Robert Jenrick Archives - Planning Design Ltd

The new Planning Act – Will it see the light of day?

28th November 202218th January 2022 by Gary Stringer

The Planning White Paper, published in August 2020, promised the biggest shake-up of the planning system since the Second World War. However, there has been a re-think following the Tories’ Amersham and Chesham by-election defeat where planning dominated the campaign, with the electorate concerned that the proposed changes would make the planning system less democratic with less opportunities for communities to participate. Jonathan Jenkin, Consultant at Planning & Design Practice takes a look at what might be in store for the Act in 2022.

There is a section within the Conservative party who loathe the planning system on ideological grounds. It is seen as one of the last bastions of socialism one that should be scrapped to allow the market in land and property to be unfettered with development rights returned to landowners.

There is another section within the Conservative party who use the planning system to protect their often-privileged way of life. Those who have paid to live in the Green belt, in conservation areas, the coast, AONBs, National Parks etc and whose property prices reflect the constraints on development in those areas. There are also those who value tradition, the way areas look, protecting old buildings and the quality of the man made townscape and landscape of town and countryside. Whether it is protecting privilege or a way of life, anti-development protest has become a middle-class activity.

The planning system has been starved of resources in the last 10 years. The system has lost expertise, few councils have conservation officers, Development Control is often poorly paid and many of the best planners now work for the private sector. Enforcement is also laxer, undermining the faith people have in the system and its fairness. This lack of resources both at local level and nationally through the appeal process has slowed the system down. In wealthy areas councillors have become more anti-development to reflect the wishes of their constituents. This leads to planning officer’s recommendations being turned down and pressure on the appeal system. This has led to calls to simplify and speed up the system. Changes to the General Permitted Development Order have become labyrinthine and have reduced the scope of the planning system to control change particularly in urban areas. This has conversely increased the anxiety of those seeking to prevent development from allowing schemes fearing future changes that cannot be controlled.

The whole system is a mess, and the first thing is that it needs proper resourcing using public money. Michael Gove is now the minister responsible; few would mourn the loss of Robert Jenrick. Michael has said that public money for public goods , but can he do this for planning?

The second is a review of the GPDO, to make it sensible.

The third is a new white paper that seeks to create a proper system of local, regional, and national plans which provide direction and purpose helping to ensure that national infrastructure and climate change goals can be delivered with levelling up through a proper appraisal of the needs of the country.

The Planning White paper of 2020 (Planning for the Future) sought to further reduce the role of planning in public life. It sought to divide and rule with areas for growth, development, and protection. It tried to give protection to the wealthy and privileged while removing controls in poorer areas as a way of meeting the ideological divide at the heart of the party. The white paper was not about what is good for the country, or the well-being of its people and it should have been.

The white paper bit the dust following the Amersham and Chesham by election. A safe conservative seat to the liberal democrats who used the fear of the loss of a functioning planning system to win the seat. In the conservative heartlands, planning matters and I hope that the new white paper will look at the national picture in England to deliver for all the people in the country a national system that is equitable to all.

The new white paper is promised sometime this year. Let’s see….

Jonathan Jenkin, Consultant, Planning & Design Practice Ltd

Growth, renewal and protection

30th November 20225th August 2020 by Gary Stringer

The government’s proposals put forward by Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick to identify areas for ‘Growth’, ‘Renewal’ and ‘Protection’ with corresponding levels of planning control raise some interesting dilemmas.

The planning system is based on local communities developing a Local Plan for themselves which sets out the priorities for growth and development within an area supplemented by neighbourhood plans. Some strategic planning does take place in areas such a Greater Manchester but strategic planning was undermined by the ‘Localism Agenda’ developed by a previous Conservative Government to hand planning control ‘back to the people’.

Local Authorities will be ordered to identify areas for growth, renewal and protection. In areas of growth, development will be able to proceed without planning permission. In areas of renewal there will be permission in principle but with oversight from the local community to address issues such as flood risk, design, impact on transport and highways. In areas of protection the current planning rules will continue.

This approach could undermine the localism agenda and the whole local plan process. In areas of growth, with no planning rules, identified local plan sites for development could remain undeveloped while poorly designed, poor quality development which provides no funding to support local services and facilities could be built next door. Nothing the government has said will ensure that the Building Better agenda would be followed through in a growth area. There is also no indication that basic standards would be met in terms of minimum dwelling sizes or space about dwelling standards. Incompatible uses could be placed next to each other and a growth area like the Enterprise Zones of the 1970s could be used to undermine the social and economic fabric of a community.

This approach could also reinforce social division. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Green Belt, Heritage coasts and other designated areas have strict controls on new development while Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites place strict controls over design and protection of the built environment. These areas are also expensive places in which to buy property and they have the effect of creating social division. Areas of protection are likely to equate to these areas but also to rural and coastal areas where there are high house values so that those whose voices ‘count’ are offered a system that protects their local area. For example the localism agenda might continue in the Home Counties, using full planning controls with perhaps growth areas in east London, the Medway Towns and ethnically diverse areas such as Luton and Slough. In the north in settlements such as Middlesbrough, Barnsley, Rochdale, and Blackpool large parts of their towns and cities could be identified as growth areas and in doing so the opportunity for people living and working in those locations to retain control over their environment through planning control would be removed. This could have the effect of removing control from the very people least able to exert control over their own lives. This creates inequity, one rule for one and one rule for another. It undermines society and it is a very dangerous direction of travel.

Without planning control there is no requirement to fund local services and facilities. This could make the provision of local services in poor areas where the need is greatest far more difficult with schools overwhelmed, health services stretched and the quality of the local environment made even poorer.

Before this system is introduced I urge the government to think again. Covid-19 has already exposed social, educational and health divisions in our society. The proposed changes in the planning system will only cement these divisions.

We need well planned cities and towns and equal levels of service. We need a green decarbonising agenda and we need to improve the quality of life and the wellness of every citizen of the UK, not just the wealthy few.

Jonathan Jenkin, Managing Director, Planning & Design Practice Ltd

Main Image: Thanks to Cactus Images

Improving tall building safety following Grenfell

5th December 202217th April 2020 by Gary Stringer

(This article is taken from the ‘The Planner’ Dated 7th April 2020.)

Late last week, housing secretary Robert Jenrick announced a series of measures comprising what he called ‘the biggest change in building safety for a generation” to building safety systems.

Jenrick said the measures include mandatory sprinkler systems and consistent wayfinding signage in all new high-rise blocks of flats over 11 metres tall/three storeys in height – dramatically reducing the height at which such systems are required.

The reforms are designed to incentivise compliance and better enable the use of enforcement powers and sanctions – including prosecution where the rules are not followed.

The housing secretary will also hold a round table with mortgage lenders to work on an approach to mortgage valuations for properties in buildings under 18 metres tall, with the aim of providing certainty for owners affected by building safety work.

He said: “The government is bringing about the biggest change in building safety for a generation. We have made a major step towards this by publishing our response to the Building a Safer Future consultation. This new regime will put residents’ safety at its heart and follows the announcement of the unprecedented £1 billion fund for removing unsafe cladding from high-rise buildings in the Budget.

“We are also announcing that the housing industry is designing a website so lenders and leaseholders can access the information needed to proceed with sales and re-mortgaging, and the government stands ready to help to ensure this work is completed at pace.

“Building safety is a priority and the government is supporting industry in ensuring homes are safe at this difficult time.”

These new measures build on a series of recent declarations:

An announcement in The Budget of £1 billion of funding in 2020/21 to support the remediation of unsafe non-ACM cladding materials on high-rise buildings. This is in addition to the £600 million already available for remediation of high-rise buildings with unsafe ACM cladding.
The proposed naming of building owners who have been slow to act in removing unsafe ACM cladding.
Introduction of the fire safety bill, which constitutes a step further in delivering the recommendations of the Grenfell Inquiry’s phase one report.

The latest non-ACM (aluminium composite material) cladding testing results have also been published. They show that none of the materials, including high-pressure laminate (HPL) and timber cladding, behaved in the same way as ACM. The government is making it clear that any unsafe materials should be removed from buildings quickly. External wall systems on high-rise buildings using class C or D HPL panels are unsafe and should be removed, as they do not comply with building regulations.

We welcome these measures to improve tall building safety and they should ensure (once implemented) that external cladding will never again pose a threat to occupiers. The introduction of sprinklers should also reduce the incidence of fire within individual flats, particularly caused by white goods (the source of the Grenfell fire), and the proposed introduction of clear way marking, will provide residents with a clear route for escape if smoke becomes a problem or if there is a power cut.

Jonathan Jenkin, Consultant, Planning & Design Practice Ltd

The new Planning Act – Will it see the light of day?

Growth, renewal and protection

Improving tall building safety following Grenfell

Offices

Services

Useful Links

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

GET IN TOUCH