Pictured above: DLA Piper planning partner Peter Taylor with
guest speaker Craig William Howells QC
Government hopes for a housing boost in the wake of its planned
shake-up of the planning laws could be thwarted, a workshop in
Birmingham heard.
Indeed, the event, held at the offices of law firm DLA Piper,
was told it could mean fewer houses get built.
There was criticism of some parts of the Localism Bill with
claims that it was potentially a NIMBYs' charter.
And one housebuilder maintained his experiences of dealing with
parish councils - they are set to get powers to decide in certain
circumstances what happens in their area - was on occasion akin to
the TV comedy, The Vicar of Dibley. Indeed, he maintained, that in
a recent case certain asides from individuals on the parish council
would have been condemned as improper had they come from a
developer.
The workshop, attended by a high-powered audience of
professionals, was also looking into the Cala Homes judgement which
ruled that the Government could not abolish the regional spatial
strategy (RSS) level of planning until legislation had gone through
Parliament, something which could take a year or more.
A further related court judgement is due on February 8, with the
Government insisting that the RSS system will be scrapped come what
may, with decision-making power devolved down to local councils and
neighbourhoods.
For example, communities will be able to propose development
which, if it meets certain safeguards and gets 50 per cent support
in a local referendum, will be able to be built without planning
permission. Developers will have to consult widely on schemes and
take into account public opinion.
Peter Taylor, planning partner at DLA Piper, who hosted the
workshop, said the Government's hopes for three million new homes
by 2020 was "a big gamble".
Another tier of planning, at the neighbourhood level, was as
welcome as "a hole in the head" to some hard pressed local planning
authorities.
Guest speaker Craig Howell Williams QC said: "Anything can
happen yet, but I would be very surprised if the Government's
attitude to RSS changed." He expected more change elsewhere in the
bill. He also considered that Communities and Local Government
Secretary Eric Pickles was going to have to deliver on housing soon
- the shortfall was ever increasing.
But developers in the room said large housing sites were being
shunned because of the uncertainty, made worse by the economic
climate and the difficulties potential home buyers were finding in
getting mortgages. Such projects might never get back on the radar.
Options on land would be left to lapse at any sign of
controversy.
A concentration on small plots and a scatter-gun approach would
not help the Government hit their targets. Without firm guidance
from the top it simply wouldn't happen.
Other complaints included:
•Community liaison could become a field-day for
professional lobbyists.
•Neighbourhood forums would end up undemocratic and
unrepresentative because only a certain type of person who had the
time and inclination would bother to get involved.
•Community infrastructure levies would become a 'big issue'
with developers advised to "broker a deal with the parish council
at the earliest possible moment" - potentially a recipe for
corruption.
•Large scale developments would be at much greater risk of
being called in by the Government.
•The viability of schemes could be compromised if
consultation and dealing with differing agendas meant extra time
and cost.
•Local authorities would find themselves at loggerheads
with local communities.
•The legislation empowered people but did not make them
accountable.
Mr Taylor charged: "Over great swathes of this country there is
a need for houses but there is a real danger NIMBYism will now win
over.
"Some schemes will still progress but developers will shy away
from others. I can't see the process proving any simpler - we would
all like some certainty."