as it's fallen into the black hole of their finances.

[duncs500]

As an aside, what's your view on having a 'Local Plan'? We had a referendum on one in our village. My understanding on them is that it's more or less a guidance document prepared (with support) by the parish council. Ours was implemented by the referendum (I thought it was a pretty good document actually). No idea whether it's worth anything though, or just ignored when determining planning applications?

[Gavster]

They've got rid of 'Levelling Up' part of DLUHC and are replaced it with the original 'Local Government', as it should be. The whole levelling-up name was a naff bit of marketing, although the idea of devolving governance to local areas is a fundamentally good idea.

[Swervin_Mervin]

As an aside, what's your view on having a 'Local Plan'? We had a referendum on one in our village. My understanding on them is that it's more or less a guidance document prepared (with support) by the parish council. Ours was implemented by the referendum (I thought it was a pretty good document actually). No idea whether it's worth anything though, or just ignored when determining planning applications?

Not sure I have much of a view to be honest Duncs. Neighbourhood Plans are a good idea in theory but how much bite they have is another question, and I imagine it varies from one place to another. To some I'm sure they will just be seen as a sop to keep the local nimby's happy, and let them feel their voice has been heard. They should effectively operate as guidance but likewise anything that lies outwith the plan should be considered in the planning balance.

They're a different thing from a Local Plan, however, which is an Authority-wide strategic plan which has the core aim of identifying forecast growth in employment and housing and consequently sites that would, in principle, be suitable for employment or residential development. They should also really specify the nature of any infrastructure delivery that's required to implement the Plan, and that's where things start to fall down. Local Plans form the key policy tests against which applications are judged, along with national planning policy.

[Mito Man]

I thought that was quite funny, the Tories have bleated their levelling up slogan for so long that everyone must have just forgotten that it was their slogan as it started to get integrated into everyday vocabulary.
Then they announced Rayner’s title. And someone remembered


At the time that was announced I did think to myself - isn’t levelling up a Tory thing?

[Carlos]

They have already renamed her role though, i assume it was announced that way for continuity with the previous interested parties?

[duncs500]

As an aside, what's your view on having a 'Local Plan'? We had a referendum on one in our village. My understanding on them is that it's more or less a guidance document prepared (with support) by the parish council. Ours was implemented by the referendum (I thought it was a pretty good document actually). No idea whether it's worth anything though, or just ignored when determining planning applications?

Not sure I have much of a view to be honest Duncs. Neighbourhood Plans are a good idea in theory but how much bite they have is another question, and I imagine it varies from one place to another. To some I'm sure they will just be seen as a sop to keep the local nimby's happy, and let them feel their voice has been heard. They should effectively operate as guidance but likewise anything that lies outwith the plan should be considered in the planning balance.

They're a different thing from a Local Plan, however, which is an Authority-wide strategic plan which has the core aim of identifying forecast growth in employment and housing and consequently sites that would, in principle, be suitable for employment or residential development. They should also really specify the nature of any infrastructure delivery that's required to implement the Plan, and that's where things start to fall down. Local Plans form the key policy tests against which applications are judged, along with national planning policy.

Sorry, yes, Neighbourhood Plan is what you correctly assumed I was referring to.

[Jobbo]

As an aside, what's your view on having a 'Local Plan'? We had a referendum on one in our village. My understanding on them is that it's more or less a guidance document prepared (with support) by the parish council. Ours was implemented by the referendum (I thought it was a pretty good document actually). No idea whether it's worth anything though, or just ignored when determining planning applications?

Having a local plan is absolutely critical if you want to object to inappropriate development. A local plan gives the parish and district councils a basis on which to decide any individual planning application; if land is allocated for potential expansion/development then it should be considered favourably, and if a planning application is for land outside the development boundary the starting point should be that it's not allocated for development.

ETA: just read further down - Merv's reply is correct. A neighbourhood plan could be fed into the local plan but there will generally be plenty of opportunity for a parish council to make representations when a district council is preparing the local plan.

[Gavster]

They have already renamed her role though, i assume it was announced that way for continuity with the previous interested parties?

It was the entire department which the Tories renamed to ‘department for levelling up, housing and communities’, hence the title for Rayner took that name too. Obvs it does scream Tory too