Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
CPRE Kent response to proposed planning reforms
The Government has proposed sweeping reforms to the planning system including:
* Automatic planning permission on all suitable brownfield (former industrial) sites, removing unnecessary delays
* Power for the Government to intervene and have local plans drafted when councils fail to produce them and penalties for those that make 50 per cent or fewer planning decisions on time
* Stronger compulsory purchase powers to bring forward more brownfield land, and devolution of planning powers to the Mayors of London and Manchester
* Major infrastructure projects which include housing development to be fast-tracked
* End the need for planning permission for upwards extensions for a limited number of storeys up to the height of the adjoining building in London
* Higher-density development around key commuter hubs
* Redefining “affordable housing” to include discounted market housing, i.e. starter homes.
CPRE Kent response:
CPRE Kent agrees that we need to build more homes, especially affordable homes.
In 2012-13, the UK hit a post-war low of 135,500 homes. Last year the figure recovered slightly to 141,000 homes.
However we know there are existing sites with planning permission for thousands of homes in Kent and elsewhere and we believe more should be done to actually get these homes built. Too many companies are landbanking (the practice of buying land as an investment, holding it for future use or selling it on with permission but without specific plans for homes to be constructed – i.e land trading). There should be measures put into place to make them actually deliver these new homes within a certain time.
We have long been calling for better use for brownfield sites and are glad the government is backing this. However there still needs to be local consideration about sustainability and infrastructure and which sites are suitable for housing development. CPRE believes there should be a strong presumption in favour of “brownfield first” with these safeguards.
Higher density development around commuter hubs may help more sustainable modes of transport (rail/cycle/walking) but could damage areas of countryside and important green buffers around built up areas so again proper consideration and consultation with communities is vital.
The big issue with local plans is speed versus engagement with local communities. Consultation takes time. Our fear is that local people would get bypassed and there would be inadequate consultation. Local authorities need clearer guidance on the essential evidence base required for a local plan as this can cause unnecessary delays in plan preparation. We do not want local plans to be taken away from local people.
In terms of speeding up planning decisions we are concerned that major applications will take time and need thorough consideration and consultation. If the decisions are taken away from local authority level and decided by a planning inspector this will go against localism.
Likewise we would not want to see major housing proposals and proposals under the national infrastructure commission considered nationally – local people need to be engaged and consulted with on any development which affects their community.
CPRE nationally has also issued the following comments:
CPRE has reacted to the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday (8th October) on building 200,000 starter homes – and no longer requiring developers to provide low-cost rented homes.
Paul Miner, planning campaign manager at the CPRE, comments:
“The availability of truly affordable housing is a real problem in rural areas, where housing stock is low and average wages are lower. Abolishing rules that guarantee affordable homes and replacing them with homes most local people can’t afford will make this situation even worse.
“We need to keep on providing more rented housing in rural areas, and we need to be doing more for those who cannot or do not want to buy their own home.”
Meanwhile it was announced on 24 September by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Greg Clark, that the Government has worked with the National Housing Federation to propose a voluntary agreement to extend the Right to Buy to housing association tenants.
Associations have been given a week to decide whether they would like to sign up to this agreement. It is also important to note that the voluntary arrangement entertains the idea that rural areas will be exempt from the extension to Right to Buy.
John Rowley, planning officer at the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), comments:
“We believe that such monumental changes to rural housing need to be carefully considered and open to public scrutiny. Although the proposed voluntary agreement does mention exemptions in rural areas, the definition of ‘rural’ is incomplete and out of date.
“We are therefore calling on the Government to update the rural definition for exemptions, and ensure that any changes to the current system are subject to consultation and transparency. Without these conditions, it is possible that rural communities will lose a significant number of genuinely affordable homes without proper assurance that these homes will be replaced or that others will be available for those that need them.”
October 8th 2015
- A number of important documents have yet to emerge. For example, a rigorous transport plan and a finalised air-quality assessment. The latter is critical given that allocations at Teynham will feed extra traffic into AQMAs.
- There seems to be no coherent plan for infrastructure delivery – a key component of the plan given the allocations being proposed near the already crowded Junction 7.
- There seems to have been little or no cooperation with neighbouring boroughs or even parish councils within Swale itself.
The removal of a second consultation might have been understandable if this final version of the plan were similar to that being talked about at the beginning of the consultation process. It is, however, radically different in the following ways:
- There has been a major shift in the balance of housing allocations, away from the west of the borough over to the east, especially around the historic town of Faversham. This is a move that raises many concerns.
- A new large allocation, with accompanying A2 bypass, has appeared around Teynham and Lynsted, to which we are objecting.
- Housing allocations in the AONB around Neames Forstal that were judged “unsuitable” by the council’s own officers have now appeared as part of the housing numbers.
- Most of the housing allocations being proposed are on greenfield sites, many of them on Grade 1 agricultural land – a point to which we are strongly objecting.
Concerns about the rush to submit the plan
The haste with which the plan is being prepared is especially worrying given the concentration of housing in Faversham. If the town is to take a large amount of new housing, it is imperative that the policies concerning the area are carefully worked out to preserve, as far as possible, the unique nature of the town. The rush to submit the plan is likely to prove detrimental.
As Swale does not have a five-year land housing supply, it is open to speculative development proposals, many of which would run counter to the ideas contained in the current plan. Some are already appearing. This is a common situation, and one that, doubtless, is a reason behind Swale’s haste.
Our overriding fear, however, is that this emphasis on haste is ultimately going to prove counterproductive. This is because it is our view that the plan, in its current form, is unlikely to pass independent examination. We are urging Swale to listen to and act upon the comments being made about the plan and to return the plan to the council with appropriate modifications before submitting it to the Secretary of State.
Essentially, this means treating the current consultation not as the final one but as the ‘lost’ second consultation.
The consultation ends on Friday 30 April and we strongly urge residents to make their opinions known if they have not already done so.
Further information
