Nicola Gooch’s Post

Sometimes the simplest ideas only appear simple to those that haven’t been there and tried it. The first of the modern planning acts was created in 1947. At that time the government of the day gave 8 weeks to determine an application. In 1991 the government recognised that some applications were more complicated and introduced a 13 week “rule”. Still recognising that this might not be achievable in all cases, giving the applicant a right of appeal in the grounds of non-determination. I’m no historian but I’m fairly confident that much has happened since 1947 and yet the same 8 week rule applies. Now let’s move on to “planner bashing”. I can remember when I first started in planning being told there was a shortage of planners in the South East. By the time I’d finished my Master degree in Town Planning I was told there was a national shortage of planners. A few years ago I read a report that confirmed there was a shortage of qualified planners in the Commonwealth. So it’s fair to say that qualified planners are a rare breed. I’m not in Government (and have no wish to become a politician) but with targets that are out of date, a severe lack of resources, and the threat of even greater penalties for those Authorities who fail to perform (yes there are moves afoot to increase the number of planners but it’s important to accept they don’t grow on trees and even if they did they’d take more than a few years to ripen into anything useful) how do we ensure applications are determined more quickly? I caused a ripple of dissent on a similar thread recently and don’t want to do it all over again. This isn’t an opportunity to talk about “them and us” as planners we’ve all got a responsibility for fixing a broken system. My starter for ten - there’s a cost to delayed applications for the applicant. So maybe going the extra mile in terms of what is submitted with the application (ie beyond the absolute minimum) is actually going to cost less? So let’s not argue about that slight tweak that may reduce the value of the finished product by a small amount, yes it’s annoying, yes it may not even be justified, but until the backlog is addressed properly it may be commercially more sensible to suck it up and make the tweak. That said, it’s also important to acknowledge that pragmatism only goes so far. It’ll be a challenge to find a council (and I mean Elected Members here) that is prepared to be the same - but I’m looking …

The Government has put forward new proposals to revise the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Among the changes is the introduction of a term that's beginning to make its way into planning and development discussions: the grey belt. But what does this term actually mean? And what are the plans for its implementation?

Section 73B is far from a complete solution to the issues posed by Hillside. See my colleague Sadie Pitman's thoughts below and comment on the government consultation (closing 1 May) here: https://lnkd.in/eNhvqHAW

Interesting article here. It is clear (and has been for some time) that the requirement for a five-yearly review of local plans lacks the necessary 'teeth' to ensure that local authorities will undertake a review and then produce an update in a timely fashion if necessary. This process is not subject to consultation or examination, and therefore the decision of the local authority as to whether or not an update is required cannot be challenged. I do believe that this needs to be addressed by the Government as part of emerging reforms to the local plan making system being introduced by the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act. However, the article does not mention that the PAS Local Plan Route Mapper https://lnkd.in/eFNUk5ih is freely available to local authorities to use and provides helpful guidance when undertaking a review and / or update of a Local Plan. #localplan #planning #levellingup https://lnkd.in/efxdtAxb

The Government has put forward new proposals to revise the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Among the changes is the introduction of a term that's beginning to make its way into planning and development discussions: the grey belt. But what does this term actually mean? And what are the plans for its implementation?

Sweet mother of Mary there is a big pile of change coming. The changes to national direction are going to be substantial with 7 new instruments coming and changes to 14 existing instruments. With an overhaul like this proposed, it seems nuts that establishing the National Planning Framework isn't on the cards?? There was already lots of work done that this could be based on.... The other thing that is of interest to me is the language used in the speech about using national direction to make some things 'easier' to consent, or to be more 'enabling'. This would be a stepped change from how things work now, where local authorities are able to be more stringent than what national direction requires, with national direction being more of a 'minimum standard' setting. This leaves me with some pretty big questions: - How is this going to impact on communities being able to make decisions about important resource management issues in their district or region? - What is the right balance between national direction and regional and district councils being able to set their own direction through their RMA plan making?? (PS I'm not sure we even have enough information and evidence to answer that last question....nonetheless, onwards we go.....) #planning #reform #compliance #localgovernment #wecandobetter https://lnkd.in/eBXAHNKr

In light of the government's recent consultation, we consider whether section 73B is the answer to Hillside: https://lnkd.in/eF4qeHbZ

The Government has today released the Expert Panel’s review of the PDI Act and the Code and detailed their plans for adopting the review’s recommendations.   The panel’s view is that the planning system is working well, and the evidence provided throughout the public consultation indicated there is broad support for the new system which was implemented in 2021.   The Government is adopting more than 100 recommendations to make the nation’s best planning system even more efficient and user-friendly.   We look forward to collaborating with the Minister for Planning and Planning and Land Use Services on the implementation of the recommendations. #planning #southaustralia

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) consultation period drew to a close late last night, ending a busy period of industry discussions around how potential reforms could affect the sector. In the final edition of our ‘Eight Weeks of Planning’ series, director Annie Brafield considers the overall industry mood and what we’d like to see over the coming weeks. #NPPF #PRAgency #PlanningNews #ConstructionNews