TrustNews Mar 20
Government consultations on changes to the Planning System
Government consultations on changes to the Planning System
From early August through to the end of October a small group worked on the Trust's response to two government planning papers published for public consultation ('Changes to the Planning System' and 'White Paper: Planning for the Future').
Housing Numbers
The topic which generated a lot of publicity was the new formula for calculating the number of houses allocated to each local authority in England. The Trust was one of many that opposed the formula in our response to the consultations and wrote to our MP, Steve Brine about the reforms as well. Many Conservative MPs including Steve attacked the new formula in a debate at Westminster as it resulted in the more rural areas being allocated many more houses. We were relieved that the Government agreed to reconsider the formula as a result of the strength of the parliamentary and other opposition and in December a ministerial statement set out revised proposals.
Although things may change later, the Government has largely returned to the old formula. In Winchester District, instead of an increase of more than 60% in the number of dwellings, the area is now required to plan for a much more modest increase of about 10%. In the case of Winchester itself the annual rate is expected to rise from the current figure of 200 to, between 220 to 245 a year, depending on how the overall numbers are allocated around the District. This means accommodating between 1,229 and 1,729 dwellings up to 2038. These are the numbers which apply tor now but they may change later in the review of Winchester’s local plan.
Reforms to Local Plans
The White Paper proposes wide ranging and substantial changes to the way local plans are prepared and what they should contain, with the objective of producing a simpler, faster and more predictable system. There was little detail making it difficult to understand how the changes would work and whether they would avoid unintended damaging consequences. Our response was one of 40,000 and we are waiting for the Government to digest them all and publicise any changes.
We think they are unrealistic in suggesting local plans can be produced more quickly, in 30 months, particularly as they are now expecting more information to be included for areas allocated for development which is currently provided when planning applications are made. They also want much more public involvement at this stage and much less when planning applications are made but they are allocating less time for consultation than we have normally experienced in Winchester with the preparations of local plans. We think it is unrealistic and wrong to try and restrict public comment and involvement when planning applications are made which has always been an important democratic feature of the planning system.
For a long time the Trust has criticised the standard of place making and the design of buildings, so we welcome the proposals to improve both of these with the use of design codes produced at both national and local level. Much depends for their success on the way they are introduced and implemented and how local authorities are resourced to employ officers with the necessary skills and seniority to oversee the production and use of the codes.
A completely new concept is the classification of all land into three types: ‘Growth’ which is suitable for development such as happened with the Kings Barton development; ‘Protected’ such as countryside and conservation areas which will retain their current treatment; and ‘Renewal’ areas which will apply to undesignated urban areas. It is unclear how these renewal areas will be managed as there is so little detail. Perhaps local plans will set out the type of development that would be acceptable in principle to reflect the character of different neighbourhoods. If it is significantly different from what is familiar then residents are likely to oppose changes and will need to react through the opportunities for consultation.
John Beveridge