Government Plans could have disastrous consequences
Business Weekly Article 24th June 2010.
A Cambridge property veteran has warned the government that its plans to return decision making powers on housing and planning to local councils could have disastrous consequences.
Tim Holmes of Endurance Estates fears the worst unless systems are in place that encourages planners to look at schemes in a regional context.
In a non-nonsense letter to Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Holmes urges the government to thoroughly review its proposals.
He told Business Weekly 'when the Labour government introduced its system of Local Development Frameworks (LDF's) in the Planning and Compensation Act of 2004 it was designed to give autonomy for development planning to local authorities at district levels, with Regional Spatial Strategies to identify specific requirements for individual districts across the region.
'Unfortunately this led to considerable delays, partly due to its complexity but also because local authorities were unable to develop their own local plans while waiting for regional guidance to come forward.
In South Cambridgeshire for example it has taken over 6 years to get detailed development policies in place which is particularly frustrating given the housing boom and the recruitments for land between 2004 and 2007 that led to unprecedented price rises.
Not surprisingly the new government has seen the problems caused by the LDF's and has made the decision to abolish regional strategies and return decision making powers to the local councils.
I support this, but as someone who has been involved in the delivery of over 7.5 million sq.ft of commercial space (including South Cambs District Councils own headquarters) I can also see this won't work without putting in some kind of transitional framework that will enable them to recognise current regional requirement.
This is something they need to act on quickly. Now the previous governments strategy is finally working, all a new system will do is stifle new development once more.
It also gives local authorities who are anti growth an excuse not to accommodate any housing growth. This was recently seen in a planning refusal in Newmarket, when members of Forest Heath District Council used the government's intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategy as a reason to refuse.
And local authorities wanting to encourage growth - usually those in places where the market is limited due to location or economic status – could allow over provision.
Regional guidance also makes planning effectively for regional facilities i.e. schools, police stations and major infrastructure easier, along with giving certainty to the land promotion and house building industry about likely growth levels. Any confusion here could lead to land becoming scarcer and housing becoming less affordable.
While I'm not against moving away from Regional Strategies, the government needs to ensure it's not creating more problems of the type it's trying to abolish.
The planning process needs to continue and not be put on hold – or used as an excuse to refuse planning applications – while new figures and policies are developed.
Local authorities need to be encouraged to think regionally, such as through providing an ongoing five year supply of housing land or being obliged to use the current LDF to guide development.
Planning officers in local authorities need to be encouraged and trained to take an objective view on the regional significance of development. And while fiscal incentives are also a good idea, these should not be relied upon. And why not involve industry members in reviewing planning applications, such as those working in planning, architecture and highways?
If power is to be returned to local authorities the people with the power need to be able to act responsibly and create and easier platform for the property industry to present their case for development.
Too often members are ill informed and the opportunity for the developer to explain the situation is too late.'