Tag Archives: Planning

Mar 6 2012

MIPIM 2012 – great news! The Enterprise Zone gets bigger

You might have seen the news in the press that Nottingham was selected for one of the new Enterprise Zones in the Governments announcements last year. It was on around 100 acres at the Boots campus in Nottingham. This was a great piece of news.

But in the last 24 hours we have learned that the Government have decided to extend the EZ. It will now include Nottingham Science Park, Beeston Business Park and the area near the QMC to create a Medi-Park. This is fantastic news – particularly as we are involved in the first two schemes.

Although the benefits for an EZ are not quite as generous as they were when first introduced in the 1980′s, they are still nonetheless good for Nottingham. The ‘rules’ about EZ’s are here. But they key features are:

• A business rate discount worth up to £275,000 per business over a five year period
• All business rates growth within the zone for a period of at least 25 years will be retained by the local area, to support the Partnership’s economic priorities and ensure that Enterprise Zone growth is reinvested locally
• Government help to develop radically simplified planning approaches for the zone using, for example, existing Local Development Order powers
• Government support to ensure that superfast broadband is rolled out throughout the zone, achieved through guaranteeing the most supportive regulatory environment and, if necessary, public funding.

The Rates and Planning could be the thing that makes a difference in our slow marketplace. The Planning in particular could reduce the inevitable delays we currently have in our planning system.

This is a great announcement and perfectly timed for our MIPIM trip. It gives Nottingham a competitive advantage – which we now need to capitalise on…

Dec 5 2011

Nottingham – ready to go….

I was at a meeting last week which was a breath of fresh air. Except that the expression ‘open for business’ was used – much to the chagrin of those present! It has been a phrase many Local Authorities have used over the last few years as they struggle to convince a ‘flat as a pancake’ market that all is well. I agree, the phrase has been over-used.

I think the messages we need to get out as a City are four-fold.

Firstly, our Planners need to be approachable and available. I firmly believe that the new people at the helm have every intention of making this happen.
Secondly, we need to be fleet of foot. The world is changing at an alarming pace. What we needed a year ago is no longer the case. Welcome to the Brave New World!
Thirdly, we need the Council to be pro-active. Again, I think the new people at the top are trying to do this. They can drive things- they don’t need always to be passengers and waiting for the phone to ring.
Fourthly, we need to be ready. The market will return (I’m not sure when!) and when it does (it will honest!) we need to be ready. We need to be able to respond. And respond quickly.

I was in Sheffield last week and they have made great strides of late – with some great new buildings. But I think Nottingham has much more to offer, our ‘centre’ is just better. Perhaps our new retail offer (Broad Marsh?) will help in the short term. we are starting to see an improved infrastructure (tram, A453 et al) – Sheffield’s one-way system is appalling.

But more fundamentally we need to be brave. We need to be active. Not ‘open for business’ – but rather ‘ready to go’!

Oct 13 2011

Planning…again

I seem to be coming back to our Planning system a lot at the moment – I blogged about the proposed changes a couple of weeks ago. I have taken a bit of heat for some comments I made to the Estates Gazette about Nottingham‘s old Planning regime.

Not the sort of Green Belt I had in mind, but you get the picture?

The point I was making was that a few years ago, the Nottingham Planners hadn’t covered themselves in Glory. I thought that they were unresponsive and had caused the City some bad press with developers who went elsewhere. Elsewhere to towns which gave them an easier ride.

Actually my comments were aimed at a Planning system in general – as well as the one in this fair City. It has become a complex matter to get a Consent on anything significant. Some say – so it should. But I see some of the process – which can be over-burdensome, slow and extremely frustrating.

It was interesting to read at the weekend that the Government are now slowing down the possible changes to the system – it looks like they will get delayed by around 18 months. I guess those of us who are used to the system won’t be surprised. The lobbying has been powerful against the streamlining of the system.

We do need Planning controls – they are important. I am a huge fan of the green belt. I think in some cases we could extend it – which would force urban renewal. But sometimes the controls become politicised and that is when we fall into difficulty. No one is going to oppose buildings which create jobs, but sometimes the places which used to house those jobs are no longer fit for purpose. A change of use is needed. And on this occasions what we need is a Planning system which responds quickly to our chaining circumstances – before end up with white elephants for buildings…

Aug 26 2011

You need Planning Permission – of course Sir….

The Government are currently consulting on a Draft National Planning Policy, by all accounts it’s creating quite a kerfuffle!

The document tries to set out some key parameters – one of which suggests that there will be a presumption in favour of sustainable development. On the face of it this sounds admirable – we should be encouraging ‘green’ developments – but this policy goes a bit further than that as I read it. It is a short document – around 50 pages – down from the 1,000 plus we had before.

The granting of Planning Permission for ‘green’ development doesn’t come with many other strings as far as I can see. In other words if it’s green you can have permission? Is this what was intended? Or is that one of those great political statements as opposed to a great policy statement?

There are good arguments on both sides. On the one hand it will probably surprise you to know that the UK only has around 9% of its area developed. Thats 91% ‘available for development’? Our towns are fairly well constrained – often by green belts I blogged about a couple of weeks ago. The amount of green space in our cities has been decreasing as we cram more of the built environment onto constrained parts of the Country.

But the other argument runs that our Countryside should be sacrosanct – we don’t need urban sprawl. Where is has happened it has failed. I saw this in Los Angeles which is a fine example of how not to ‘plan’ a place. We do have space in our Cities – even if it needs renewing and updating. But that is a good thing. Keeping communities together help with critical mass for shopping, transport and other infrastructure.

The argument is going to run – the consultation ends on 17th November… It will be interesting to see what the feedback is.

May 20 2011

Nottingham Planners – the dilemma

Next Wednesday two of the biggest Planning Applications Nottingham has seen for years go before the Development (out of) Control Committee.

Broad Marsh - as it might look

This will be an interesting test. It is the first Committee after the Local Elections where Labour wiped the floor with everyone else. We have just 5 Conservative Councillors. The Liberal Democrats office at Loxley House is rather empty! Whether such a balance of power is actually healthy remains to be seen, but clearly Labour have the whip hand in (all) Committees.

The two applications are the £500m extension of Broad Marsh – hot on the heels of the Victoria Centre proposals. And a new ‘monster’ Tesco on the Island site – adjacent emda and the BBC. The latter is going with a recommendation by the Officers to refuse the application. The former is going with the blessing of the Officers. Such a moniker doesn’t necessarily mean much when you sit before Politicians. Long ago I was warned off such Committee’s – they are an interesting experience, often defying logic.

On this occasion, I think the officers are probably right in their views. I don’t think we need a giant Tesco on the edge of town. Actually we need to strengthen the town – and I have real concerns about the power of these giant supermarkets. It is not always healthy. But we certainly do need the Broad Marsh extension. It has been too long in gestation. The City is, in my view, slipping in the retail rankings. I don’t think, as I have said before, that we can sustain both the Broad Marsh and the Victoria Centre. It is reckoned that Broad Marsh would create around 5,000 new jobs.

But in my view and critically, it would improve the present Centre – which is some way past its sell by date. It will help regenerate the South-side of the city.

On this occasion I hope the Committee run with the Officers…

UPDATE 25 May 2011

In anticipation of a refusal Tesco withdrew their application before it got to Committee today. This is not unusual. It is better to withdraw and re-submit than get a refusal… So watch this space!

Apr 13 2011

The housing crisis solved?

By all accounts we have a housing crisis. Or if we don’t there is a train smash ahead – and we are heading into it.

Des-res of the future - squint for the after effect

We are not building enough houses. Government figures suggest we need 232,000 each year and in 2009/10 we built 129,000. Obviously the problem is compounded with time. Future generations are going to be “living in t’ shoebox in t’ middle o’ road” (the lucky ones).

So HM Government has come up with a whizz scheme. They have noticed there are a couple of empty offices lying around the place – making the skyline look untidy. Often on Industrial estates or in business parks they are obviously capable of making warm cosy homes.

So the Cameron & Clegg show are consulting the people. The document runs to a healthy 66 pages – but you really only need read page 7 – the rest are sort of belly button fluff. Warm and soft but pretty useless.

Page 7 sets forth thus…(my precis – to save you time):

Planning is always a problem. So side-step the planners. If you want to convert an office or light Industrial unit to a bijou residence, crack on. Don’t stop for the permissions. Just build – and you’ll get a pat on the back.

Sounds great. Especially the bit about side-stepping the Planners!

But is it really? It sounds ok to start – as there are some reasonable buildings with four walls and a roof. But the configuration can be difficult to remodel. Shared toilets are often seen as ‘poor’ by residents. Suspended ceilings aren’t gig in people’s lounges – nor are paper thin partitions.

But these can be put right. What can’t be put right is the location issue. We have ‘zones’ in case anyone hadn’t noticed. Zoning works to keep the uses apart (although I accept that there are some areas where we do have mixed use). Once we start on this route it’s a slippery slope – it’s not going to easy to go back.

Perhaps just simplifying the Planning process full stop would be better?

Mar 24 2011

Budget & Planning?

The Budget used to be a time when everyone gasped in horror as cigarettes and beer went up in price.

But times have changed, it’s not now all about money. Our quaint Planning system has grabbed some of the headlines in George Osbornes 2011 Budget.

The chancellor said that he will be “simplifying the planning system”. He continued, “Cumbersome planning laws stand in the way of new jobs….and….we will introduce a new presumption in favour of development so that the default answer is yes”.

It has been announced that there will be Use Class changes – allowing commercial property to be converted to residential without the need for planning permission. No detail was given, but this is a really interesting suggestion. The suggestion is that we need to play ‘catch up’ on the provision of new housing – and such a policy might add 250,000 houses to the available stock.

On the face of it, this sounds to be a great opportunity for owners of vacant property (this is aimed at offices) to get some form of residential consent.

I can see several flaws. Firstly, there has been a tailing off in demand of this type of conversion over the last few years. In general terms people have stopped wanting to live in flats. Secondly, we could have odd mixes of uses in areas where there is some logic in keeping residential away from offices – the uses don’t always mix! Finally, the costs of conversion to residential are often higher than the cost of new build; some of the major house builders are not geared up for this sort of work.

If you work in my Industry everyone will tell you horror stories about Planning (I have plenty). The Planning system does need a shake up and Committees need to be more accountable. At present (despite whet they tell you) Planning is a Political process. But offering this sort of wholesale legalised loop-hole might cause us more problems in the long-term than it solves in the short?

Jan 6 2011

The cost of Planning in Nottingham

As we return to work in 2011 and hope that we can encourage investors and dvelopers into Nottingham a new regime has been imposed on the Planning system. In effect if you have a major scheme you will be required to pay for the (compulsory) pre-application advice.

Nottingham Planners - some way from their finest hour

The new system applies to:

New build and conversion schemes for 10 or more homes.

Other developments with a floor area of 1,000 square metres (10,000 sq ft) or more.

Outline inquiries for residential developments on sites of 0.5 hectares (1.23 acres) or more.

Outline inquiries for non-residential development on sites of one hectare (2.47 acres) or more.

Planning officials will charge £1,200 for a meeting followed by a written response. The charge is £700 for a written response.

Subsequent meetings or written response will be charged at £400.

I have heard two views. One of my clients has viewed it very positively in other parts of the UK. Another has suggested that they think twice before committing to the charges.

I think my concerns are two-fold.

Firstly Planning, as far as I can recall is a Statutory Duty placed on the Local Authority – Planning fees were introduced may years ago, but this really is taking the charging to a new level. Who assesses the value for money test? Will it guarantee a level of service, that frankly we have not enjoyed previously in Nottingham? Will you be able to get a suitably qualified Planning Officer (we have just lost another Planning Director – a post that has proved difficult to fill over a long period).

Secondly – and this is my real concern – is that the Planning Committee can still ignore (and sometimes do ignore) the Officer recommendations laid before them. There are no guarantees that having gone through the new process that the mavericks on the Committee don’t consign your expensive designs to the scrap heap. Our Development Control Committee (a the Planning Committee is properly known) is lovingly known as the “Out of Control Committee”. I can’t see that changing any time soon – even when you have paid for the job!

Time will tell if this new system works – but at this point in the economic cycle did we ought to be having no (or fewer) barriers to development?

Nov 24 2010

Bad news for The Meadows in Nottingham

Yesterday it was announced that the long term scheme to redevelop The Meadows in Nottingham had come off the rails.
The Department for Communities and Local Government said it will now only fund housing PFI schemes that are under contract. And Nottingham isn’t.

Avant guard architecture in the Meadows courtesy Julian Marsh

Back in 2009 Nottingham City Council had a £200m PFI credit approved for the scheme – but had to prepare a Business Case. It seems that the Business Case has fallen at the next hurdle. In the post Comprehensive Spending Review, perhaps this is not surprising.

It is not good for The Meadows though – which needs some intervention. The scheme I saw involved redesigning Street layouts and replacing some of the poorer quality housing with new family stock. One of my clients Blueprint has an excellent scheme there and I blogged previously about Julian Marsh’s excellent home – pictured above. Both of these developments really were catalysts to the wider regeneration project.

It was a very long term plan – and one that I am sure will be revisited in less austere times.

As I heard this news I was actually in Derby for the launch of Derby’s £10m regeneration fund. It was launched at Derby College’s Roundhouse Scheme. I had never been inside – but had seen some images as the building has won various awards – regionally and nationally. And it is not difficult to see why. It is a fantastic regeneration scheme – bringing old disused railway buildings back into use. The treatment of the buildings is just brilliant. I loved it.

I was thinking of the lost opportunity in Nottingham at Castle College on Maid Marian Way – which I remain involved in. We missed the window of opportunity from the then LSC. It was no one’s fault – although the Nottingham Planners could have been more helpful. But the point is that this was a missed opportunity.

The lessons are easy afterwards – grab the money when you can – and make sure the processes are not lengthy! I am not suggesting the Meadows Team could have gone quicker – they probably couldn’t, but these slugs of cash are only going to be there for the short term at the moment. Sadly, it looks like Nottingham has missed out – again….

Aug 20 2010

A new Planning regime for Nottingham

I blogged last week about how Planners sometimes get it very wrong – in my view.

Might this sort of development be easier in future? Photo: Martine Hamilton-Knight

I was aware from a number of discussions that Nottingham City Council were looking at a new regime for major applications. This idea was borne out of a consultation process which I was part of just over 12 months ago. The City had employed a consultant to look at how the Planning Service had performed – particularly on major applications.

I had a bad experience over one I was involved in three years ago. I shall spare the City their blushes, but the application took 18 months and eight schemes before it was heard at Committee; it was then adjourned. Some of the comments made in the Committee were just plain wrong. I normally have faith in democracy, but I was always warned to stay away from a Planning Committee – who can redefine ‘maverick’! Someone wittier than me coined the phrase ‘development control committee out of control’.

So I was pleased to learn that the City are looking at a new method by which major applications can be brought forward. They are seeking comments from the professional sector.

In essence the new regime works by creating a formal agreement between the Council and the applicant. They are known as Planning Performance Agreements. The blurb suggest that they are a modern way of dealing with major applications – in an open and collaborative way. A framework is put in place to ensure that the pre-application phase (now compulsory) is more focussed and has a clear timetable. They do not guarantee Planning Consent.

In essence the developer or applicant pays a fee for the resources. Whilst this may seem slightly odd, since the Council have a Statutory duty to hear an application, the time saved in being led by the Councils timetable with their stretched resources is probably saved by the fee.

I think this is to be welcomed. It has been used elsewhere. It is an interesting approach and I guess only time will tell as to whether it is a success. If you spend the money, follow the advice and a ‘maverick’ committee throw it out because they don’t like the colour of your eyes, it will rapidly fall apart. I hope it doesn’t, but there is some way to go in winning back the confidence of applicants…