The London Plan currently designates 26 views across landscapes and landmarks in London.  It seeks to protect them by ensuring thorough consideration is given by the relevant authorities to any development proposals falling within the area of the designated view which would unacceptably interfere and detract from it.  The SPG describes the process and procedure authorities should use when taking account of the ‘views’ as material considerations in determining planning applications.  It also provides specific details on each designated view including how it is to be protected and why.

No sooner has DCLG's Select Committee invited submissions to help its "inquiry into the revocation of reginal spatial strategies" -- one of the issues being "the arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg. waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, &c.)" -- than DEFRA today issued its call for evidence for a review of "both the current state of waste policy and waste management in England and what measures should be considered to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of future waste policy in England". 

The terms of reference of the DEFRA review are set out here. 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/waste-review/100729-waste-review-tor.pdf

Point 17 is particularly interesting. What price localism in the delivery of waste infrastructure?

http://offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/misc/2LP/PL2-Resources-Documents/CorneredShops.pdf

One standout, but perhaps not surprising, statistic is that just 5% of supermarket turnover gets into the local community, compared with over 50% of that of small shops (such as local butchers, greengrocers and newsagents).  This is just one reason why the Assembly is worried about this endangered part of the retail sector. 

Jonathan's makes the point is that "of interest are suggested changes to the Use Classes order and possible revisions to PPS4.  Whilst these may be beneficial (or wanted) in London, the knock on effect will be changes that affect shopping centres generally throughout the country.  It will be interesting to monitor progress".

He must be right. Supermarket development always seems to get the big headlines.  Maybe it is time that the focus was on the smaller retailer.  What do you think? 

The Energy Minister has announced that there will be a reconsultation this autumn on the suite of draft energy National Policy Statements -- including one on Nuclear Energy. These were the subject of a consultation round last year, which did not go altogether smoothly.  David Brock commented on the potential for a judicial challenge at the time.  See the penultimate paragraph of David's blog.

The current stance is that a review has been undertaken of the suite's Sustainability Appraisals to ensure that they are fit for purpose.  There is a new emphasis on not only a sustainable but also a secure energy supply.

So, round 2.  Let's hope it all goes rather better this time.

In the meantime, the DCLG has today picked up on a statement made by Eric PIckles yesterday and said that planning decision makers need to take into account the desirability of local communities to set up free schools (independent state schools to be run by teachers and accountable to parents) and adopt a positive and constructive approach to enable this to happen, unless there are likely to be adverse planning impacts that will affect the local area which outweigh that desirability.

Will this see a raft of new schools being opened? It may depend on what exactly constitutes 'parental demand', but if this exists, it is clear that the planning authority must do what it can to accommodate the demand - using conditions and obligations as necessary to make the proposal acceptable.

The scheme seeks to redress the detrimental impact on property prices for those in the vicinity of the currently favoured proposed high speed route.  It will provide assistance to owner-occupiers of such properties who need to move urgently and before a decision is made on the final rail route, but find their house price is lowered by the threat of having a high speed rail line nearby.  These people will be able to apply to have their property purchased by the Secretary of State for Transport for an “unblighted” price.

The announcement must be a relief to those affected by the proposed route, especially as the government has extended the scope of the scheme following a period of public consultation from that which was original proposed.  As well as those affected in residential properties, the scheme now also includes owner-occupiers in certain commercial properties, agricultural property, those who inherit a property, and people who’s property is repossessed and needs to be urgently sold.

We can certainly expect there to be many further rounds of public consultation on the high speed rail proposals – at the moment, it appears the government intends to kick these off in early 2011.

More information is available on the Department of Transport’s website.

Grant Shapps has launched the Community Right to Build initiative this morning, trailed by his announcement to a recent Community Land Trusts conference of his intention to bring local housing trusts into being. (See our blog on 30 June). He wants small communities, rural ones in particular, to be freed of local authority planning constraints and to bring forward development that suits their specific local needs. Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning, Shapps suggested that local authorities are more concerned about very large housing developments of 5000-10,000 and the major structural issues that go with these. So local communities, defined by reference to parish of ward boundaries, will be encouraged to work up small scale developments for themselves. Provided that there is minimal opposition to the proposals in a local referendum and basic criteria relating to sustainability and environmental issues are addressed, the development will be permitted without having to go through the usual planning application/approval processes. Interestingly, DCLG FAQs (see link above) acknowledge that "where a community's proposed development fits with a local authority's local development plan and other planning requirements, then the easiest route may well be to file a planning application".

If in the world of "localism" the public is to have a greater role, then a way must be found to cut right back on volume - but retain focus on the really key issues. In recent years the increase in volume has encouraged lack of focus. Perhaps the Inspectorate's approach to word limits and proper summaries could play a part. Developers and local planning authorities who want to win favour with public opinion need to ensure the right issues are put centre stage, in a way which encourages engagement but is still based on robust evidence.

Amongst the suggestions in the POS paper are scrapping jargon, reviewing the 4 and 10 year immunity rules which favour those who have flouted planning control, and cutting back on the length of local development schemes (often several pages long) to little more than a single side.

Whether or not, or to what extent, the financial standing of a developer can be taken into account by a LPA as a "material planning consideration" has been the subject of some debate in the past. Lord Scarman accepted in Great Portland Estate plc v Westminster City Council (1985) that it would be "inhuman pedantry" to ignore human factors such as the impecuniosity of a developer in the administration of planning control. However, he stated such consideration should be limited to "special circumstances" where the LPA could provide proper justification for making this a material consideration. There seems to be no further judicial guidance or otherwise on this issue.

It is unlikely that either the EIR or FOIA would provide any assistance for third parties in accessing such information, if it was even held by the LPA, given that it is likely to be commercially sensitive information and protected by confidentiality requirements - but there are of course other searches that can be done against registered companies.

Do readers, whether from a planning authority or otherwise, have experience of a developer's financial standing being used (successfully or otherwise) as a material consideration when determining planning applications?

The 'partnership' element of these bodies will come from local business leaders, who will join with the local authorities and help to drive economic growth in their areas. The LEPs will be charged with tackling issues such as planning and housing, local transport and infrastructure priorities, employment and enterprise and the transition to the low carbon economy.

Notwithstanding that proposals need to be submitted shortly (by 6 September), little is known about the detail of how LEPs will operate. It would be interesting to hear how local authorities are reacting to the invitation to submit proposals. Is the lack of detail at this stage a worry, or holding authorities back from submitting proposals? Our understanding is that most authorities are welcoming this initiative but we'd be interested for some feedback.