New fast-track planning procedure

[Tooting Gull]

All the stuff in the papers today about reducing red-tape for both big projects and home extensions etc - I'm guessing that has come too late to help us, and would only be for new projects?

So does it help us in any way - other than maybe showing the government is exasperated with some cases (not least ours)?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Is there a press release somewhere? This is useful for work.

Which paper did you read this in?

Cheers!

 

[Tooting Gull]

I'm sure there's something in the Times, maybe others as well.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Planning review argues 'nimby' laws hold back UK economy


Ashley Seager
Tuesday December 5, 2006
The Guardian


The British economy is being stifled by antiquated planning laws and "nimby" attitudes that hinder the construction of offices, shops and roads, a government report will say today.

A review of the country's planning laws by the Bank of England economist Kate Barker will urge ministers to take rapid action to make it easier to get planning permission for everything from shopping centres to flats in towns. Ms Barker's report will also complain that the UK has twice as much "protected" land as in other industrial countries, despite having one of the highest densities of population. But government sources were clear that the report would not recommend "concreting over the green belt".

One source said: "This is more about speeding up and cutting the administration costs of the existing planning system to make it easier to use land in developed areas better and quicker."
The report will say officials need to re-examine whether too much land is protected from development, and to push local authorities into allowing more projects through. One problem is that some green belt land does not comprise pristine green fields - it has been built on before and includes disused farm buildings - but it still suffers from rigid planning laws.

Ms Barker wrote a report for the Treasury two years ago saying the country was not building enough houses and recommended the construction of up to 120,000 new homes a year. House builders responded that they were hampered by over-restrictive planning laws.

But recent news that the population had burst through the 60 million level for the first time, mainly because of increased immigration, makes the need for a greater supply of housing all the more urgent.

Ms Barker has gathered evidence showing that a quarter of major planning applications were rejected by local authorities, up from 13% in the late 1990s. The Swedish furniture group Ikea has struggled to obtain planning permission to build an additional 20 stores.

The new Barker report will point out that England has 12.9% of its land designated as "green belt" and only 8.3% is considered "urban". Of the rest, 7.6% is national parks, 15.6% is areas of outstanding natural beauty and 6.2% is special areas of conservation.

But some of Ms Barker's recommendations are likely to be resisted by special interest groups. For example, the Campaign to Protect Rural England says that any shake-up of the planning regime could have "major implications for the rate at which our countryside is lost to new development".

The chancellor, Gordon Brown, is likely to use tomorrow's pre-budget report to promise to act on many of Ms Barker's recommendations, although some findings could conflict with Mr Brown's determination to present himself as green in the wake of the recent Stern review on climate change.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Is there a press release somewhere? This is useful for work.

Which paper did you read this in?

Cheers!

There was lots on the main news this morning, so I would guess it will be in most of the biggies today or tomorrow (and in the Arsegas by next summer)

 

[Tooting Gull]

Lord B, is your understanding/reading of this that it may not help our case specifically - but that to be able to say, for example, that NIMBYism and antiquated planning laws are stifling projects nationwide can only be a good thing?

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

Boring planning matters

The Barker Review of the planning system, published today, contains the following recommendations

- the creation of an independent central body to make decisions on big infrastructure projects, such as nuclear power stations, airports and windfarms. (It doesn't say whether stadiums are "big infrastructure projects" -- I suspect probably not)

- a re-examination of whether too much land in the UK is protected from development (NB – Currently only 8.3% of the land area of England is designated as urban, while 12.9% is green belt, 7.6% national parks, 15.6% areas of outstanding natural beauty, 6.2% special areas of conservation, 4.7% special protection areas and 8.2% sites of special scientific interest.)

It's hypothetical I know, but I wonder how this would have affected the Falmer decision....

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I suspect not a lot.

What the government will be attracted by is a planning system that shuts up the NIMBYs and prevents them raising any sort of objection to projects that are 'government owned' - stuff like energy production, telecoms, mass transportation and (possibly) major new housing settlements. The only sports projects that might fall into this category will be sites for the Olympics (and they've already legislated for those).

This won't be popular, any more than the lack of real planning control over mobile telecommunications masts is popular.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

It does seem to be rather extreme! Middle ground is needed to avoid this ludicrous waste of public resources.

She seems to be in an unusual position (Bank of England's interest rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee) to review this problem!

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Thank you very much.

The whole report can now be found on the web. (BBC Website/DCLG etc.)

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Lord B, is your understanding/reading of this that it may not help our case specifically - but that to be able to say, for example, that NIMBYism and antiquated planning laws are stifling projects nationwide can only be a good thing?

I'll merge this thread with the other one and you'll find out what my reading is.

 

[Mr Blobby]

The Barker Review of Planning in England

Appeals process needs speeding up - whys that?? - you mean people can play games and get decisions delayed for months and months and months??

From the BBC website

England planning overhaul urged

England needs a new national planning body to have the final say on major infrastructure projects such as power stations, a report has said.
The Barker Review also calls on local authorities to allow more building in green belt boundaries in their areas.

The study also says that England's planning system must be made both quicker and more simple, and the appeals process needs speeding up.

Environment groups have already voiced their opposition to the report.

They fear it will lead to more construction on green belt land, and projects like airport extensions, motorways and new power stations being pushed through against local objections.

'Least impact' Planning bodies should review their green belt boundaries to ensure they remain relevant and appropriate

Yet critics of the current planning system, especially companies, have long said the creation of a new national planning body is vital.

They argue that, at present, some local councillors are ducking difficult planning decisions in the face of political pressures, such as strong local opposition to a new housing scheme.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Why is this not about the West Ham game?