Written evidence from John Halstead (ARSS
02)
REVIEW OF
THE COALITION'S
LOCALISM AGENDA
- The whole matter of planning control is a real
maze and is often impossible for people to understand.
- Present procedures regularly result in decisions
that are unfair and defy common sense.
- Complexity causes unnecessary cost burdens on
local councils and ultimately on council taxpayers, due to the
need for large numbers of staff.
- Needs and solutions vary considerably across
the country and the prevailing "one size fits all" concept
is inappropriate and damaging to community life because local
conditions presently carry little weight in the determination
process.
- Planning officials presently slavishly adhere
to "guidelines" and disregard local conditions and impacts.
- Planning committees are often afraid to refuse
inappropriate applications due to the risk of appeal costs against
their councils.
- I submit that the object of planning control
is to determine what is best for a particular area and its inhabitants
whilst taking into consideration the needs of the wider community.
The present system often fails to achieve that objective.
- The planning "industry" has expanded
beyond what is required to protect town and country from inappropriate
development.
- The proposal to introduce more localism is most
welcome.
Simplification of the planning determination procedure
and the introduction of localism is definitely required. I can
cite several cases locally where common sense has been disregarded
and where unfairness has been caused due to obscure planning arguments;
two examples of illogical and unfair decisions are shown as an
appendix to these notes for study if appropriate.
So, here are my suggestions for solutions that will
bring some simplicity, fairness and sense into the procedure and
save considerable cost at Local Council level.
For domestic housing proposals,
including new builds, extensions, renovations.
A presumption in favour of permission providing:
1. The proposal would have no adverse effect
on nearby properties.
2. The proposal would have no adverse effect
on the area.
3. The proposal would be environmentally "friendly".
4. The proposed style would be in keeping with
other property in the area.
5. The proposal would not overload local services
(roads, schools, drainage etc.).
In the event that one or more of the five conditions
are not met, then the proposal is referred to the appropriate
planning committee for debate and decision.
For industrial/commercial proposals,
including new builds, extensions, renovations,
changes of use.
A presumption in favour of permission providing:
1. The proposal would be within a designated
or existing industrial/commercial area.
2. The proposal would not adversely affect nearby
business premises or domestic housing.
3. The proposal would incorporate the latest
environmental protection measures.
4. The proposal would not overload local services
(roads, drainage etc).
5. The proposal would incorporate appropriate
safe access/egress for commercial vehicles.
6. The proposal would incorporate adequate off
road parking for delivery, collection, staff and visitors' vehicles.
In the event that one or more of the six conditions
are not met, then the proposal is referred to the appropriate
planning committee for debate and decision.
For infrastructure proposals,
including roads, power stations etc.
A presumption in favour of permission providing:
1. There is a proven need for that proposal in
that location.
2. The location is suitable in terms of technical,
scientific, heritage or environmental requirements.
3. No other location would be as suitable for
technical, scientific, heritage or environmental reasons.
4. There is a fair compensation plan in place
for residents and businesses adversely affected. Compensation
determined by the average of three valuations by professional
valuers; one appointed by the proposer, one appointed by the affected
resident/business and one by the appropriate Parish Council.
In the event that one or more of the four conditions
are not met, then the proposal is referred to the appropriate
planning committee for debate and decision.
Adoption of the above will simplify and speed up
the determination process; it will save money and significantly
reduce unfair decisions. At the same time the local needs and
environment will be protected and local people will be able to
see common sense being applied.
APPENDIX
Two examples where the planning system has failed
to best meet the needs of the local residents.
1. An application to build three houses on a
brownfield site in a residential area was refused partly on the
grounds of vehicular access to the main road, yet a subsequent
application for a large office block on the same site and housing
up to 200 workers was allowed, with no objection on highway access
grounds.
2. An application to build a specially designed
bungalow, on a site that would have affected no-one, for a severely
disabled little girl and her devoted fit and healthy parents was
refused. The consequences are that the little girl will have to
go into council care unless suitable premises, none of which are
available locally, can be found. The little girl may be deprived
of contact with her friends and she will suffer unwanted and undeserved
distress.
August 2010
| 
