Some thoughts on reforming planning to support housing need

With the Mayor of London joining other 'progressive' mayors in places like New York, Berlin and Auckland by opting for rent controls over building houses, we are reminded that every politician is prepared to ignore economic reality in the search for short-term electoral benefit. Since nearly every serious economist says that rent controls are a bad idea, you have to wonder why they are so popular?

The problem - whether in London or San Francisco - is that politics removes the solution to rising housing costs that actually does make economic sense. Rent controls are the inevitable consequence of housing policies directed by the political power of NIMBYs. Here's housing economist Professor Paul Cheshire being interviewed by Ahir Hites, a senior research officer in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Research Department:

“Britain imposed its first Green Belt in 1955 and now, if re-zoned for building, farmland at the built edge of London has an 800-fold mark-up. There was no secular trend in housing land prices in Britain until the mid-1950s, but after Green Belts were imposed real prices increased some 15-fold. More than houses because you can substitute land out of house production. There is a similar pattern in Canada, New Zealand or the West and East coasts of the United States where policies restrict land supply.”

It's true, and some politicians try to hide behind this, that agglomeration effects in successful cities also provide upward pressure on housing costs (in simple terms people can move to a place faster than you can build homes to accommodate them). But when the gap between population growth and housing supply growth is negative for decades - as is the case in places like London and San Francisco - the result is utterly unaffordable housing. The case against urban containment boundaries, at least in terms of its effect on housing costs, is now as uncontestable as the case against rent controls.

One policy response popular with mayors (and local government in general, at least in the UK) is to argue that the problem isn't that we're not building enough houses but rather that we're building too many of the wrong sort of housing - expensive homes for rich people and especially rich overseas investors. The solution proposed - and the UK's Chartered Institute of Housing rather egregiously supports this - is that enormous amounts of government subsidy, £146 billion they say in the UK, can be used to build homes "to rent or buy through shared ownership".

Now it's probably true that the UK needs 1.45 million new homes building but is it really the case that the only way to do this is through a huge programme of, in effect, building council houses? Yes we need social housing because there are always going to be people who can't afford the rent for whatever reason (and paying full market rates in the private sector is expensive) but the gap in our housing markets isn't social housing but market housing - people who would like to buy a house (like their parents probably did) are unable to do so:

“The cost of a middle class lifestyle has increased faster than inflation. Housing, for example, makes up the largest single spending item for middle-income households, at around one third of disposable income, up from a quarter in the 1990s. House prices have been growing three times faster than household median income over the last two decades.”

While lots of other things from transport to food have been getting relatively less expensive, housing has headed in the opposite direction. Why? Because government has artificially constrained the supply of land, set down an ever more involved obstacle course for developers - just today the UK government added some new hoops, and made the process of buying and selling expensive through taxation and regulation. It's not that all these limitations are unnecessary but that that combining heavy regulation with a deliberately constrained supply can only result in higher housing costs.

The problem is that reforming urban containment policies and green belts is seen as political suicide. Even though I spent more time at planning committees arguing in favour of green belt development, the immediate and visceral response of the people I represented for all those years is still "no we don't want any more houses building". Since the logic of abolishing green belts is not politically possible (even though there are plenty of other protections for places we consider important environmentally, ecologically or in terms of heritage) we have to ask how we improve the availability of land in and around successful towns and cities.

The first option would be to review the reasons why we have green belts - this could be a national review conducted under public enquiry terms with the aim of deciding the principles for a green belt. The five purposes currently are pretty clear but we might want to consider the weight given to the policy - at the moment there is a presumption that there won't be any development unless that development has no impact or else literally cannot go somewhere else (e.g. a quarry). The simplest reform here would be to argue that housing need gets greater weight than green belt, a process that would provide more incentive for councils to allocate land rather than rely on strict green belt interpretations to save them from public opprobrium.

The second outcome of a review could be that the size of green belts could be limited - this could allow for the continued prevention of merging between communities, for example, but allow for more flexible development on the fringes of existing built-up areas (e.g a buffer zone where small scale development is permitted).

A further change might be to look at how housing development is used as a political campaigning lever - by every political party. We could consider, for example, applying the same strictures to representation on planning applications as apply to representations for licencing. Only those people directly affected by a proposed license - essentially immediate neighbours - can make representation to the licencing authority. Furthermore, local councillors and MPs can only make representations in support of someone directly affected. Applying something similar to planning would make organised campaigns against development - especially smaller scale developments - less powerful and would reduce pressure on planners and planning committees while protecting the rights of adjacent property owners.

The biggest weakness in our current planning system is the local plan process. Just consider that Bradford started preparing its local plan in 2008 and still, eleven years later, does not have a completed plan with land allocations. And this is not unique, two of Bradford neighbours (Kirklees and Calderdale) don't have a plan in place and Leeds is driving a coach and horses through theirs by changing the assessment of housing need (aka "the housing numbers"). Elsewhere local plans - even given the legal 'duty to cooperate' - are drawn up on small geographies with scant regard for the needs of neighbours and where one council (Stevenage, for example) can only meet housing need using allocations in neighbouring councils the result is a long-running political scrap.

A reform here might be to lift the planning process (as opposed to the development management system dealing with day-to-day planning applications) up to a county level, make it much more strategic and 'broad brush' and rely on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and existing land protections and regulations such as AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and flood plain controls to deal with the detail. The expectations on evidence and precision in the current local plan system inevitably leads to delay and also means that most of the time plans are out-of-date by the time they're published.

Our planning system serves us badly but has become - especially around green belts and in the way it makes developers ask for permission - something of a sacred cow. It is time, however, to recognise that it's not enough to keep saying we need lots more housing but then keep responding to essentially NIMBY arguments and refuse developments. Which brings me to my last suggestion one that I've wanted to happen since private pressure on John Prescott resulted in him preventing the redevelopment of Odsal Stadium in Bradford despite universal local support for the development. We should remove the power of the Secretary of State to overturn the decision of a planning inspector or the decision of a local council - this stops egregious backroom lobbying by MPs and gives us the confidence that decisions really are based on the regulations that parliament has approved.

....

Why we're so agitated about 'gentrification' (and how London needs a 'Green Belt' review)

****

As one of the self-important semi-rioters attacking the Cereal Killer cafe put it:

While I understand people’s annoyance at property damage please put it into the context of the violence of poverty, hunger and homelessness many thousands of Londoners are being subjected to. The cereal cafe was back open on Sunday morning while the destruction caused by gentrification continues - as will the fight back.

A veritable avalanche of concerned articles now tumble into the UK press - following in the footsteps of the same words about different places: Berlin, Sydney, Seattle and San Francisco. For some the criticism centres on the wealth of new arrivals or else on the mundane daily lives of those new residents - on the Google Bus.

But always and everywhere the thing that drives the attack on 'gentrification' is the cost of living in these cities and, in particular, the cost of housing. Even when people try to make it out to be more complicated by saying its "a complex, layered suite of intersecting measures" they end up talking about housing:

Given crippling student debt, rental costs that even those on “average salaries” can’t afford and the hyper-gentrification of previously affordable urban areas, even middle-class people have a right to be angry at an urban capitalism that is pricing them (and their children) out of the city.

So, given that it's housing that's the problem, perhaps we should ask why this is the case. Not my coming up with instant fixes like rent caps or rationing but by looking at the underlying reasons, which boils down to supply and demand. And especially supply:

By rationing land, urban containment policy drives up the price of housing and has been associated with an unprecedented loss of housing affordability in a number of metropolitan areas in the United States and elsewhere. Urban containment policy has also been associated with greater housing market volatility. This is a particular concern given the role of the 2000s US housing bubble and bust in precipitating the Great Financial Crisis that resulted in a reduction of international economic output.

And this exactly describes the situation in London. Elsewhere in England this doesn't apply - population densities for the London boroughs are, almost without exception, higher than anywhere else (even a place like Portsmouth that's constrained by its geography). For inner London these densities are three times greater than in Manchester or Bristol. There is little reason to change or review 'Green Belts' around Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds - other than the understandable preference for people to live in or near those 'Green Belts' - but for London, ending the policy of urban containment and densification is absolutely essential if problems with affordability and price volatility are to be avoided. Moreover, because London is so critical to the UK economy these decisions should not be left merely to the Mayor of London (or a collection of borough and district council leaders).

The consequence of failing to do something to address this problem isn't just more unpleasant rioters but a threat to the golden goose that is London's economy. Without a workforce able to access your jobs, the businesses will look elsewhere. We might hope this is Leeds, Manchester or Cardiff but it's just as likely to be Brussels, Frankfurt or Milan. Maybe even Cape Town, Djakarta or Lagos.

....

The Adam Smith Institute's 'Green Belt' proposals are both wrong and silly

Not Green Belt but very protected

There's quite a gulf between the two extremes in the debate about housing supply - from those who say it's all down to planning through to those who tell us that the deliberate constraint of land supply has nothing to do with that lack of housing supply.

However, it is important when we engage in this debate that we understand the policies we criticise (or support). And it is on this point that the Adam Smith Institute consistently fails:

The first step is to classify Green Belt land into its three types. There is verdant land, with fields, meadows and woods – what most people think of when they think about Green Belts. There is ‘brown,’ or damaged land, including abandoned mines and quarries and former industrial buildings. Thirdly there is agricultural land, much of it given to intensive cultivation on vast fields using fertilizers and pesticides. It falls well short of being environmentally friendly.

Once the land is classified into its three types, the verdant land should be left untouched. All of the ‘brown’ land should be made available for building. In addition a one-mile deep strip of agricultural land at the inner edge of the Green Belt should be made available for house-building. In compensation, at least a mile of agricultural land beyond the outer edge of the Green Belt should be added to it as verdant Green Belt.

If you are to reform a policy it helps to understand the reasons for that policy existing - the ASI, in the example above, completely misunderstands the reason for us having a 'Green Belt'. And the way in which development on that land is constrained.

The Green Belt, according to policy, serves five purposes:

1. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
3. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
5. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Only one of these purposes relates to aesthetics (and the protection of settings for historic towns is very narrowly drawn). The remainder of the purposes are there for the practical and essentially conservative reason of preserving the identity of places by preventing sprawl and encouraging the recycling of redundant land within those places. There's a point at which the tightness of a 'Green Belt' results in over-dense development that really isn't sustainable or in the best interests of the economy.

The ASI wants to identify what it calls 'verdant' land in the 'Green Belt' so it can be protected. Again the ASI fails to appreciate that there are a bundle of other planning mechanisms intended to do just that. These tools range from Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Special Landscape Areas (SLAs) through Habitat Regulation Assessments (HRAs) and Local Nature Partnerships to World Heritage Sites, Conservation Areas and Local Landscape Policy Areas (plus many others - too many to list). The existence or otherwise of a Green Belt is not relevant to any of these policies - they protect on the basis of scientific, ecological, archaeological or aesthetic reasons for resisting inappropriate development.

Furthermore, in broad terms, previously used land in the Green Belt (what the ASI chooses to call 'brown' or 'damaged' land) is developable. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says it's fine for:

...the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

This isn't always popular (as we discovered during the Rochester and Strood by-election) but it demonstrates how thoughtful and sensitive development can take place within a Green Belt. Indeed, the relaxation of policy in the NPPF has already begun to deliver:

Glenigan was approached to investigate the number of new homes being approved on greenbelt sites and found that in 2013/14, 5,607 homes were granted permission. In the following year, this had reached 11,977, which also represented a five-fold increase since 2009/10.

These developments are almost all small scale - the conversion of redundant farm buildings, infill within small hamlets and the building of individual buildings on previously developed sites. The numbers aren't sufficient to change the economics of housing supply but it is significant that a minor change in attitude to development rights in 'Green Belt' has had such a profound affect without any alteration to the purpose of that 'Green Belt' as defined in policy guidance.

There is a very strong case for a full review of London's 'Green Belt' but this isn't the same as saying that there shouldn't be a 'Green Belt' or that we should (or even in terms of practical geography, could) simply take "a one-mile deep strip of agricultural land at the inner edge of the Green Belt" for house-building. In policy terms this fails on several counts - it ignores other protections (e.g. habitat regulations, flood risk), it takes no account of current or planned infrastructure, and it makes no attempt to match the location of housing supply to objectively assessed housing need. Such a blunt approach to 'Green Belt' review is worse than previous ASI comments that simply called for 'Green Belts' (or indeed the whole planning system) to be scrapped.

Finally, the ASI's attack on "agricultural land, much of it given to intensive cultivation on vast fields using fertilizers and pesticides" doesn't sit at all well with that organisation's supposed support for markets - intensification is about the more efficient use of land and reduces production costs allowing for a sustainable sector (that might allow us to stop subsidising it quite so much). More to the point, the ASI's ugly agricultural landscape absolutely fits the core outcome of 'Green Belt' policies - openness.

I fully understand - and have a great deal of sympathy for - criticism of planning. But if we are to set out a reform approach, it has to be grounded in real geography, based on the purpose of the policy in question and must avoid the ASI's biggest error, an essentially arbitrary land allocation. If the ASI took the trouble to read and understand a little of England's planning policy, it might be able to create a better approach to 'Green Belt' reform. Until that time it's just wrong and looks silly.

....

A little point about housing and the 'green belt'

There you have it - a little piece of Bradford's 'green belt'. In this case it's Hewenden Reservoir looking from the Great Northern Trail (the former railway line) towards East Manywells. And like much of the South Pennines it is beautiful in an everyday kind of way. Not spectacular but, when the sun shines and makes those shadows, cryingly gorgeous - one of the things that make this small part of Yorkshire unique and wonderful.

So when the debate about housing arises, it is this sort of landscape, this kind of place that we must protect from development. Or should we?

Today, it being that time of year, I was at Denholme Clough delivering election leaflets. Now up at the Clough -  the bit of Bingley Rural Ward that bumps into Calderdale - there used to be three farms. That was three (or maybe four) dwellings. One was the halal abattoir at Sunside Farm, the other two typical, slightly tatty hill farms. There were perhaps ten electors here (and half of them were Mr Hussein's family).

Today all this is gone or going - the abattoir closed a while back and where there was once just one farm house, we now find a conversion creating five homes. All now occupied. Across the road another farm has been developed - a further five homes. It is, I don't doubt, only a matter of time before the third of the farms turns into a collection of barn conversions, cottages and houses - maybe five or six more places to live.

From three or four homes - all in the 'green belt' - will have been created 15 or 16 dwellings. And the old abattoir buildings and several barns remain untouched - perhaps for another development, another creation of new homes.

This picture is repeated again and again across the area - former farm buildings now redundant as farms consolidate and tenancies end are turned into homes. All within the 'green belt'. At Denholme House Farm and The Flappit there's been new build as well - a dozen or so nice new houses built were once there were tatty barns and corrugated steel cowsheds.

And none of these developments - in the 'green belt' - meet with objections except, on occasion, from planners upset that their precious "open-ness of the green belt" might be threatened by building on these farmyards and by converting these barns. There are maybe 50 such places in Bingley Rural - that's over 200 homes that can be developed without the need to take a single inch of green field.

Imagine the creative planner who said "maybe with a little new build at each of these places we could double that number" - we'd have approaching 500 new homes without any encroachment on those green fields. Spread that across the rural area of Bradford and we might get 3000 new homes - maybe even more. All without a threat to the green belt. All without petitions, protest groups and the endless paper war between the planners and the public - a war in which the planners get a phyrric victory. For sure they permissions granted and houses built but this is at the cost of public perception of planners - the firm view held 'out there' that planners do what developers want.

It's important to see this because Bradford Council want about 1500 homes built in Bingley Rural's villages over the next 15 years. There are already permissions for around 600 houses - with the 500 that developing existing rural sites brings we get most of the way towards the 'target'. There really isn't any need at all to 'release' tracts of land from the current 'green belt' for future development.

But all this requires planners to get out from their closed box, to stop believing the commercial propaganda of the house building companies and to think for themselves how we can meet Bradford's housing needs without any large land take from the 'green belt'.

....

Some good news, some secrecy and a worry about planning in Bradford

Cullingworth

On Friday, the Shipley Planning Panel refused an application to build over 400 new houses on land at Sty Lane in Micklethwaite near Bingley. Land next to the Leeds Liverpool Canal and close to the great pair of Bingley locks – five-rise and three-rise.

The audience cheered and stamped their feet as councillors voted six to one against proposals by developers Redrow and Bellway to build on the site at Sty Lane, Micklethwaite.

Councillors said they felt access to the site, which was principally via a swing bridge over the Leeds-Liverpool Canal, was not adequate.

There will be an appeal – indeed the date is already set – so those objecting to the development might yet have their hopes dashed.

My purpose in highlighting this decision isn’t simply to discuss the particular development but to make a wider observation about Bradford’s Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy. See, you’ve already got drooping eyelids and a fuzzy head at the planning jargon. Like most people, this strategy will be informed more by professional lobbyists – the developers, the “environment” campaigns and the heritage advocates – than by local people considering what development is needed and how to go about providing that development.

The LDF Core Strategy won’t point directly at the precise locations for development but will decide how much housing, employment and infrastructure is needed and how land allocation can be used to make that provision. And, right now, it is being driven by hidden evidence – documents that Bradford Council has not published:

·         The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) – this assesses the possible sites across the district and has been conducted by a panel including representatives of the housebuilders, the social housing sector and the council. No elected members are involved in this process and other than a report on process and methodology to scrutiny, there will be no member process.

·         The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) – this analyses the housing market in Bradford in depth advising on the types of housing needed in different areas and the amount and pattern of need for affordable housing – housing provided for sale and rent at below market prices. It was commissioned from consultants in 2009 and completed a year later. The council refuses to publish this document ahead of publishing the LDF Core Strategy

When the LDF Core strategy is published, these two studies will be presented as irrefutable evidence supporting the Council’s strategy. There will be no scope for challenging these documents – we will be expected to work with them as the basis of determining the core strategy. And I can tell you what the key proposal in that strategy – based on this evidence they won’t let us see – will be.

In order to meet the need for housing – 50,000 new houses over 15 years – we will be told that we have to release land from the ‘green belt’. Land like the site at Sty Lane where permission has just been refused. There will be no scope for creativity in meeting this requirement, we will not be allowed to question the number – all we will, as councillors, be asked to do is agree to taking large tracts of land from Bradford’s ‘green belt’.

And before you all get excited about the current proposals for a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and begin laying into the government remember that what I have just described – a distant, bureaucratic, inflexible, predict-and-provide method – is the system introduced by the last Labour government.

Over the coming weeks, I will try to set out how an alternative approach might work – how we can negotiate development with local communities rather than simply point at land saying ‘build there’. How we can incorporate the changed pattern of employment and how we can create a plan that is ‘developer-friendly’ without ruining the amenity – the fantastic South Pennines amenity – that local people cherish.

....

Dale Farm - this is about planning not human rights or equalities. Just planning....

****

Let’s assume, just for a minute that I own a large field on the edge of Cullingworth. And let’s assume that I wake up one morning a decide to put fifty or so mobile homes on that field so as to rent them as holiday lets or cheap short-term accommodation.


I am sure that, shortly after the arrival of the first mobile home, I would receive a visit from a planning enforcement officer telling me that I don’t have permission to put those mobile homes on that field. And in the friendly conversation with that planning enforcement officer, he or she will tell me that I am very unlikely to get permission as the site is in the ‘green belt’.

Now, dear reader, catch the bus and travel a couple of hundred miles south to a similar location – a field in the ‘green belt’ outside an ordinary Essex village. And ask yourself this question – what exactly are the “very special circumstances” (PPS2 3.1) that should permit the placing of a large number of mobile homes on this particular field. Forget about the Human Rights Act, set aside all the special pleading on behalf of minorities and just consider the base facts.

It would be wrong to grant permission unless there are those ‘very special circumstances’ – Basildon Council did not find those circumstances and refused permission and subsequently (and rightly) enforced its decision – a decision supported by the then secretary of state

It was noted that in the decision notice discussing appeals in relation to sites at Dale Farm issued on 22 February 2007, the Secretary of State had concluded that there was significant harm to the Green Belt and also harm to highway safety because of the limitations of the highway network in the locality. This harm was considered to be unacceptable, even on a temporary basis, and could not be adequately mitigated by conditions. The Secretary of State considered that the issue of need and the personal circumstances of the occupiers did not outweigh the identified harm.

There has been a series of court actions that, in the end, upheld the original Council decision that this represented a development that harmed the ‘green belt’ and that there were no very special circumstances that outweighed this harm.

In the end this is a planning matter rather than anything else. I will acknowledge that we perhaps need to make more provision for travellers by way of sites but under our current planning regime this provision is a matter that should be considered in the strategic planning process (currently the ‘local development framework’ system although this will change under the Localism and Decentralisation Bill currently before parliament).

The purpose of development control is to implement the council’s planning policies in the context of national guidance and the specifics of each application. Had Basildon’s planners made any other decision it would have represented a very significant change to the treatment of ‘green belt’ in respect of caravans, mobile homes and temporary accommodation. This does not just relate to how we treat “travellers” but to a variety of other potential developments from holiday lets to retirement parks.

The reason this decision is right must be clear – whatever we may think of planning regulations, they need to be implemented consistently. If it is not permitted development for me to build one small bungalow in the ‘green belt’ – and (all other things being equal) it isn’t – it cannot be permissible for anyone to develop 51 caravan pitches with hard-standing and permanent facilities.

Travellers do not have any special privileges in respect of planning regulations other than those contained within ODPM Circular 01/2006 which states:

There is a general presumption against inappropriate development within Green Belts.

New gypsy and traveller sites in the Green Belt are normally inappropriate development, as defined in Planning Policy Guidance 2: ‘Green Belts’ (PPG2). National planning policy on Green Belts applies equally to applications for planning permission from gypsies and travellers, and the settled population. Alternatives should be explored before Green Belt locations are considered.

So why have so many people arrived to “support” the resident on this site – ageing actresses, so-called anarchists and even antediluvian Liberal Peers:

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Avebury has criticised the decision to evict dozens of families living illegally at the Dale Farm site in Essex.

His remarks (which he’d never have made when he was MP for Orpington I bet) come on the day that the travellers facing eviction from the site took their fight to Downing Street where they handed in a 1,000-signature petition.

I can respect those who reject the premise of planning control – although I am equivocal as to whether they are right:

As Dale Farm residents have discovered to their cost, to accept that a self-styled bunch of planning experts has the right to tell you whether or not you can build a home on land you own is a cruel restriction on people’s freedom and liberty.

But the argument that there is anything in all this about “human rights” or “equalities” is to misrepresent the entire debate. It maybe that the law is an ass but, right now, it’s the law.

....

Planners, Big Society and how grazing horses isn't allowed in the 'green belt'

I have a soft spot for planners. Partly through a continuing love affair with maps and plans and partly because planners get a raw deal – they don’t set the rules (although at times they implement them with unwarranted gusto) after all.

Despite this I know that the Director of Planning at the Department for Communities and Local Government is shouting at the deaf when she says:

The profession had "a big role in the Big Society", she said. "You already know the communities - you already have an 'in'," she said.  "Central government is devolving an enormous amount to you. We are less concerned than ever about processes and more concerned about making things happen".

I recall sitting – right back at the early days of the localism debate – in a meeting discussing rural development and hearing the comments of a Director of Planning from a large rural authority:

“Giving Communities rights to influence planning is the thin end of the wedge.”

This view more accurately characterises the approach of planners than does the exhortation of the DCLG’s planning boss. Here’s the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) on the subject of the ‘Community Right to Build’ a core element on the localism bill:

“Proper planning scrutiny has served us well whereas this proposal appears to disempower local authorities by removing their right to determine development proposals and may mean that new housing built as a result may conflict with existing wider community priorities, and will only have to meet nationally prescribed minimum standards, even if the local authority wishes to see higher design standards in its own area”

What they mean here is that local communities might actually decide for themselves what housing development that want to see and where. Without needing the scrutiny of the RTPI’s members!

Many planners see themselves as guardians of sacred texts – PPGs, PPSs, rUDPs and a legion of other documents drawn up, it seems, more to confuse the layman than to allow a genuine role for local communities in determining what developments happen on their patch. As a councillor, I take a pretty simple view, if there’s no substantive opposition to something it should be allowed. Planners, on the other hand, believe differently.

I’ve been to two planning meetings in recent weeks – on both occasions regarding developments in the ‘green belt’. Now, I’m not going to bore you about ‘green belt’ policies – if you want to know more it’s all in PPG2 – but suffice it to say they are ridiculous and contradictory. The first of my two visits to planning concerned the further development of an industrial rendering plant located in the ‘green belt’ between Denholme and Thornton (North West of Bradford).

The Committee – despite my eloquent arguments – voted to allow a huge trailer store at this plant, ostensibly to allow 24 hour operating while reducing the stench that comes off the rotting animal by-products that feed the plant. Maybe they were right but, and this is important, the whole plant (a significant industrial process) has been constructed in the ‘green belt’.

Go forward a couple of weeks to my second visit. This time I’m with a local resident who wants to build a modest hay store to support her grazing horses. Foolishly, this resident had believed it when a planning officer gave a verbal OK to the construction of the hay store with the result that, shortly following the commencement of building, enforcement notices were issued. Subsequently an initial planning application was refused and the resident submitted a second application – this time taking proper planning advice and providing support from horse nutrition specialists.

In contrast to the rendering plant – a stinking, noisy intrusion into the ‘green belt’ – this modest proposal (again despite my eloquence) was refused. One Councillor described the half complete building as an “abortion” while others clambered up onto high horses proclaiming the sanctity of the Council’s ‘green belt’ policies. A complete contrast to the discussion about the extension to the rendering plant where members – the same members – had fallen over each other to explain “more in sorrow than anger” how necessary a huge store for trucks was and that this justified a massive development in the ‘green belt’.

What I also know is that, had my local resident want the barn to store feed for sheep, pigs or cows, she would not have needed planning permission. After all, grazing horses isn’t an allowable land use in the ‘green belt’. Go figure!

....

Campaign Diary: Proxy votes, planning and retired council officers

Another day on the stump! Chasing round getting the final bits of the main delivery finished - wandering up to bits of the ward I'd forgotten existed. A day of wonderful views as we walked up to the edges of villages, along dusty tracks, leaflet clutched in hand - and people welcome the effort.

Everyone got in a tangle over a proxy vote - amazing how one small, simple thing can get us all flapping about! And not helped when I turn up with a postal voting form not the proxy voting form that was needed! An easy mistake to make since the forms are next to eachother on the council website but definitely a case of 'less haste, more speed'.

Met some folk with a planning problem - in truth Lee Lane in Cottingley is one long planning saga. Originally sold in lots for holiday huts, the lane has over the years seen each of these huts 'transform' into large detached homes each boasting a fine view across Airedale. All this development happened in the 'green belt' passed first on an exception basis and subsequently through the inertia of precedent. The people I spoke with wanted to build a conservatory which isn't a planning concern in most places. But here the 'permitted development rights' were removed so they'll need a permission. I have no doubt that the initial reaction of the planners will be to say 'no' - it is 'green belt' after all!

There is, without doubt, some need for adjustment of 'green belt' rules to allow for limited addition to previously developed areas (this is 'brownfield land' in the 'green belt'). Indeed, when I look at the conversions of farm sites in my ward - at the hundreds of homes built in the 'green belt' without the loss of a single open field - I an struck by the opportunity to respond to housing need without indulging the big housebuilders' passion for easy access, green field sites.

Delivering in Harden and I bump into a former council officer - surprised that it was eight years since he retired! Nice little chat about what he was up to, about Phil Robinson (former Chief Executive of Bradford who also lives in the village) and about one or two local issues. Completely forgot to ask for his vote!

...

Thoughts on the planning system....

I was thinking today - in one of those idle moments - why it is that we are so conflicted about ownership. And, more importantly, why we persist in the almost feudal belief that ownership is a permission rather than a right.

Except of course that, in the case of real estate and related property rights, this is the case. We are, de facto, serfs and have been since 1947:

In 1947 the Town & Country Planning Act was published, providing the first comprehensive basis for the control of development and land uses in this country. Before 1947 the use of land and development was largely uncontrolled, although some limitations were exercised through Public Health and local Acts.

The 1947 Act introduced a comprehensive system for the control of development and since then (with some specific exceptions) no land owner has been entitled to carry out any development without first obtaining the necessary planning permission.

You can only make use of your real estate property with the permission of government. Only those uses that our masters permit are allowed. And the government can (and does) act precipitously, aggressively and arbitrarily to enforce its feudal authority over our land.

While other parts of the 1945-1950 Labour Government's attempts to enforce socialism through fiat are gradually being dismantled (the nationalisation of industry, elements of the "welfare state", the assumptions of free care and so on), nobody - not even the most swivel-eyed right winger - is questioning whether we should start to dismantle the "planning system".

The current coalition government is saying that its "open source planning" proposals represent a dramatic and radical shift in the planning system. Which at one level is true - the 'regional' agenda is removed and greater 'community engagement' is promised. But the truly radical change - a real presumption in favour of development - is nowhere to be seen. Planners will still cling to their authoritarian powers to direct the uses of our land and can still, at the stroke of a pen, turn someone from a pauper to a plutocrat. And they love it - and hate any diminution of their power:

The Institute said it was particularly concerned that the government’s proposals to abolish regional planning – contained in the proposed Decentralisation and Localism Bill – are based mainly on an objection to imposed regional housing targets rather than to the principle of strategic planning.

The RTPI added that it “strongly advocates” the need for strategic-level planning that co-ordinates development and infrastructure between different areas, provides a wide range of environmental policies, and ensures that the needs of the wider than local community are properly addressed.

You can't just let people decide for themselves what to do with land - it might not be 'strategic' (whatever that may mean)! The truth is that these powers, linked to what the Yanks call 'eminent domain' and we call 'compulsory purchase', provide government with the ability to confiscate land for almost any purpose.

Giving local places more controls is a real step forward - and the 'community right to build' (the 'thin end of the wedge' as I heard one planner call it) allows communities to make development choices themselves rather than allowing the planners to make their random, arbitrary 'strategic' choices. But we need to go further - to really trust local places to discuss, debate and negotiate development between landowners, builders and the people whose amenity is directly affected by that development. Without the expensive, rules-bound, legalistic planning system to prevent sensible, locally-supported developments proceeding.

I spend more time arguing for flexibility in 'green belt' controls - to permit farm conversions, to allow holiday lets, to facilitate modern farming practice and to let landowners make careful, supported decisions about sensitive landscape - than I do "defending" that green belt from rapacious developers.

Perhaps what we need is a real local 'tribunal' process - with our without us councillors - that arbitrates between the landowner's rights and the rights of those affected by development. All the volumes of planning guidance (or "statements" as they now are) do not help this process - they merely act as a barrier. This isn't an argument for scrapping planning but a case for trusting local people and the people they elect to make the right decisions - free from lawyers, planners and inspectors.

....

Unopposed development in the 'Green Belt' - a guide to planning idiocy

****

I try very hard to be positive about the planning system. But this (starts on page 19) makes me want to weep:

A full application for construction of a new livestock building together with retention of part of a general purpose agricultural building. Land at Beckfoot House, Beckfoot Lane, Harden, Bingley.

This application is recommended for refusal despite letters of support from neighbours and there being no local objections at all. Those people who will be affected by the development think its fine – why do planners think they know better?

And what do the planners seem to think? Well it appears to me that despite the weasel words used the main driver for the decision is a belief that the applicant isn’t a proper farmer.

the main issue to consider in determining this application continues to be the impact of the building on the openness of the green belt and the character and appearance of the landscape due to its bulk and scale and its prominent siting - especially given the relatively small size of the land holding and the scale and prominence of the building.

The building is too big and therefore might be used for dreadful, nefarious purposes (in this case the rumour is that the applicant intends to keep his racing cars in the new barn – odd given he has a perfectly good garage for them). The other problem is that the planners want to dictate precisely where on the holding a barn should be cited rather than allowing the landowner to decide according to his needs.

And the planners return to their innuendo again:

The building will have to be significantly adapted to make it suitable to accommodate livestock which casts some doubt on its original intended purpose.

Of course they have no evidence to support this statement – it’s just lobbed in there to cast doubt on the applicants farming credentials despite this:

…an agricultural statement from agents representing the applicant describes the applicant’s intention to establish a pedigree beef herd and sheep flock. It says that the location of the building is justified in terms of practicality for the farming enterprise, topography and access and to avoid potential conflict with neighbouring properties. The size is said to be justified by reference to welfare standards and regulations governing the housing of livestock and by reference to the amount of feed, straw equipment and ancillary items such as medicines required by the intended number of livestock. The applicant anticipates keeping up to 8 cows, each with calves and a maximum of 20 sheep. The cows will have to be housed indoors over winter. The portion of the building that needs to be rebuilt to accommodate livestock seems to have been designed to reflect DEFRA recommendations and welfare guidance.

Despite this the planners are back with their ‘you’re not a proper farmer’ implications:

It has not been explained why a building of the proportions and in the position agreed under the Prior Approval procedure would not suffice given the small scale of the holding.

Er...did you not read the Agent's statement?

None of these issues is material to the planning decision but they provide important background noise for the planners – substantiating their argument that this barn is too big and in a prominent position. The crux of the planning argument relates to whether the development is allowed in the ‘green belt’ – and, ceteris paribus, if it has a clear agricultural justification then planning permission is not required.

What I find most disturbing about this case is the manner in which rumour and innuendo about the applicant’s purposes in building the barn appear to have influenced the decision and, in particular, the assessment of the agricultural case for the development. In the view of neighbours this development is, at worst, of no impact and for some a real advantage. But the treatment of the case by the planners – the questioning of the applicants motives, the dismissal of planting schemes and the constant reference to the scale of the farm – serve to create the context for those planners to propose refusal on the grounds of impact in the green belt.

An impact that has been mitigated:

The impact of the building when viewed from Beckfoot Lane has been heightened by removal of mature trees from along the lane during 2008. These have been replaced by new planting carried out in conjunction with the Forest of Bradford. A previous letter from the Trust confirms that 350 whips and 45 light standard trees have been planted on the applicant’s land as an initial phase of a planting programme which will continue with new tree planting and new hedgerows to be planted on the holding in November 2009. The applicant intends to plant at least 3 acres of the holding as woodland copses.

Pretty good stuff – just what the planning system should support? But in this case the planner isn’t happy:

…it would be some years before such planting provided effective screening to a structure that is 31 metres long and over 7 metres high for 2/3rds of its length.

But - as this statement suggests - it will screen the development in years to come.

But it gets better - the planners even go so far as to criticise the tree planting itself!

…the new planting proposed may, in itself, detract from the open pasture character of the landscape.

I’m laughing now – anyone who know the ‘twines’ and the Harden Beck valley will know it is a mixture of woodland, copse and fenced grazing – there isn;t any ‘open pasture’. The statement appears designed to substantiate the view of the planners rather than to describe the valley in which this development is proposed.

It is likely that a proposed development that improves life for local residents, provides facilities for a local farmer, is supported by several letters and by ward members will be refused.

The planning system really is a joke.

....