1 of 2
1
Civic Voice Live - Wednesday 28th September 12-1pm
Posted: 26 September 2011 10:12 AM   [ Ignore ]
Administrator
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2010-03-11

To help influence the new planning policy framework we have a Civic Voice Live scheduled for Wednesday 28th September between 12 -1pm. This builds on from the succesful workshops we held recently with cvic groups in Birmingham and London.

We have prepared a short summary of Key Issues which you may find helpful here before you join the discussion

If you are unable to join the forum but would like a question asked, please email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and we will be sure to respond with an answer.

 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 08:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  117
Joined  2010-04-27

We are looking forward to a lively discussion on the review of national planning policies this afternoon.  There is no doubt that publication of the draft National Planning Policy Framework on 25th July has stirred controversy.  Over two months later and it has rarely been off the front pages and airwaves.  We heard yesterday that the National Trust’s petition has surpassed 100,000 signatures and the Prime Minister intervened last week seeking to reassure us all that he wanted a planning system that addressed environmental and social issues as well as encouraging economic growth.

What do you think are the key issues and where can civic societies and Civic Voice exercise the most influence?

 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 09:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Administrator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  117
Joined  2010-04-27

To kick things off - have you voted yet in the poll on the home page of our website for what you want to see in the final NPPF? 

These are the results so far:

Better protection for local undesignated heritage (17.58%)
Stronger “town centre first” policies for shops, offices and leisure (7.69%)
“Brownfield first” policy for new housing (21.98%)
Removal of bias towards economic growth (21.98%)
Better resourced council planning departments (8.79%)
More of a say for local people (21.98%)

What do you think?

 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  13
Joined  2010-06-03

Can you tell me “what exactly do the Government” mean when they say a bias in favour of development? What does this mean in reality to our high street?

 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 10:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  13
Joined  2010-06-03

I would also appreciated more of an explanation over what Civic Voice are doing on this issue? What exactly is Smart Growth I read in your Key issues?

 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 10:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Administrator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  117
Joined  2010-04-27

The Government talks about a “presumption in favour” - in effect this means that the proponent of a development doesn’t have to provide any evidence to justify it.  This will make it very hard to resist much damaging development (including that which sucks the life out of the high street), especially where there isn’t an up to date Local Plan (only about 30% of local authorities have one).  It will be even harder to improve a development which is ok in principle but where minor but important changes to the design, layout or impact on trees can make all the difference.

 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 10:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Administrator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  117
Joined  2010-04-27

Civic Voice has been busy working on behalf of civic societies to influence the outcome of the debate over the NPPF.  We have had lots of views on what you think of it (and want more today) through emails and two large workshops we ran for volunteers in Bimringham and London last week.  We have been keepin gin close touch with other groups working on the NPPF, including National Trust, CPRE and heritage groups.  We have met with senior civic servants and also fed in our views to the official Planning Sounding Board (where we are the only community voice).  We are sharing platforms with senior politicians and will be meeting the Minister responsible (Greg Clark) shortly.  We have also had good voerage for our views in the media.  We will be responding to the NPPF before the deadline of 17th October and have also fed in views to the House of Commons Select Committee which is inquiring into it.

 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Administrator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  117
Joined  2010-04-27

“Smart growth” is shorthand for development which is the antithesis of urban sprawl.  It makes best use of existing urban land and buildings, respects open space and their history and character, is well located for a choice of transport and meets economic and housing needs in places which regenerate and restore rather than damage the local environment.  In this way we can contribute positively to our economic goals but it will need more and better planning not less and that will require a change in the NPPF and better resourced local council planning departments.

 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 10:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Administrator
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2010-03-11

Michael Webb has asked by email

What - in all seriousness, can Civic Voice or the National Trust do, to change this policy. The country needs growth and we should be encouraging it - not stopping it.

 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 10:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2010-06-13

it is clear that the Treasury department are forcing this through, as such, what hope do we really have in stopping this from happening? I know you will say, write to your MP, but in all honesty, what difference will that make?

All strength to your elbow

 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 10:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Administrator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  117
Joined  2010-04-27

Michael raises two issues - can we have any influence and what needs to change. 

Taking the second point first - I’m sure everyone can agree we need to see a stimulus in the economy.  The question is how we do this and in many people’s eyes (including the civic societies who have fed back to us) this is not by relaxing the planning system.  Over 80% of planning applications get permission, one third are succesful on appeal and less than 1% take more than a year to decide.  There is land for over 300,000 houses already identified with planning permission.  The issues seem to be more to do with demand than the supply of land and planning consents.

As to influence - well we are already having some and you can see that in the emollient tone of the Prime Ministers recent letter.  We are being asked directly to help redraft key passages and to improve the result.  Watch this space…..but remember also to encourage your civic society to respond.

 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 10:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Administrator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  117
Joined  2010-04-27

Our elbow is best powered by the collective voice of civic societies and volunteers.  Do vote in our poll and send in your views on the NPPF.  Don’t forget to encourage your civic society to respond to the NPPF.  We are also likely to encourage everyone to conteact their local MPs once the consultation closes on 17th October.  We are turning things round and making a difference but we need to keep the pressure up. 

Civic volunteers are the most numerous particpants in planning and what we think does matter and is listened to.

 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 10:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2011-09-28

What has surprised me is that even our district council has issued a press release outlining its concerns:

“HART District Council announced today that it will submit strong objections to the Government over its proposed new National Policy Planning Framework.
The Government published the draft Planning Framework for comment in the summer. As currently drafted it not only removes the long standing policy that the countryside should be protected for its own sake but also the presumption that brownfield land should be developed in preference to green fields.
These intended changes, coupled with the Government’s drive to foster economic growth, will leave rural districts like Hart subject to the risk of sporadic and unplanned development in the countryside.
Hart’s Council Leader, Cllr Ken Crookes declared: “ We are pleased to note the Government’s intention to simplify national planning policy but we are concerned that the Government’s proposed changes will have far reaching and unintended consequences for Hart.
“We don’t believe that the Government has thoroughly thought through its proposals. We are therefore going to submit strong objections to the Government and sincerely hope that it will reconsider these proposals.”

I don’t remember them commenting on proposed legislation like this before. It does sound like the government will be receiving a lot of adverse comments from many sources.

 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Administrator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  117
Joined  2010-04-27

We understand there have been over 7,000 responses already which is unprecedented so early on in the consultation process.  Many of these are very critical and many are from local councils of all political colours.  It is really important that we all make our voice heard

 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 10:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2010-06-13

It is all well and good saying “build on this brownfield land”, but, if the economics of the development do not work for a developer - you cannot force them to build there!

 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 10:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Administrator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  117
Joined  2010-04-27

Therein lies the rub - we certainly need an effective definition of brownfield which doesn’t sacrifice open space and gardens.  Equally, the economics of what we can do with brownfield changes if we have tight controls over greenfield development and history has shown how it is possible to dramatically increase the share of new housing on brownfield sites (rising from a bit over 50% of new homes in the 90s to over 80% recently)

 
 
   
1 of 2
1