Now it is about infrastructure levy and Section 106 and planning gain and similar burdens.So planning authorities with no idea where required housing will go in the next five years can find themselves with permissions imposed by people who by definition have no interest in the feelings and aspirations of the communities who will be affected by development. What it shouldn’t be about is bullying opportunists on the one hand, or on the other planning committees who think doing nothing is acceptable. That is the way in which town and country planning ever since 1947 has had overtones of control and veto, rather than enabling and creating. The AJ’s occasional planning correspondent, Brian Waters, has often compared planning to the rationing system that was in place when the legislation was prepared, and it is a sorry fact that some planning officers seem to imagine that they are doing you a favour if they support a planning application.In a system where applicants feel like defendants in a court case, but one where you have to prove your innocence, it is scarcely surprising that the response is to reach for a planning consultant. Permissions should be granted on the basis of planning advice (and heritage advice, where relevant), independent design reviews for significant proposals and decisions of elected members. ‘Untrammelled’ development can only happen where a local authority has no plan for accommodating housing need, writes Paul Finch
I have some sympathy for the residents of country villages or homes on the edge of cities next to green belt when they find their expectations of rural peace and quiet being disrupted by unexpected and unwanted housing development. The rise and rise of this formerly relatively minor branch of the consultancy world is evidence of how planning has been deformed into something other than a method of determining suitability and design quality. For example, they may reject the inappropriate on grounds of poor design. Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.
