PiL 54 OPINION

New controls for development
Big if incremental changes are in the works for the way in which planning applications are processed. Current ODPM consultation documents set out some of the measures anticipated in the new planning act.
The recent Forum meeting at the Government Office for London (see page 11) raised some concerns. For example in the process of harmonising requirements for validating an application (introduced mainly as a result of cheating on the statistics to get Planning Delivery Grant) some new tricks are being introduced, such as the clock starting on day ‘zero’ rather than, as required now, day one!
More importantly the intended reduction of the duration of a permission from five to three years is said to threaten a vast amount of development which needs the longer period so that the site may have a value which supports the development funding. Given this reasonable position, it seems foolish for ODPM to suggest that the current ability to apply to extend the life of a permission should be withdrawn.
The retention of outline applications is to be welcomed in their much more demanding form, though the detail being consulted upon is in need of revision. The Forum discussion is enlightening and points to the need to keep to objective criteria to distinguish outline applications from the full ones. As Pat Thomas said: “Like the Rochdale test of Environmental Assessments, they should be ‘in enough detail to enable the scheme to be assessed’” – and no more!
Just-published new guidance which conflates checklists under regulation 3 (required to validate an application) and regulation 4 (things which may be requested) is likely to confuse administration officers and annoy applicants.
The dramatic increase in application fees last April is now being followed in London by a rush to charge fees for pre-application meetings regarding ‘large’ schemes. Started by Westminster (£2000) and followed now by Camden (£1000), Barnet (£500) and soon Hammersmith, the time when there is competition between authorities and other agencies to process your application is coming ever nearer.
The ACA’s idea that there should be sanctions is beginning to take root as well. Additional fees agreed by developers for very large proposals will, it is being sensibly suggested, be returnable if agreed timetables are not achieved.
These innovations could have been introduced with the ‘full cost recovery’ fees last April, but that level of directness between cause and effect is not the English way!
-----------------------
Radical measures to boost design skills
Judging by the abject condition of much of the capital’s ‘urban realm’ – officially noted last year by Danish urban design guru Jan Gehl for Central London Partnership – the results of Urban Design London’s research into an urban design ‘skills shortage’ across the capital will probably state the obvious when finally unveiled. It will set a necessary baseline, however.
It is impossible to argue against the need for better training in urban design skills. The real problem, however, is that the overwhelming presence of the absence of such training has become our daily lot in London, particularly in local centres. Rather more militant measures need to be taken to eradicate the worst effects of bonkers traffic engineering, gormless Health & Safety administrators, and the enthusiastic, ignorant vandalism of local authorities and utilities companies.
Is it any wonder that people behave the way they do in public when they are treated with such contempt?
The learned professors with whom UDL’s Ludo Campbell-Reid has communed to seek ideas for boosting built environment workers’ skills ought to be persuaded to come up with some radical ideas for a public urban design education programme as well. Then we could all have a proper conversation about it.