Showing posts with label developers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label developers. Show all posts

Saturday 12 September 2020

Ideas on responding to the government's 'developers' charter' White Paper


The Government's Planning White Paper has so far received little discussion locally but its proposals could have a far reaching impact on the borough and leave us defenceless against greedy developers, sub-standard housing and loss of amenity.

I publish below, with his permission, a detailed article by Paul Burnham of Haringey Defend Council Housing LINK which contains some suggestions on answering the consultation questions.

The government’s White Paper Planning for the Future, published on 6 August, threatens to rip up the planning system which was set up in 1947, based on public control over all changes in the use of land.

It is Robert Jenrick who is leading on this policy – the man who fast tracked planning permission to save a developer friend millions of pounds, after sitting next to him at a Conservative party fund raising dinner.

The White Paper brazenly suggests that this government is going to increase developer contributions to housing and infrastructure – by scrapping the specific obligation to provide affordable housing.

Why should we believe such nonsense.

Parts of the country are to be labelled as ‘growth’ or ‘renewal’ zones, with little opportunity to oppose bad development plans. Powers for local authorities and communities to oppose bad schemes are to be severely restricted or scrapped completely.

The plans are predicated on redefining “affordable housing” as lower cost market provision, rather than council or social rent.

It is a top priority to stop this developers’ charter.

The loss of local authority powers and the loss of public scrutiny mean that there will be widespread opposition to these plans.

Unsurprisingly, the policies are being pursued with dishonest and evasive arguments.   But don’t be deterred. Please take a few minutes to complete the on-line consultation form, to build the opposition to the White Paper.

Please ask your residents association, Councillor, trade union or MP to make their objection as well. You may want to use the suggested responses below.

This consultation ends at 11:45pm on 29 October 2020.

https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/MHCLG-Planning-for-the-Future/

Q3. Our proposals will make it much easier to access plans and contribute your views to planning decisions. How would you like to find out about plans and planning proposals in the future?

Other (please specify):

Comment: Your proposals severely restrict public participation in practice

Q4. What are your top three priorities for planning in your local area? (Please select only 3 answers)

Building homes for the homeless/ Increasing the affordability of housing/ Other (please specify):

Comment: Building 100,000 new council homes a year at normal council rents.

Q5. Do you agree that Local Plans should be simplified in line with our proposals?

No. Detailed plans are necessary to take proper account of the affordability and accessibility of housing for all including the poorest.

Q7(a) Do you agree with our proposals to replace existing legal and policy tests for Local Plans with a consolidated test of “sustainable development”, which would include consideration of environmental impact?

No. This reduces the ability of communities to challenge bad plans.  

Q8.(a) Do you agree that a standard method for establishing housing requirements (that takes into account constraints) should be introduced?

No.  The housing requirement needs to take account of those who need secure affordable rented housing (i.e. council and social rent), and not just testing the accessibility of owner occupation as you are proposing.

Q9(a). Do you agree that there should be automatic permission in principle for areas for substantial development (Growth areas) with faster routes for detailed consent?

No.  Local authorities and communities need to be able to challenge bad developer proposals which do not provide affordable and council housing, and which segregate tenures. etc.

Q9(b). Do you agree with our proposals above for the consent arrangements for Renewal and Protected areas?

No.

Local authorities and communities need to be able to challenge bad developer proposals which do not provide affordable and council housing, and which segregate tenures. etc.

‘Renewal’ tends to mean that great improvements are promised, but we need to be able to see and challenge the detail before these plans are accepted.

Q10. Do you agree with our proposals to make decision-making faster and more certain?

No. Local authorities and communities need to be able to challenge bad developer proposals which are driven by profit rather than housing needs.

Q11. Do you agree with our proposals for digitised, web-based Local Plans?

No. Stop trying to kid us, there is nothing new about the internet, all plans are web based these days already. Hard copies of the plans should also be made fully available for ease of reference.

Q14. Do you agree there should be a stronger emphasis on the build out of developments? And if so, what further measures would you support?

Yes. Stop land banking by developers and housing associations.

Q15. What do you think about new development that has happened recently in your area? Other (please specify):

Excess provision of unaffordable housing designed to price out local people.

Q16. Sustainability is at the heart of our proposals. What is your priority for sustainability in your area?

Other:

Social sustainability as specified in Chapter 2 of the NPPF (2019) and Resolution 42/187 of the United Nations General Assembly, to which it refers. This means banning the excess supply of unaffordable housing which is the prime driver of forced gentrification and social exclusion, stopping estate redevelopment schemes, and building 100,000 new council homes a year nationally.

Q21. When new development happens in your area, what is your priority for what comes with it?

More affordable housing.

Q22. (a) Should the Government replace the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 planning obligations with a new consolidated Infrastructure Levy, which is charged as a fixed proportion of development value above a set threshold?

No. This proposal is cynically designed to allow (and in practice, to encourage) local authorities to reduce funding for council and social housing, in order to pay for infrastructure costs which are being squeezed by government cuts in revenue support grant. 

Q22. (c) Should the Infrastructure Levy aim to capture the same amount of value overall, or more value, to support greater investment in infrastructure, affordable housing and local communities?

More value.

Greater investment in infrastructure, affordable housing and local communities is needed from developers – but also from government in the form of direct investment. Building social rent housing pays for itself in reduced benefit costs.

Q23. Do you agree that the scope of the reformed Infrastructure Levy should capture changes of use through permitted development rights?

Yes.

Q24. (a) Do you agree that we should aim to secure at least the same amount of affordable housing under the Infrastructure Levy, and as much on-site affordable provision, as at present?

Yes.

Q25. Should local authorities have fewer restrictions over how they spend the Infrastructure Levy?

No.

Q25 (a) If ‘yes’, should an affordable housing ‘ring-fence’ be developed?

Yes.

Q26. Do you have any views on the potential impact of the proposals raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010?

Yes.

The proposals restrict the right of local authorities and communities to influence bad development proposals which are driven by profit seeking private developers. Reducing the scope of local plans would undermine policies which protect groups with protected characteristics, and other lower income groups, and those without savings, or in debt. Merging affordable housing obligations with infrastructure contributions will tend to undermine housing provision for the most deprived groups. Implicit throughout this document is the redefinition of “affordable housing” as lower cost market provision, rather than understanding the assessed need for social rent housing for those with lower, insecure and variable incomes, and especially those with low savings or who are in debt. The focus on funding affordable housing through developer contributions ignores the well documented failures of this strategy as developers very effectively game the system, not only by reducing their contributions in immediate cases but though policy capture at local authority level as well.  

The outcome if these proposals were to be adopted would be more overprovision of unaffordable housing, weaker public policy controls over the vested interests of the private developers, less provision of really affordable housing, and more stigmatised housing developments with tenure segregation, worse housing for the poor, etc. This would adversely people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010: ethnic minority groups, especially black and Asian people and people of mixed heritage, and female headed households especially single parent female headed households.

IT GETS WORSE 

 

In addition to the planning White Paper, the government is also proposing four parallel and very nasty changes to the current planning system:

(ONE) Housing targets which will pressurise councils to demolish council estates in London.

(TWO) Prioritising ‘First Homes’ discounted home ownership, with prices capped at £250,000 outside London and £420,000 in London, over other forms of affordable housing.

(THREE) Removing the requirement to provide affordable housing in developments of up to 40 or 50 homes (instead of 10 as at present).

(FOUR) Extending the Permission in Principle consent regime to cover major developments of up to 150 homes.

As with the White Paper, please make your objection in person, and through your organisations.

This one is urgent, bearing in mind the closing date of 1st October.

https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/MHCLG-Changes-to-the-current-planning-system/

suggested responses are offered to 13 of the 35 questions below.

Proposal ONE: The standard method for assessing housing requirement numbers in strategic plans

Q1: Do you agree that planning practice guidance should be amended to specify that the appropriate baseline for the standard method is whichever is the higher of the level of 0.5% of housing stock in each local authority area OR the latest household projections averaged over a 10-year period?

No.  The formula is based on the affordability of home ownership, when it is decent secure and really-affordable homes for all that are required, and not this obsession with the over provision of market sector dwellings.

The National Housing Federation predicts that ‘in London the likely uplift for targets will be about 50%’. The formula used will produce high numerical targets for the production of unaffordable homes in London in particular, and would be used to force councils to pursue demolition and gentrification plans which are targeted against working class communities.

Q3: Do you agree that using the workplace-based median house price to median earnings ratio from the most recent year for which data is available to adjust the standard method’s baseline is appropriate? If not, please explain why.

No. This formula is based on private ownership alone. It is housing for all including secure council and social rent which is required as a priority.

Q4: Do you agree that incorporating an adjustment for the change of affordability over 10 years is a positive way to look at whether affordability has improved? If not, please explain why.

No. The basis of the assessment should be the number of people on the waiting list including concealed households, and newly forming households.

Proposal TWO: Setting developer contributions for First Homes

Q8: The Government is proposing policy compliant planning applications will deliver a minimum of 25% of onsite affordable housing as First Homes, and a minimum of 25% of offsite contributions towards First Homes where appropriate. Which do you think is the most appropriate option for the remaining 75% of affordable housing secured through developer contributions? Please provide reasons and / or evidence for your views (if possible):

i) Prioritising the replacement of affordable home ownership tenures, and delivering rental tenures in the ratio set out in the local plan policy.

ii) Negotiation between a local authority and developer.

iii) Other (please specify)

The proposed target of 25% of affordable housing as First Homes should not be proceeded with. This proposal directs affordable housing policy towards near-market and market-supporting options rather provision for those most in need, i.e. council housing at social rents.

Q15: Do you agree with the removal of the site size threshold set out in the National Planning Policy Framework?

No. Affordable housing policy based on housing needs assessments, with priority given to the greatest need, must be applied to all sites without exception.

It would be a retrograde step to widen the ‘exceptions’ to affordable housing policy.

Proposal THREE: Supporting small and medium-sized developers by reducing affordable housing requirements

Q17: Do you agree with the proposed approach to raise the small sites threshold for a time-limited period?

No.  This would damage the interests of the homeless and those in the highest housing need.  Affordable housing is not a burden on the housebuilding industry, instead affordable housing should be the purpose of the housebuilding industry.

Q18: What is the appropriate level of small sites threshold?

i) Up to 40 homes

ii) Up to 50 homes

iii) Other (please specify) one dwelling

No exceptions.

Q19: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the site size threshold?

No. The government’s argument is disingenuous. This is not about assisting small and medium enterprises in the building industry, instead it is about finding an excuse to roll back criteria for the social sustainability required in development, as specified in Chapter 2 of the NPPF (2019) and Resolution 42/187 of the United Nations General Assembly, to which it refers.

Q23: Are there any other ways in which the Government can support SME builders to deliver new homes during the economic recovery period?

Yes.

Proposal FOUR: Extension of the Permission in Principle consent regime to cover major development

Q24: Do you agree that the new Permission in Principle should remove the restriction on major development?

No. This is a bad proposal which would severely limit the capacity of local authorities and communities to challenge bad development proposals.

Q28: Do you agree that publicity arrangements for Permission in Principle by application should be extended for large developments? If so, should local planning authorities be:

1.     required to publish a notice in a local newspaper?

ii) subject to a general requirement to publicise the application or

iii) both?

iv) disagree

If you disagree, please state your reasons.

Local authorities must write to all local residents

Q32: What guidance would help support applicants and local planning authorities to make decisions about Permission in Principle? Where possible, please set out any areas of guidance you consider are currently lacking and would assist stakeholders.

Proper local authority and community scrutiny must be retained in full.  

Impacts of proposals: Public Sector Equality Duty

Q35: In light of the proposals set out in this consultation, are there any direct or indirect impacts in terms of eliminating unlawful discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations on people who share characteristics protected under the Public Sector Equality Duty?

None of these four of these proposals advance equality of opportunity, and all of them are directly harmful to people who share characteristics protected under the Public Sector Equality Duty: Black Asian and Minority Ethnic households, disabled people, and female headed households.

The recommendation is to withdraw these proposals. The government should provide affordable housing grant at an adequate level to build 100,000 new council homes a year at normal council rents.

 

 

Tuesday 1 May 2018

Duffy pursues Cabinet members' 'Dinners with Developers' controversy

The Chesterfield House (AKA Twin Towers) development now underway
In an email to Debra Norman, Brent Council's Director of Legal and HR Services, Cllr John Duffy, standing as an independent in Kilburn ward, has sought further information on councillors' meetings with developers and their public relations advisers.

Duffy's email sets out his concerns and questions:




Dear Ms Norman ,

I wish to raise the issue of meetings between Cabinet Members and developers. 

I asked you in email on the 3/10/2017  "if any meeting with Terrapin involving planning officers, regeneration officers and Councillors was declared during the application to redeveloped Chesterfield House.” you replied" No meetings with Terrapin have been declared by officers or councillors other than the meeting of 9.5.17." 

Later you confirmed in an email on the 23/03/2018 saying  "I confirm that there was a meeting between Terrapin Communications and their client RSS which took place on Wednesday 5th April 2016  between 10-30-11-30 am. The meeting took place in the leaders officers in the Civic Centre and was attended for the council by Cllr Butt and Cllr Aktar Choudhury. (Operational Director Regeneration)".You also stated in your email that " the diaries of the council attendees have been cross referenced to confirm the meeting took place on the date .

As I have said above I asked you in my email on the 3/10/2017  "if any meeting with Terrapin involving planning officers, regeneration officers and Councillors was declared during the application to redeveloped Chesterfield House. you replied" No meetings with Terrapin have been declared by officers or councillors other than the meeting of 9.5.17." The correct answer should have been yes  a meeting took place on Wednesday 5th April 2016 in the Civic Centre with Terrapin .The 5th April 2016 was the morning the application for the redeveloped of Chesterfield House was to be heard by the planning committee.

Chesterfield House was a controversial planning application because of the lack of amenity space in the development and the lack of affordable housing, falling well below the target set by the Mayor of London. 

The controversial plan was passed at the committee by 4 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions with Cllr Marquis, Cllr Maurice  voting against and Cllrs Agha, Chroudhary, Colaccicco and Mahmood voting for the development and Cllr Patel and Ezeajughi abstaining.

Later Terrapin Communications placed an ad on their web-site saying 
TERRAPIN AIDS BRENT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS

Residents in Brent are set to benefit from an exciting new community centre along with other public improvements thanks to a new development in the Borough. Terrapin Communications helped Hub Group secure planning consent for the scheme.  Designed by Macerator Lavington, it will also include 239 new residential units in two new buildings, one twenty six storeys, the other twenty one storeys. 

Ms Norman , you may think this is an issue about Terrapin Communications and how they operate. Well it is not.

I am concerned about the accuracy of the information I was provided with by officers. My concerns are three fold did any member of the Cabinet speak to members of the planning committee to express support for the application. I hope you will clarify if that took place by asking members of the committee.

However my main concerns is not about councillors, it’s about how officers are setting -up meeting between developers and Cabinet members. These senior officers could not answer a simple members inquiry about a meeting, to the point they forgot the day and the  year the meeting took place. When all they had to do was check their diaries . 

My third concern is the confusion about who attended the meeting , as along with Cllr Warren I wrote to Terrapin about the meeting which took place on April 5th 2016 and they replied they had no meetings with officers or Cllr Butt on that date or any other date.

Cllr Butt and Cllr Tatler (Lead Member for Regeneration) also stated they received  hospitality from Terrapin.  09/05/17 - Three course meal with developers from the construction industry. Estimated value between £30-40. Received from Terrapin Communications, London.

However Terrapin denied they paid for any hospitality for Cllr Butt or Cllr Tatler on that date or any other date.

Ms Norman , I am sure you appreciate when you are dealing with millions of  pounds worth of investment, it’s important that Councillors are told by officers, who they are meeting, who is paying for  the hospitality and [ensure they] are not taken advantage or misled. These meetings cannot be dismissed by the legal department as informal and therefore need no agendas or minutes or details of who attended.

Therefore I would ask you to undertake a full inquiry ASAP to get to the truth of who met who and why. Also why Cllr Butt and Cllr Tatler's entered the wrong who was paying for their lunch.

I would also ask that the inquiry is not undertake by internal audit, as I have no faith in their Independents.

Regards

John Duffy

 Debra Norman responded regarding the April 5th meeting and guideliens on meetings with developers:
The meeting was not minuted as it was informal and so the discussion did not need to be recorded for the purposes of any formal processes.

You have asked whether there is a Code of Practice in respect of meetings with developers.

The Planning Code of Practice has for a long time contained provisions which cover approaches from developers and others to planning committee members.   In January of this year a section was added to the Code (at the request of the Leader) to cover meetings with developers.  It was not in place at the time of the meeting to which you refer.  The new section states as follows:

Discussions between members and meetings with developers or their representatives

28      Provided Members comply with the practical requirements of this code and the requirements of the Members’ Code of Conduct, there is no legal rule against Members, whether of the same group or not, discussing strategic planning issues, general policy issues or even future decisions.

29      Similarly, joint working, both formal and informal, and dialogue between Members of the Planning Committee and Members of the Cabinet is recognised as a legitimate reality of local government life. Members of the Planning Committee need to ensure that when making planning decisions, they make up their own mind and on the planning merits.

30      Relevant Members of the Cabinet are entitled to meet with developers or their representatives and other relevant stakeholders as part of their role to promote Brent and the regeneration, development and other commercial opportunities available in the borough. In doing so, Members of the Cabinet must always act in the best interests of the council and ultimately in the public interest, and in accordance with the high standards of conduct expected of Members, to ensure that the integrity of the planning process is not undermined and the council is not brought into disrepute.

31      Reasonable care and judgement should be exercised in relation to such meetings, taking into account the purpose of the meeting, the nature of the issues to be discussed and the timing. In appropriate circumstances, exercising proper judgement may include ensuring a record is kept of the meeting. Cabinet Members should make sure it is understood that their participation in marketing events or commercial discussions is separate from the administrative and regulatory roles of Members of the Planning Committee.

32      Although Members of the Cabinet are entitled to express support or opposition to  development proposed in the borough, they cannot use their position as a Member improperly to confer on or secure for any person, an advantage or disadvantage.

33      As pre-application discussions or discussions about undecided applications require particular care, the following additional rules apply. An officer must make the arrangements for such meetings, attend and write notes. The meeting arrangements must include agreeing an agenda in advance

Terrapin Communications' response to John Duffy's questions:

 
1.  How did you “ help?” [HUB group secure planning consent]

Terrapin Communications assisted with the community consultation for this scheme. 

2.What meetings were held with Brent Councillors and Officers.... who attended and when ?

Terrapin Communications requested one meeting with Cllr Sam Stopp. Cllr Stopp attended a meeting on 29 May 2015.  

3.What, in broad terms,was discussed at these meetings?

The benefits of the scheme for local people and the applicants’ commitment to consultation were discussed with Cllr Stopp. This is set out in the Statement of Community Involvement submitted as part of the planning application. 

4. What hospitality did you offer to Brent Councillors / Officers. - names,dates,details please?

None. 

5. What lobbying did Terrapin do in respect of the planning committee members making the Chesterfield House decision ?

None.

6. Would you please confirm that ,at all times,Terrapin acted in line with the code of conduct laid down by your regulatory body/ bodies - please confirm which relevant bodies are applicable.

Yes.
-->

Friday 8 December 2017

Brent to amend Code of Conduct to cover councillors' meetings with developers

Readers will remember that ex Brent Council leader Paul Lorber raised some questions of his own, addressed to Brent CEO Carolyn Downs, about the meetinsgh with planners and the Alperton Masterplan.

The Q&A is below. Lorber's questions in italics. Some of Downs' answer cover several of the questions. Paul Lorber has responded to Downs' answers at the foot of this post.


Are you aware of these meetings, did you attend and did you authorise them?

 We are a Borough that is in need of homes for our residents and it is positive news that we have public, charitable and private sector partners that wish to work with us. To enable the building of these homes requires positive partnership working which means we have to engage with the private sector and have meaningful dialogue. In every authority that wishes to build homes there will be meetings with the private sector and the appropriate officers to attend including Chief Executives.

As the Chief Executive I do where appropriate attend meetings to ensure that I provide the required guidance. At the meetings there is discussion on the scheme and the appropriateness of it for the whole Borough. The meetings do discuss the nature of the scheme, they do not discuss financial matters as these are discussed separately and appropriately with Planning Officers.

The meetings do not involve members from the Planning Committee. They will involve the appropriate colleagues from Planning to ensure that we receive the professional advice when required. These meetings take place to ensure that I and all officers are working in the best interests of Brent residents.

You will be aware that the Alperton Masterplan was subject to public consultation, including with residents, and that the height of the buildings in the area were restricted "to up to 17 storeys".

When did the Council change the Masterplan or its policies to breach this commitment to local people and allow buildings of 26 storeys?

What exactly was the purpose of the meetings with the developer, who initiated them and was the height of the buildings they propose and any financial contributions discussed?

 You raised the matter of the masterplan.  The 2011 Alperton Masterplan SPD has not been changed. Whilst a material consideration in the consideration of planning applications in the area, it is now quite out of date and circumstances have changed, including the designation of the area as a Housing Zone. The committee considered the SPD during their assessment of the application, along with other policies, including the proximity to the station and high PTAL rating, and the significant proportion of affordable housing being provided in the scheme.

You will be aware that Brent Council subscribes to Open Government and that involvement of the Leader of the Council with Developers at a time when their Planning application, in breach of the Masterplan height limits, is being considered is of justified public interest.

What discussions about this Developers Plans took place in the regular Leadership/Officer meetings and how did any of these influence the planning process? Did any officers from Planning or any Councillors on the Planning Committee attend any of these meetings?

Please set out the protocol dealing with the issue of the Leader or any Councillors meeting Developers at a time when their major Planning applications are under consideration.

You asked about the protocol dealing with the Leader or any Councillors meeting with Developers.  The Planning Code of Conduct can be found in part 5 of the Council’s constitution, the latest version of which is on our website at http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=584&MId=4313&Ver=4&Info=1.  In addition other guidance has been given to members from time to time about this.  We are in the process of reviewing the Planning Code of Conduct, including adding a section specifically dealing with meeting with developers involving councillors who are not members of the Planning Committee. 

There is now a new Planning application for a 28 storey building on the site of the Boat pub in Bridgewater Road/Ealing Road. Can you advise what meetings involving Councillors or Officers took place discussing a proposal over 50% taller than the 17 storey Alperton Master Plan limit?

Additionally, you also asked whether I had attended, authorised or been aware of meetings with R55. I did not attend any. I was aware of the lunch. I do not need to authorise such meetings.  As long as the relevant officers are present, which they were, I would be comfortable for such meetings to proceed.

Paul Lorber's response:

Dear Ms Downs

Thank you for your reply.

I note your view about the need for positive engagement with Developers. They of course have their interests at heart and those of their investors - often based in offshore tax havens.

It is also a fact that getting planning permission for a 26 storey block is substantially more profitable than a 17 storey block. In fact the extra 9 storeys add a disproportionate amount to those profits.

The Alperton Masterplan which is still available via the Brent Council website makes a great deal from the fact that local people were consulted and contributed to the plan. It specifically highlights the fact that the maximum height of the buildings in the area would be up to 17 storeys.

Unless I have missed it there is no reference to residents being either consulted or informed that despite their past involvement it is now regarded as "out of date" and that Officers or Councillors on an obscure Committee decided that the 17 storey limit can be ditched and replaced by a 'Developers' free for all. What is the point of involving local people in helping to develop Planning. Policies in their area when an arbitrary decision to call them "out of date" enables key aspects, such as height of buildings, which residents regard as important, are over ridden in this way.

Is so called consultation in public participation in developing local plans in Brent just an empty gesture and a sham? 

Proximity to a station does not justify extra 9 storeys on top of an already very tall building. The residents who live in the Ealing Road area already endure problems including traffic jams and displacement parking from buildings with inadequate car parking spaces.

It is clear from the current Brent approach that the views of local residents count for very little. Perhaps the right and honest approach to deal with an "out of date" Alperton Masterplan would have been to update it with a proper involvement of local residents.