HAS PICKLES LOST THE PLOT?

Having warned planning QC’s earlier in the year to expect their P45’s, Eric Pickles MP has now had another go at ‘Maserati driving planning lawyers’ as the fountainhead of all that is failing in the town planning system. Is it me, or has Eric finally and irrevocably lost it?

As I sit here at 35,000ft in the chambers Lear Jet, en-route chez Butter in the hills just overlooking Cannes, I muse once again on the irrationality of the arguments being put forward to justify the wholesale change in the planning system that are currently before us.

Planning is too complex and too time consuming and its all the fault of those pesky planning lawyers and consultants who are hell bent on obfuscating perfectly reasonable desecration of the countryside and (to misquote Harry Enfields’ character) ‘loads of housing’. This seems to be the tone – [yes, another Merlot would be lovely, thanks] – and is evidently a rather limp tactic to draw fire away from the real culprits, the Whitehall Mandarins and his fellow parliamentarians. God forbid he upset the ‘Yes Minister’ possé. They’d string him up in a gimp suit somewhere in a National Park with a sign round his neck saying do not feed the MP (anymore). So, someone else is to blame. Those miserable planning lawyers with their flash suits, their flash cars, and unfeasibly large expense accounts – that’s who.

But who does Pickles thinks writes the legislation in the first place? The Government of course. All the paraphernalia of law surrounding it has grown up simply because successive Governments have added and tweaked and played with the system to an extent that you need a PHD in logistics just to wade through the contents page of the principle Act.

When I first started work the Town & Country Planning Act 1971 was the size of a medium sized novelette and could be read cover to cover over a long lunch at The Ivy. Now it takes on the appearance of a gluttonous British Library with a cream cake habit. And I guarantee the only planning lawyers who have caused that to happen are those employed by the Government to make it so.

Put (very) simply, there are two sorts of planning lawyer; those who support the developer and those who support the local authority. They are generally hermaphrodite in their fee earning stance. The former seek to achieve planning permission and the latter defend the position of the Council (representing the public at large) who for whatever reason have declined to approve permission. That’s called democracy as far as I know, but hey, who’s arguing. [This pate de foie gras is most toothsome. Yes, a top up would be lovely]

Town Planning law has always been the province of interpretation. If the legislation simply said, “all the brown bits on the local plan will get planning permission come what may” then life would be potentially simpler. Except you’d have to have had some sort of debate about defining the brown bits in the first place. Hey Ho.

So, will the new sunny uplands of the Localism Act and National Planning Policy Framework be any different. Well, no actually. The Government has failed to provide any meaningful interpretation of even the most basic issues. And if there were ever a phrase designed to whet the appetite of the most lackluster of planning advocates it is ‘what constitutes sustainable development’.

So don’t go round blaming the planning law fraternity for failings in the system you invented Mr Government. If you want to create a Janet and John Book 1 planning system go right ahead. Quite frankly I’m not bothered either way. Whatever the final outcome, there are obvious certainties in life; death and taxes are but two. A third is almost certainly the need to arbitrate and advocate between opposing poles in the planning world.

Now, must sign off, as the seatbelt light has just come on and I need to make a quick dash from the Executive Terminal in the Maserati to collect the family before the beach barbeque in Nice. Or should I use the Lexus, maybe the Lambo’, perhaps the Ferrari this time …. It’s a tough life.

The Dummies Guide to the NPPF

Why was I surprised? Let's face it, nobody has actually read the NPPF in detail (or at all) have they? They've simply assumed what the draft guidance says and gone screeching around the media - and anyone else who will listen - claiming all kinds of ridiculous mayhem and the end of human existence as we know it.

I was warned by my wife early on in our marriage not to mention what I do for a living at partys (or in fact anywhere) for fear of never being invited back. The mere mention of Town Planning as a profession caused eyes to glaze over at 500 metres and total paralysis within hand shaking distance. Most people think I work for MI5, but that's another story.

So why is it then that apparently mature, sensible, thoughtful and educated human beings a) get so worked up when anything approaching development involving damaging a blade of grass is proposed and b) claim armageddon on any occasion when a Government tries to sort out a new way of doing things  - which in this round of changes actually tries to put decisions into the hands of those very same people.

It appears therefore that 'plotting against planning' is now the sole topic of (im)polite conversation over the samosas' and Chardonnay. How glad am I then that I haven't been 'outed' as a professional advisor, yet. I'd never get near the bar.

I cannot escape at work so easily. I had a phone call enquiry only the other day prefaced by the words, "I hope you wont think I'm a nimby but....." which (guess what) then degenerated into a nimbyesque rant about next doors porch extension being out of character with the upmarket nature of the cul-de-sac and could I suggest ways to have it removed - or some such?

I wont regail you with the unspoken response that was on the tip of my tongue, but needless to say I rapidly came to the conclusion that I really needed to get a life!

Of course. I blame the Government. All that education, access to information  and increasing moves toward giving power to the people is creating a banana* public.

*Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.As a result of this veritable hysteria the Government have now issued a short question and answer Myth Buster document that endeavours to try and lay to rest some of the more extreme interpretations of the main NPPF document. (see link below)

They might as well have circulated an email to all concerned with the inimitable words of the TV Ad, "Calm down dear, its only a draft".

The Government are simply re-stating many of the principles that have been the bedrock of Town Planning since it came into being in 1947. And making sure in the process that local people have the final say. There's a great deal wrong with that approach of course; if you fail to account for the vociferous minority who will inevitably dominate proceedings at Neighbourhood Plan meetings and the like. Inertia will rule supreme.

But before you all put fingers to keyboard in response to what you may think my position is, I could not and do not advocate unrestricted development. I was however a child of planning when the developer still had a specific right to a permission - in the absence of sound reasons why not - and it seemed to work OK - well, at least as well as at any other time, and that was well before all the development plans, national and local validation criteria and the plethora of other time consuming, expensive and often pointless requirements that accompany today's planning processes.

I advocate a return to some semblance of common sense before we all take things too far or, as my mum used to caution, there will be tears before bedtime.

We have in this country a rapidly increasing population that need housing, feeding, watering and something purposeful to do. It's no good the retiring baby-boomers sticking their elbows out and repelling all boarders any more than D Vellop & B Dambed PLC assuming they have carte blanche to chuck up a load of old tat anywhere that takes there fancy. Neither cause will be satisfied by making unreasonable assumptions about what they think is being said over what is actually proposed. A balanced and reasoned response to the draft consultation is more likely to find support than the unmitigated tosh that seems to be circulating at the present time - or am I being naive (again!).

If I know one thing, history tells us that whatever finally emerges as the new sunny uplands of modern town planning in the UK it will probably be changed again: just at the point where everyone has got their heads around it.

Plus ca change (plus c'est la meme chose).

The Myth Buster can be found here:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppfmythbuster