Curtin&Co Blog has moved to our new website

Click here to redirect to our new blog page

Click here to redirect to our new blog page

Click here to redirect to our new blog page

Click here to redirect to our new blog page

Click here to redirect to our new blog page

Click here to redirect to our new blog page

'Better to have a large local plan than a large national plan'

Yesterday the department for communities and local government held a select committee hearing on the NPPF. Our consultant David Scane was in attendance, and found proceedings to pose more questions than were answered:

‘Why should the planning system be easy for developers?’ So asked Councillor Gary Porter at the DCLG select committee hearing into the NPPF yesterday afternoon. Councillor Porter is the leader of South Holland District Council, the vice chair of the Local Government Leadership Board and, most importantly, co-author of the draft NPPF. What has been branded in some quarters as a ‘developers’ charter’ was being given a rather different face by one of the document’s key authors.

Responding to a question from Conservative MP George Hollingbery, who asked whether it was not the case that developers would find it hard to cope with lots of different local authorities producing different forms of local plans, Councillor Porter said that, yes they would, and this was something to be welcomed.

Councillor Porter is a strong advocate of localism, and an ardent critic of top-down regulations. The message that he gave to the committee yesterday was that if local authorities have sufficiently comprehensive local plans, then the NPPF is all that’s required for planning guidance. While under further questioning later he did concede that a robust local plan could end up having to be much longer than the 52 page NPPF, the message was loud and clear: it’s ‘better to have a large local plan than a large national plan’.

So where does this leave the house building industry? John Slaughter of the Home Builders Federation greatly welcomes the draft NPPF, saying that it would produce positive local plans, with more development based upon local wishes. He bemoaned the brownfield-first policies of the previous Government, saying that there was simply not enough to build the houses required. While he lent his wholehearted support to the document, he did acknowledge that there had been some serious issues with how the document has been presented. He also added that there will be a need for members of the HBF to engage further with local communities to make the system work properly.

Such positive opinions were not being held by all those invited to speak. Simon Jenkins, eminent political commentator and chairman of the National Trust, was under no illusion about the plans, describing them as being ‘a gift to lawyers’; arguing that most applications would be decided on appeal. His line of reasoning was that the document does indeed reflect a ‘developers’ charter’, and that there is plenty of derelict brownfield land available to provide the required housing numbers.

Once again it seems that the NPPF means different things depending on who you talk to. Ultimately, however, the message that came out of yesterday’s session was simple; regardless of what’s in the NPPF, it is vital that local authorities have thorough, evidence based plans, on which to base their housing numbers. It remains to be seen whether this message is heard by local authorities.

David Scane -- Labour Consultant, Curtin&Co

The draft NPPF will have its third Parliamentary reading on October 24^th and fourth and final reading on October 31^st. Curtin&Co will be in attendance at all readings.

Hold On! - A Conservative Conference Review

This year’s Conservative conference could be described as serious in tone but energetic in nature. Whether the numerous fringe events, speeches and policy announcements will maintain the limelight for a few weeks is doubtful. Indeed the “cat fight” between Justice Minister Kenneth Clarke MP and Home Secretary Theresa May MP seems to have grabbed the main headlines. Who would have thought a cat could maintain ones right to residency in the UK?

The highlight of any conference is the leader’s speech, which is why most were surprised to see so many empty seats in the auditorium, especially for the serving Prime Minister. Much has been made over why this was the case, but it’s clear the nature of conferences are changing; there are many more lobbyists and commercial passes than Conservative activists, and hard times mean the cost of attending in the host cities of Manchester and Birmingham is too high a price to pay for many.

The leader’s speech itself was designed to be a “pick me up” with Cameron playing to traditional Tories stressing that the UK will never join the Euro under his leadership. And what for the liberal Conservatives? Cameron put forward proposals to consult on gay marriage; but the mainstream will be most pleased with the announcement of further council tax freezes.

So what for planning? Greg Clark MP and Eric Pickles MP were watched with close eyes, most notably by the Shire Tories. Indeed the former sent tongues wagging when he didn’t speak at his arranged conference spot on the NPPF, only to appear the following day to set the need for further housing. The Cities Minister played off the notion that 37 is the average age most people will enter the property market, a statistic which will surprise many.

In a fringe event, attended by Greg Clark and Amber Rudd MP, and with a room full of lobbyists and councillors, tough questions were asked of the transitional arrangements between the existing and upcoming planning legislation. Mr Clark confirmed that the NPPF consultation was not finished and seemed to elude that changes were continuing to be made. Quite whether council leaders who don’t have a current local plan feel more secure against pre-emptive applications by developers remains to be seen but there seemed to be a confidence that the Cities Minister was on the right track.

One to watch - Amber Rudd MP has published a document with The Forty Group (forty of the party's MPs with the narrowest of majorities - 18 of them won their seats with margins of less than 1,000), entitled “Planning for Change”. A summary of the state of the current planning system and why Localism is the solution is explained in a 27 page document. A clear and direct MP, the influence of such a document is yet to be seen, but it is certainly an interesting read!

In short, the government is gearing towards investment in infrastructure and housing development; there was no significant wavering at conference by party members despite the challenges. The follow through is now close as the Localism Bill and NPPF shortly come to a head. Hold on!

James Bird -Conservative Consultant, Curtin&Co

A sign of things to come?

Eric Pickles has today signalled a real belief in localism by rejecting the advice of a planning inspector and upholding Winchester council’s rejection of a large-scale development. Although the council has an inadequate supply of housing land, Pickles has determined that it should be allowed to conclude its core strategy process.

Time will tell whether this is a victory for nimbyism, a well-placed belief in the competence of local government to make difficult decisions without needing to be second-guessed by Whitehall or a strategic decision designed to take some of the heat off the current draft NPPF debate (the logic of the draft NPPF might have been thought to have favoured the developers in this particular case).

What’s also clear is that some developers will need to adopt a different approach to strategically important planning applications. Instead of assuming that “everything will be alright on appeal”, time spent in genuine stakeholder engagement and community consultation may prove to be beneficial in helping applications clear the hurdle of planning committees – this decision could be a real portent that the Secretary of State is not prepared to second guess the locally elected politicians who are paid to make these decisions.

Nick Stanton, Lib Dem consultant, Curtin&Co

Localism under attack

Alas, poor Localism! What cries are committed in thy name! As the Localism Bill makes it way towards royal assent the principle that local communities should be entrusted with determining what they want to happen in their localities is under attack from all sides – because it turns out political parties can’t bear to empower people in case they make the “wrong” decisions. Fresh on the heels of the draft NPPF – which suggests that neighbourhood plans are only Good Things if they want even more growth than any other planning policy under the sun – Labour’s shadow housing spokesman Jack Dromey (the man selected from an all-woman shortlist) has suggested that regional strategies centrally imposed need to be brought back (apparently the empirical evidence of their lack of success last time round doesn’t matter).

A more creative use of politicians’ time might be to identify ways of financing infrastructure investment so that it can precede growth rather than follow it (“we don’t mind more homes but we can’t cope with the numbers we’ve already got” has to be one of the commonly used phrases among councillors) and finding the courage to lead from the front in local areas and make a positive case for more growth (something the draft NPPF had the courage to do).

Nick Stanton, Lib Dem consultant, Curtin&Co

Lib Dem conference 2011

Following this year’s Autumn conference, Lib Dems have been left to reflect on a difficult 500 days in coalition. The focus has been on the lessons the party can learn from its time in government to date, and how it can continue to influence the legislative agenda moving forward.

Coverage of the conference has tried to paint the familiar picture of a frustrated, majority left-wing party membership who feel dissatisfied with the party’s current direction, and particularly the leadership of Nick Clegg. There is certainly an element that conforms to this but, as has been noted by figures within the party, the picture is far more complex.

The party leadership are delivering the “strength through compromise, nation before party, people before politics” message with far greater conviction and confidence. One is still left with the impression that the virtues of compromise are being sold to the membership by Ministers on a continual basis, but they are no longer doing so in the phase of mass discontent and scepticism.

Chris Huhne, amongst others, used the American Right’s failure to compromise on economic reform and the near-dire consequences as an effective illustration of the risks involved in ‘playing politics with the economy’. Continued unease has perhaps in this sense bought the coalition time and lent credibility to the government’s overarching and continued emphasis on 'stability at all costs'.

Of course, despite these moderate positives, voting figures over the past year are a real wake-up call.

The local election results and heavy loss on the AV referendum were an absolute disaster and something that the party will have to come to terms with. The post-mortem into the AV capaign has been abandoned as part of this process - probably no bad thing.

In spite of teh above, there does seem to be a feeling that the party is beginning to turn a corner, or at least that it has begun to feel more comfortable in its own skin.

However, in its response to a number of controversial areas of government policy,it is fair to see that the party has not been brave, particularly in confronting public scepticism over one of the supposed ‘shared values’ of the coalition partners – that of Localism.

The recent media furore surrounding the draft NPPF and the DCLG’s response to this border-line crisis will have caused real concern.

David Cameron entertained the National Trust and CPRE this week and will have had a difficult time dispelling some of the misinformation identified in the DCLG’s recent “Myth-buster” document.

Defining the term “sustainable development” (for which the draft NPPF proposes a presumption in favour) is a key step in giving campaign groups and communities the confidence that Neighbourhood Plans and other key elements of the Localism Bill will carry real weight, and that the process of consultation on the NPPF is not simply a cosmetic exercise.

A difficult tight-rope to walk for the coalition in providing any detailed reassurance on the issue whilst continuing to promote development and growth – let’s see if Ed Miliband can do better and provide a coherent alternative through ‘Mutualism’ next week.

Ally Kennedy,
Liberal Democrat Consultant

The NPPF a missed opportunity

The draft NPPF has received a bit of a kicking in the national press over the past couple of months. What started out as a little talked of policy paper, quietly ushered out in July of this year, has led to all out conflict, between the Department of Communities and Local Government, and just about everyone else. The participation of prominent groups in the debate, including the National Trust, has propelled the issue to the forefront of public attention.

In the face of a sudden tide of opposition the Government leapt to the NPPF's defence, by producing a three paged ‘Myth Busting’ fact sheet on the DCLG website, which was supposed to answer all questions and allay any concerns people might have about it. This exercise amounted to little more than a poor PR stunt, which has unsurprisingly done nothing to change public opinion.

After all, by that stage, people had already come to their own conclusions about the NPPF, namely, that it represents a developers charter, with presumption in favour of development meaning that local people will not get to have a say in the future of their neighbourhoods.

This is largely a problem of the Government’s own making. At the time the document was produced they focused their attention on the ‘cutting of red tape’ angle, trumpeting the fact that they were shortening the planning policy from 1000 pages to 50 pages. The details of the policy were largely irrelevant at the time, and this has contributed to the problems the Government is currently facing.

This follows a familiar pattern of policies set out by this Government. The so-called cutting of red tape and the abolition of bureaucracy is all too often used as the reason for a policy, rather than as a by-product of good policy.

No one thinks that there should be unnecessary rules and red tape holding back the building of new affordable homes, and no one could seriously argue against the need to stimulate the economy through the construction industry.

These arguments are now likely to fall on deaf ears, as the Government did not come out all guns blazing in the first place promoting the policy in these terms.

What is a pity is that there is now so much public opposition to the NPPF, that there is a good chance it will disappear altogether, or be substantially watered down. If this does happen, it will be entirely the fault of the Government for the way it handled this issue. They will then have to think long and hard about how they intend to solve the pressing need for affordable housing in this country.

David Scane

David Scane is an experienced Labour Party Campaigner having worked for the Party in the run up to the 2010 General Election at their Central Office. He has previously worked in Parliament for a Shadow Minister , and in the constituency office of former Labour MP for Battersea Martin Linton.

City Hall Renaissance?

The Government’s Localism Bill is being amended in the Lords to allow England’s major cities to have more powers devolved to them to promote economic growth.

Appreciating the desperate need for economic growth on a day that it was announced unemployment has increased by 80,000 people to 2.51million over the last quarter, these changes offer the possibility something quite special and absolutely critical.

In the ‘heyday’ of local government town halls were the driving force for economic growth. It was Manchester, Newcastle and Birmingham that where the powerhouses of entrepreneurial endeavour and these cities generated the economic boom of the industrial revolution. Look at their glorious town hall buildings to see the history of their power and grandeur built on the back of economic success.

The amendments proposed by peers would enable ministers to devolve powers to cities on a case-by-case basis, without the need for further legislation. It would open the door for cities to gain greater control over policy areas such as economic growth, housing & planning and regeneration.

Cities would also be free to cooperate and work together, pooling resources across functioning economic areas. How this will all work alongside LEP and Enterprise Zones is detail which will need working out.

The devolution deal was first proposed by the Core Cities Group, which represents England’s eight largest cities outside London – Bristol, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield – which deliver 27 per cent of the national economy.

Could this be a rebirth of big city town hall local government, I guess the answer will depend largely on the quality of the leadership in these councils, one thing is certain though, if the devolution of these powers goes ahead we will see more local accountability which cannot be a bad thing, and it may result in a change to the makeup of the councils. This just might be the beginning of a City Hall Renaissance.

Paul Harvey

Paul is a Curtin&Co Consultant and former Leader of Basinstoke & Deane Borough Council. He is also a current councillor in Basingstoke's Norden ward, and Leader of the Basingstoke Labour Group

Lost in Interpretation

In yesterday’s Telegraph, John Rhodes suggests that the Coalition’s planning agenda is supposed to promote more development and not give communities the power to block new homes, infrastructure or employment sites. It’s no secret that the economy needs more homes to be built so that sounds like a good thing. The problem is that it is not just a matter of how the Localism Bill and NPPF were intended to work; it is also a matter of how they are interpreted locally.

In many Conservative-controlled rural councils, even before the Coalition was in power, there was a view that all talk of development, RSS numbers and planning applications should stop until they were given the ultimate authority to decide by the Localism Bill. In some areas (particularly cities and new towns), the decision was to continue to promote more house-building and development; but in many it was assumed that Localism meant no more housing could be “forced” on their local communities.

Whilst the limitations of this view are now visibly settling and councils do appear to be taking more of a pragmatic approach, the rhetoric of Localism – local decisions made by local people; neighbourhood planning; local choice in development – has taken hold and councillors and residents’ groups are already using it to support their arguments.

If the Government really wants to increase the amount of development across the country and it wants local people to support it then it is first going to have to find a way of communicating the genuine need and tangible benefits which it brings; in the rural areas and the south-east as well as the cities.

Catherine Worboys, Managing Director, Curtin&Co

Government "all in" on housing

"George Osborne’s foray into the planning row concerning the draft NPPF now engulfing the coalition government will only serve to heighten tensions and provoke angry responses. But why is he wading in?

The economic meltdown now facing the US and Europe is causing the government to react, and the NPPF is a part of that. It is certainly a Treasury driven document.

The economic realities of a possible double dip recession, the reported growth in youth unemployment and the reported slow down in the construction industry have all led to calls from leading economists for the government to change tack. The Manager of PIMCO, one of the largest investment funds, Bill Gross, has warned George Osborne that his austerity measures risk pushing the UK into recession. In an interview with The Times, Gross called on Osborne to rethink the strategy, arguing UK economic conditions had proved it was not working. “'The UK economy in the UK is worse off than it was when the plan was developed”.

So the drive for growth and the presumption in favour of development enshrined within the draft NPPF becomes ever more critical and ever more needed in the eyes of government. Of course politically George Osborne cannot be seen to be changing tack, but as Harold Macmillan said, “events dear boy, events”, have a habit of knocking politicians off course.

There is real fear that the economy is about to take a nose dive, there are red lights all over the economic data and with the US and European Banks taking money out of the European Banking system the bad news just keeps on coming.

Now take the fact the construction industry and housing has been such a driver for economic growth in the UK and the Treasury’s need for the NPPF to open the door to greater house building, and to unlock the door to development over the protests of communities becomes the central driver for policy making.

The row over the NPPF has been heated between the CPRE, National Trust and the Tory led government. It is surreal to see Tory ministers in stand up rows with those who they courted the support of for years, but now they see the economic reality staring them in the face the choices could not be starker.

The row over the NPPF prompted 23 former Royal Town Planning Institute presidents to call for "reasoned debate and clear thinking" in a letter to the Telegraph last week.

So when Osborne weighs into the debate on the NPPF and planning reforms saying they are 'key to our economic recovery', and writing that "no one should underestimate our determination to win this battle". The stakes keep on being raised. The government is at an important crossroads and Localism looks like it may be mortally wounded by the harsh economic reality of austerity and the fact the Treasury has no plan B."

Paul Harvey

Paul is a Curtin&Co Consultant and former Leader of Basinstoke & Deane Borough Council. He is also a current councillor in Basingstoke's Norden ward, and Leader of the Basingstoke Labour Group