Plan-it Law

And the beginning of the Major Infrastructure Planning Unit

As expected, the Government has confirmed its intention to scrap the IPC and transfer its functions to the Planning Inspectorate, with applications being considered by a 'Major Infrastructure Planning Unit'.

The regime is intended to remain much as it is now, but with decisions being taken by ministers in an attempt to give more democratic accountability to the system.

National Policy Statements will be subject to ratification by Parliament.

Not a good day to be a quango - the National Planning And Housing Advice Unit (NPHAU) and the Commission for Rural Communities are to be axed too.

June's Conundrum - Pickles, Localism, the Green Belt and Sustainability

This month's conundrum, from our e-bulletin, Future Perfect?, reads as follows....

On 27 May Eric Pickles wrote to all local authorities confirming the new Government's intention to abolish RSSs, and advising that, with immediate effect, this was to be considered as a material consideration for planning applications. He suggested that regional figures for housing supply were now irrelevant and that local authorities were free to set local targets.

Our conundrum was going to be "what on earth does that mean for core strategies that are being consulted or examined on now?" However, we now have the benefit of the guidance to inspectors, which sets out what they should do depending on what stage of the examination process they have reached and have also been told that a full announcement will be made on 22 June. We look forward to hearing in more detail quite how the government will action their intentions.

In the meantime, perhaps the real conundrum is that even if there are no RSS targets, there is every chance that the planning authority will agree that some new housing is needed, but with an eye on the importance of "localism", where are these new homes to go? Local authorities will be reluctant to give up their green belts and that does not sit happily with the fact that most sustainable sites are on the edges of towns and cities ... ie, in the green belt. Is there a real conflict between localism, housing needs, climate change and sustainability?

New estate bans cats and dogs to protect birdlife

The Sunday Times of 27th December carried this story that a property developer - Redrow - has banned homeowners from keeping cats or dogs to protect birdlife on nearby heathland.  Breach could lead to eviction. 

The tone of the article portrays Redrow as an unreasonable developer imposing draconian rules on something which is none of its business.  MP and "cat-owner" Anne Widdecombe is quoted saying “The dictatorial nature of this decree is unbelievable. The developer has exceeded its powers by telling people what pets they can and can’t own.”.  That's an interesting reaction because this is of course what Natural England requires as a result of the designation of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA under the Birds Directive to protect the Dartford Warbler, the nightjar and the woodlark, and the operation of the Habitats Directive. The latter is particularly difficult as it dictates the outcome in certain circumstances, rather than the process; the decision maker has no choice.  Complaints about dictatorial behaviour should therefore be addressed to those who passed those two Directives.  It also illustrates how important it is that the UK Government maintains a practically minded watch on the emergence of new law in Brussels.  The Thames Basin Heaths are geographically located just where we have a major housing need.

The seventy or so comments on the article are worth looking at too. They range from agreement with Anne Widdecombe to support on the ground that dogs and cats spread disease.  Only two comments point to the EU Directives.

There is however a nice irony in the article which says that the RSPB thinks the ban is unenforceable.  What will their next action be?