Kirkwells' Planning Blog

Shapponomics: Right to Buy

2012-03-15T06:56:00.002Z

With all our attention directed at Localism we have not had time to follow the debate on Right to Buy too closely. But, yesterday, an up and coming protest outside the office of Grant Shapps, by the pressure group Defend Council Housing, prodded us in to taking a closer look.

The Government headline on the changes to Right to Buy are that existing tenants who qualify for discounts will get a bigger discount when buying their home, and that we will also have one for one replacement of the council home with a new affordable home. Immediately, something doesn't seem quite right here. Less from sales and like for like replacement? Has Grant Shapps hit on some new economic formula? Shapponomics?

So we started to look a little a closer. At first glance the discount is going up to 75%. Surely this cannot work. Especially when you learn that councils can only spend 30% of the receipt they get from sales.

By this time the penny was beginning to drop. Scratching our heads we started to think what would be needed to achieve like for like sales - free land, borrowing, use of a council's own resources. And all these are in the DCLG guide.

But the real killer is that one for one replacement is not in the local area where the receipt was generated, and where the pool of affordable housing has been reduced. The DCLG guide tells us one for one replacement is nationally. For if a local council cannot use the cash for a replacement affordable home they return it to those nice folks at DCLG who will give it to a council that can!

Now how this all meets local needs is anyone's guess.

No doubt in the future, DCLG will be publishing tables, local council by local council, showing sales and replacements. We can't wait, because on this one there will clearly be winners and losers.

To find out more about Kirkwells and the work that we do visit our web site

House Prices: National Obsession

2012-03-14T06:51:00.000Z

Eurythmics: Love is a Stranger "you're my obsession"

It never ceases to amaze how much press the release of whoevers (Halifax, Land Registry etc.) house price data still gets. The BBC were at it again yesterday with the latest mortgage completion data from the Land Registry.

The basic headline was that prices had nudged up 0.2%. Wow! We are saved!

We are not convinced it was that bad a news day that this should still be grabbing the front pages. No, what it still shows is how in thrall we are to house prices: one of our national obsessions.

Never mind that the unsustainable housing boom, along with easy credit and speculation was why we got in to this mess in the first place.

So our constant eye on house price data reveals something very telling. And that is that we want to get back to the bad old days of double digit monthly price rises as soon as we can. Bad thing? Yes. Are we so desperate for another boom followed by certain bust?

At this point, we will tell a little story.

"It was the Christmas before the Great Crash. Kirkwells were at a party organised by a large housebuilder. Everyone was in good spirits for the Great Boom looked like it would never end. Making small talk we asked a surveyor from a large national company when would the housing market crash? He turned to us and said it would never crash, it was built on firm foundations. At this point we walked away and told a surveyor friend about the conversation that had just taken place. Expressing our disbelief. At this point, our surveyor friend turned to us, knowingly, and said: ah, but that is because it is his job to talk the market up."

And the BBC report is in exactly the same vein. We need to be careful what we wish for.

It's All in The Game

2012-03-13T06:55:00.003Z

Total Annihilation - I can hear the siren now! (Source: Living with a nerd)

Or perhaps it isn't. Anyone who reads the business pages will be as shocked by the threat of administration at The Game Group as they were by the demise of Rangers. Both had been on the cards for some time. I won't comment on the Rangers situation other than to say I attended a match at Ibrox two years ago and fans had banners out then asking "Where's the money gone?".

But back to The Game Group - high street retailer of video games from it's Game and Gamestation shops.

In some ways it may seem almost a no-brainer that shops selling video games would eventually leave the high street as sales moved on-line. Video games = downloads = no need for shops? In some ways that does have a simple logic. But as Nils Pratley has pointed out in The Guardian Game's management don't even seem to be getting that one right. If they were managing the move from physical to on-line sales the Group wouldn't be in imminent threat of administration.

From what I see, Game's problem is that about the only change they seems to have implemented in the last ten years is to hide PC Games on one shelf at the back of the shop. The rest of the time they shuffle the deckchairs on the Titanic every fortnight. One week DS Games are on your right, the week after they are by the door, two weeks later they are on the left side. Why do stores do this? Not only is it disorienting (to a planner and geographer anyway), it must cost a small fortune.

But if video and music move on-line are we not losing something extremely precious? The art of browsing.

Everyone must recognise the beauty of this in book and record shops. But the same applies to gaming. I have bought some of my greatest time-killers ever in Game - Sim City, Championship Manager, Total Annihilation, Unreal, Civilisation, Close Combat - I could go on. Will I browse on-line I doubt it. Somehow all these things were bought, not because I knew anything about them, but because they looked and felt good. Many in big presentation boxes - remember those?

It is not just Game, of course. The current recession and move to on-line sales is seeing huge gaps appear in our high streets - and not just independents - and that all takes away from variety, competition and the browsing instinct. And the end result, culturally, a Saturday afternoon shop will be poorer, fewer stores and less choice. Clothes and coffee?

OK. Somebody may step in to save Game, or a part of Game. But will they keep the bit that allows me to browse and find Imperialism II and Transport Tycoon for a quid? I doubt it.

To find out more about Kirkwells and the work that we do visit our web site

Neighbourhoods in HD

2012-03-12T19:02:00.002Z

This is one that may excite the more legally minded among you.

Up until now the neighbourhood planning frontrunners have had things relatively easy. No published guidance, or regulation, just a Government committed to seeing neighbourhood planning succeed, and willing to put (some) money where it's mouth is.

But going through the regulations, that will come in to force on the 6th of April, one striking thing was the power that still rests with local planning authorities.

The Government mantra on neighbourhood planning, let's not forget, is "communities in the driving seat". But under the regulations, and here we are talking parish councils, (let's simply things for this post and leave neighbourhood fora to one side) parish councils would have to make an application to be designated a neighbourhood area to their local council.

This application would have to include a map identifying the area, and a statement explaining why the area is considered appropriate for neighbourhood planning.

The council's job is to either designate the area, or if they decide to refuse that designation, they must publish a statement of reasons for doing so.

Now the frontrunners have had it relatively easy as we say, because they have been going to councils asking for support in preparing bids for cash to support their neighbourhood plans. But many parishes coming forward to take advantage of the new regulations may not be so lucky (although Government does seem to be sticking to the line £50 million is up for grabs up to 2015). And we have only recently been in a room full of parish councillors most bemoaning the lack of support on offer from their local council.

The key question is will cash strapped local councils use the designation process to fend off potential neighbourhood plans? Citing resources and prematurity in relation to the core strategy to name two obvious examples. And, this is where the legal eagles may want to respond, how do local parishes challenge a refusal of designation. Because we have read through the regulations and the relevant bits of the Localism Act and drawn a blank.

Are we not men? No we are Devo-max!

2012-03-11T07:53:00.001Z

New SNP campaign poster

So the Green Investment Bank is to go to London and Edinburgh. There was a certain inevitability that it would end up in the Death Star. But at least the Edinburgh bit showed some commitment to spreading the jam. But it will be interesting to see over time if it is a "bit", as in in crumb. With London being the lead office. But anyway...

What this decision really confirms is that the Coalition has no English regional policy in any shape or form. The key dynamic in any UK discussion about devolved powers is now that between Edinburgh and London.

And, as seems increasingly likely, that will mean either a full, independent Scotland, or, given David Cameron seems willing to offer significant concessions, a Scotland with significantly greater powers. Devo-max. We are sure this had no bearing on the decision to have a Green Investment Bank branch in Edinburgh by the way.

So the English regions will have to look on rather enviously at their northern neighbours. Whilst at the same time dealing with a Localism agenda that atomises English decision-making into unelected Local Enterprise Partnerships, big cities with mayors, and thousands of competing neighbourhoods. A bad thing?

At the neighbourhood level probably not. But at the regional level, are LEPs and city mayors really going to be able to compete with the heavyweights of a fully independent or Devo-max Scotland, and the Death Star? In our view probably not.

Ahaaar, Jim Lad!!

2012-03-10T07:37:00.001Z

Cracking story from the Yorkshire Post.

The Labours of Grant

2012-03-09T06:42:00.000Z

Titian the Punishment of Sisyphus

Our heart goes out to Grant Shapps. He is trying so hard. Indeed we know from the work he did in opposition he clearly made a pitch for and got the housing brief.

But, oh dear, the poor chap is being overwhelmed. As Harold MacMillan would have said by "events dear boy, events".

On top of Grant's housing numbers misery, yesterday's publication of the latest homeless statistics heaped further pressure on our Housing Minister. The sad thing here is Grant's heart is clearly in the right place. The guy cares deeply on the subject of homelessness.

But, as with house building numbers, the bigger picture, the economy, is scotching all his well laid plans. At the moment, he is a bit Sisyphus-like. "We will build more, we will house the homeless". But as much as he tries to push that rock up the hill, the economic tide just pushes it back down and he has to start all over again.

And this brings us to a bigger issue with the Coaliton. No amount of think-tanking in opposition can prepare for the harsh realities of the real world.

It is OK trying to fit the world in to the shape you would like it to be. But sometimes it just doesn't go. And it is at these times that the experienced head listens, whether that be the economy, housebuilding, homelessness, or NPPF and changes tack. If you don't that rock will keep on rolling back down that hill.

Housing 20% Extra Offer Dropped?

2012-03-08T07:45:00.000Z

We have previously warned that we are in the pre-publication National Planning Policy spin period. But if Christopher Hope in the Daily Telegraph is correct there may well be significant concessions to the environmental side of the argument. At this stage we wouldn't count too many chickens.

But one snippet in this Telegraph piece that we are sure everyone will be glad to see the back of is the "+20% for housing".

Bizarrely, this was something even DCLG couldn't seem to explain. At one briefing we attended, after about three tries the poor civil servant gave up and said: "er, we'll get back to you". I don't think they ever did!

We also know of a least one Inspector who got this wrong at a Core Strategy examination creating panic.

So we do not think anyone will be rattling sabres on this one.

To find out more about Kirkwells and the work that we do visit our web site

Whither the pathfinders?

2012-03-07T12:17:00.000Z

Almost twelve months on and in a blaze of unsubstantiated political rhetoric the housing market renewal pathfinders have largely been consigned to the dustbin of regeneration initiatives.

From early signs that the Coalition would keep at least some of this work going. On a visit to Burnley, David Cameron no less said he could see the need for pathfinder type work in some areas (Burnley) and not others (?).

But the pathfinders were cut off at the knees in June 2011. In making his announcement Housing Minister Grant Shapps described this as the “failed” housing market renewal programme.

Strong stuff. And, ironically, said without a shred of evidence to back up such a claim. Why ironic? Because of all regeneration programmes, surely the pathfinders were the best-researched and most scrutinised programmes ever? From the early promises by the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (remember that?) that the government would adopt a light touch approach to the pathfinders – reporting and scrutiny grew in to a monthly sea of statistical returns, quarterly output monitoring, and annual Audit Commission reviews. And not a penny left the government coffers until huge prospectuses had been approved by ODPM/DCLG.

So how could something examined in such depth have been adjudged to fail? Was it the planning? The execution?

In terms of planning, I am not convinced the planning profession ever loved the pathfinders. They hit a raw nerve.

That constant set of scars we planners carry around with us. Demolition! We had been there before, if not in person, then through an education system that largely tells us we are a profession based on the sins of others. Slum clearance and tower blocks. And that we must atone for this by preserving all we can, and when we do build, God Forbid, we must ensure whatever it is clings as near to the ground as possible.

So planners never really embraced the pathfinder work. It was against our nature. That, and it was all about housing. The pathfinder money could only be spent on housing related activity. Therefore, the people in charge were largely housing professionals (is there such a thing?). We didn’t like that. We were planners, we were concerned about the whole environment, not just houses, and given our worldview, why weren’t we in charge?

So what of the plans themselves? Most were very good: ambitious, comprehensive, and, in some cases subject to (endless) community engagement and debate.

But there was another problem for the pathfinders. They were controversial. The plans included demolition!! In some places, most notably Liverpool the response was campaign movements, “SAVE OUR STREETS”, and at this politicians began to take flight. For, with their short time horizons, there is nothing worse for a politician than controversy. Some were braver than others and held the line – only to fall at the ballot box.

So what about the execution? These were not the wholesale removals of communities the press, notably The Daily Telegraph portrayed. People were dealt with sympathetically, and if re-housed in a new home offered generous packages to re-locate in a place of their choice. OK some people did not want to lose their terraced home of many years, but many were in a living hell and could not wait to go. And don’t forget more homes were refurbished than demolished.

And the pathfinders’ work enabled new housing to be built, and still does. How else would we have got new homes in Burnley Wood, Daneshouse, West Accrington or inner Blackburn without the work of the pathfinders. The public money was needed they were areas of market failure after all.

If Grant Shapps had bothered to ask I am sure his civil servants would have furnished him with the endless statistics that had been collected and would have borne this out. But by 2011 it was too late. The pathfinders were an easy cut. At face value unpopular, decidedly interventionist, long-term, and dare I say northern.

So the new revisionist consensus is that the pathfinders failed. I have even heard this from the lips of consultants who earned fat fees from the pathfinders in the good old days.

The pathfinders didn’t fail they were cut off at the half way stage. Leaving a job half done. Whither the pathfinders? More like wither.

This is an undedited version of an article in this month's PLANNET - magazine of the North West Branch of the RTPI.

To find out more about Kirkwells and the work that we do visit our web site

Greg Clark's 233 (Neighbourhood Plans)

2012-03-07T08:09:00.004Z

Angry Parish Councillor Realises £20,000 Was Never Enough to Prepare the Neighbourhood Plan

No this is not about some sword and sandal epic.

But Monday saw Greg Clark go some way to achieving his dream of having 500 neighbourhood plans in preparation every year. We couldn't track this quote down this morning - so if you know where it is, let us know, please.

Anyway, back to neighbourhood planning. Greg's 233 are costing him £20,000 a pop - £4.66 million to you and me. And going way back to DCLG's own impact assessment on Localism, and neighbourhood plans in particular, the estimate at the time was that a neighbourhood plan would cost between £20,000 and £63,000. So everything is seemingly on track.

We have always been big supporters of neighbourhood planning, if a little concerned about the naivety expressed by DCLG. Particularly, about how easy these will be to prepare and how relaxed the preparation process will be. In fact DCLG were at this again at an event we attended last week and organised by Action for Market Towns in York (a fuller account of which is carried on the Kirkwells site). We think for some neighbourhoods things will be a lot more challenging.

OK, DCLG have to drum up business on neighbourhood plans, and they won't do this by scaring off parish and town councils. But we really cannot see, as DCLG are telling it, a loosely prepared neighbourhood plan, with a poor evidence base, and weakly drafted policies being much cop. Especially, if big bad developer is doing the opposite and preparing a well researched, expensive counter argument.

So £20,000 is going to go a long way if you are setting policy on doors and windows in a small village. You'll probably have change left over to save the village pub! But if you are a community trying to influence the siting and design of large-scale development £20,000 will be like fighting F-15s with swords and sandals. You could always throw the sandals...

...although remember the Spartans did win a few against the odds.

To find out more about Kirkwells and the work that we do visit our web site

Empty Homes, Hollow Promises

2012-03-06T07:02:00.001Z

Nick Clegg and Andrew Stunell: "one million Dollars!"

Spare a thought for Andrew Stunell. One of the Under Secretaries in the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

He isn't often allowed out. Four statements listed on DCLG - one on the Big Lunch.

And we fear he won't be dining out on yesterday's news. For he was wheeled out Nick Clegg-like to trumpet government largesse on Empty Homes. We say Nick Clegg-like, because just as with Nick Clegg and the Regional Growth Fund yesterday's statement was all a bit Dr Evil over again. Only this time, Andrew Stunell is Mini-Me. Why are we so harsh?

In DCLG speak empty homes are a "national disgrace" there are 720,000 empty homes in England.

Digging deep the Government have found £70 million to tackle this national disgrace between now and 2015. An astonishing 5,661 empty homes will be brought back in to use. 0.0079 of England's empty homes. AT this rate, it is going to take some time to clear the backlog.

Digging deeper in to the figures also reveals other interesting detail. Take the former Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders. Combined in recent years they were in receipt of £200-£400 million annually to deal with empty homes and failed markets. Although they topped yesterday's list Greater Manchester and Pennine Lancashire will receive £5 million apiece over four years to deal with this problem. For the latter one 50th per annum of what they had been receiving to do this job.

And that is the second theme emerging in these figures a redirection of resources from north to south. The strong housing markets of London and the South East again taking a large share.

Thirdly, there is the odd scene of a number of housing associations seemingly being given cash to bring their own homes back in to use. Shouldn't they be using their own resources?

No doubt Andrew Stunell will say this programme is good value for money - on average £12,300 to bring a home back in to use. And in some areas the impact will be more immediate, take, Barking and Dagenham, bringing 16% of their empties back in to use.

But for areas with the real problems - the Manchesters, Pennine Lancashires, Tees Valleys etc. - this programme won't hack it. Impact will be minimal and the cost to bring every empty home back in to use would be phenomenal even at this unit cost. Manchester over £520 million, Pennine Lancashire £132 million, Tees Valley £202 million.

The elephant in the room of course for areas such as these is a comprehensive regeneration strategy that includes demolition and redevelopment. But Grant Shapps turned his back on this when he dismissed the "failed pathfinder initiative".

To find out more about Kirkwells and the work that we do visit our web site

NPPF: time for more light, less heat

2012-03-05T12:04:00.000Z

This is an edited version of a piece we wrote for the Kirkwells' Comment section of out main web site but we think it worth giving it a wider airing:

"The final version of the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is only days away and now is the time for "more light and less heat" in this debate on the future of planning.

Throughout the Summer of 2011 swords were drawn. On one side government, and many in the property industry, saying the NPPF would promote growth and protect the countryside, and, on the other, a wide collection of groups including the National Trust, CPRE, and RSPB, saying the NPPF was the biggest shake-up in the planning system since it's creation in 1947, and that it would lead to a developers' free for all and the destruction of the countryside.

The heat generated by this debate has continued. Take to recent reports, both of which we have blogged on, on this site. And we know both of these blogs, from the number of pageviews, have sparked great interest.

First, the CPRE report Protecting the English Countryside this secured lots of headlines on the back of a figure that said 50% of the countryside would be unprotected after publication of the NPPF. What the report actually said was that with NPPF and Local Plan protections that figure was 33% of the countryside currently unprotected. A high figure, but one we expect to come down significantly as local councils prepare local plans.

But the hyperbole is common to both sides in this debate.

Take last week’s publication by the House Builders' Federation (HBF) of a report on planning approvals. This grabbed the headlines as a “drought of permissions caused by planning”. Again, the real story was that planning application approvals had gone up to 80%. The reduced number of permissions had nothing to do with planners holding projects back. They simply were not coming forward because of the poor state of the economy.

What do these reports have in common? They are both being used as evidence to justify the two extremes in the NPPF debate.

And they are both being used in the same, almost misleading, headline grabbing fashion. It is not that the reports are wrong. Just that selective use of figures and press release hyperbole is tainting what is, and should be, a serious national debate about the good and bad of our current planning system. Without this debate, and here we need some good old honest objective analysis of the facts, we are in danger of, on the one hand, dismantling the planning system based on unsubstantiated, free market rhetoric, and, on the other, scare mongering when clearly the system is in need of reform, and with the right support could retain and improve all that is good about a planning system that has done so much in the last 65 years."

Only Fools and Horses...

2012-03-04T09:32:00.001Z

Best of Boycie

No we don't have the picture of Cameron riding on Raisa. We are still looking for that one.

The top planning story this weekend has to be The Sun's report about Frank Lampard and his new mansion and "Boycie" the councillor. Whenever we read a story like this we do ask ourselves "Why do these people do these things?"

Planning not Responsible for HBF Housing Drought

2012-03-02T07:07:00.000Z

The biggest news yesterday had to be the HBF report on the decline in planning approvals. The headline figures from the HBF's web site were as follows:

Total 2011 permissions granted in England lowest since survey started in 2006

Just 115,000 permissions granted in 2011, half the 2006 level and half the number required

In Quarter 4 2011 approval was granted for just 27,732 units in England – 6% down on Q3 2010

Just 16,334 social units approved in 2011, down 47% on 2010 and 52% on 2006

Quarterly average in 2011 was 28,853 compared to 33,535 in 2010 and 53,116 in 2006

Grim reading. But are they "a stark reminder as to why Government must stand firm and deliver a robust and pro-growth planning system" as the HBF would have us believe? For that to be the case the number of applications submitted would have to have remained static, or declined, and the refusal rate to have risen appreciably. Unfortunately, this is not something the report publishes all it publishes is approved schemes.

So we tootled off to the DCLG web site to take a look for ourselves. What the DCLG data reveals is that planning approval rates on major applications for residential development have gone up! In the year ending March 2008, they were at only 67%. Since this time the approval rate has consistently been around the 80% mark. So the HBF's problem is not planning refusals.

The other side of the equation is also not in the HBF's favour. In the year ending March 2008, there were 9,537 major residential applications determined.

This fell to 5,307 in 2010, and we have had only 2,552 in in the period January to June 2011. So with higher approval rates either the recession is taking its toll on the number of HBF members submitting planning applications, or there are thousands of planning applications sitting on planners desks. And whilst the time taken to determine applications has slipped - currently 52% in 13 weeks as against 67% in 2008 - this does not explain what is going on.

Planning approvals are nosediving because applications are not being submitted. To paraphrase what football managers would say at this point "you can only approve what they put in front of you".

So nice try HBF. But if we are going to dismantle the present planning system let's talk facts. This is not a planning problem it's the economy.

The Biggest Constraint to Housing Growth

2012-03-01T16:57:00.002Z

Jesus Driving the Money Lenders from the Temple - El Greco (don't ever say you don't get an education when you come here).

And the nominees are...

Planning

and Mortgage lending

And the winner is...

Mortgage lending.

So says Persimmon in announcing their results for 2011. The availability of mortgage lending is the "biggest constraint" and will continue to restrict the housebuilding sector.

So the next time someone comes up to you in a pub and says "those bloody planners, restricting housebuilding", just look him in the eye and say "nah, mate it's availability of mortgages".

To find out more about Kirkwells and the work that we do visit our web site

Planning on Spin Cycle

2012-02-29T06:46:00.002Z

Pearl Jam - Spin the Black Circle

Yesterday we seem to have been subject to a classic case of pre-Budget spin. Both the Guardian and Telegraph carried stories of a Cabinet meeting where David Cameron is said to have demanded more growth.

In the very obvious spin that emerged from this meeting (aren't they all supposed to keep their mouths shut?) one of the things stifling growth is red tape. And, yes, for the government planning is red tape. And from the Guardian report planning is not just stifling growth, it is throttling growth.

Nothing to do with business and consumer confidence being on its knees of course.

But back to our point about spin. This serves as spin on a couple of levels.

One it says to anybody who believes the red tape claptrap (we don't - what is wrong with filling forms in so you pay the right tax, VAT, comply with health and safety so people don't die, and have the right planning approval so you aren't damaging the environment?) - is this government is serious about doing something about it. So come Budget even if the Government don't it has created the impression they have. Say something long enough and people believe it.

Secondly, it sets up those worried about a bonfire of the red tape, including planning, that come Budget day things are going to be as bad as they fear. We are thinking here particularly of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). And this is where the spin comes in. Because once these fears have been stoked, and people begin to fear for the worst, any minor concessions around the NPPF will seem like major victories. Clever? Cynical? Take your pick.

So expect some relatively minor changes on the NPPF.

Windfarms: Blot on the Landscape

2012-02-28T15:29:00.001Z

Cartoon by Chris Madden

In the news today, we see that that David Cameron has met with the anti-wind farm MPs and has likely reiterated his support for wind power. This is all very well and good but, looking at it from a different point of view, does it mean that the anti-wind farm MPs don’t have any faith in the planning system to protect the landscape and people from over-development. A planning system that they’re looking to streamline through the introduction of the NPPF, by the way.

In the South Pennines a group of neighbouring authorities got together to produce a study that looks at the capacity of the landscape, fantastic as it is, in relation to wind turbine development, not just large scale ones. If it’s happening here, then we’d imagine that local authorities elsewhere in areas that have a higher than average wind-speed have done or are doing similar things.

We know that the energy supply of the future is going to have to be much different than the one we have now, for reasons of fuel supply, energy security and climate change to name a few. It’s going to have to be a mix that we have plan for, so we need to start planning for it now and trust the planners to do it.

In a related sideline, we wonder if any of the MPs who signed the letter are in the same boat as Prince Charles?

To find out more about Kirkwells and the work that we do visit our web site

I'm a Planner and I Just Wanna Be Loved

2012-02-28T07:00:00.001Z

Elvis Costello - TOTP 1984 - he knows how it feels

At the time we started this blog, ministers, developers and land owners were in full flow. Railing against the perceived straight jacket imposed by planning. One of the key aims we set ourselves was to counter this myth, because - planning when done well is about making things happen, and making things happen creatively and sustainably.

As went through the Summer planning remained in the spotlight. Unfortunately, we had the "more heat than light" debate surrounding the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). And the way some (planners and non-planners) reacted to this it became easier for some of the "anti-planning" mud to stick.

So it has been heartening to read over the last few days the support, speaking from the RTPI Awards from Clive Betts Communities and Local Government Select Committee Chair:

"Attacks on planning can lead to defensive responses. But our urban spaces and countryside are all the better for local plans that have been agreed after full public consultation. Good planning ensures the right development in the right places."

But also in more sabre rattling (for a planner at any rate) fashion from Colin Haylock, new RTPI President, in his letter to the Financial Times tackling that old chestnut that planning costs the economy billions of pounds a year.

Part of planning's problem is that we are mostly on the back foot. Take Colin Haylock, and we are not suggesting for a moment he should not have written his letter, we planners are usually responding to something that has already been said. By which point, some damage has already been done, and, even by responding, further credence is given to the original comment. We need to be getting in their first.

How we turn the debate around is a difficult one to answer, but it is something to think long and hard about in the run up to the publication of the NPPF. Knee-jerk "awww, that's not fair, and it will lead to a free for all" reactions won't cut it. Planners need to be ready with a welcoming response (even if it is through gritted teeth) showing we can make this work and we will still produce high quality, sustainable development. The alternative is to paint ourselves in to a corner that many would quite happily like to keep us in. In short, we need to learn to be loved.

DEFRA: Educate, Agitate, Organise

2012-02-27T14:42:00.001Z

Another from the excellent xkcd

Defra today announced the 12 new Nature Improvement Areas (NIA) – another three letter abbreviation to add to the lexicon but a welcome one, we think. The list includes the Morecambe Bay Limestones and Wetlands here in NW England, submitted by the Arnside and Silverdale AONB, along with other from across the country. The NIA represent a variety of habitats, but the majority seeming to involve woodlands and water bodies to some degree.

This is all good news, but what struck us at Kirkwells was the last paragraph in the ‘Notes’ on Defras press release (emphasis added):

“The Natural Environment White Paper set out Government’s ambition to see further NIAs wherever the opportunities or benefits are the greatest driven by local knowledge. The option set out in NEWP for local authorities to recognise an NIA in their local plan is a continuation of current planning policy, not an extension of it. It is not the intention for NIAs to stifle sustainable development. It is a matter for local authorities to decide what weight they wish to give to NIAs in their local plans.”

Now, as far as we understand it, improving the natural environment couldn’t be said to stifle sustainable development in anyone’s book. After all, a healthy environment supports a thriving society, which in turn provides the workforce and consumers for the economy. Nature and the environment underpin sustainable development, so how can improving it stifle it? We’re not altogether sure what Defra is meaning with this phrase, although we do have our suspicions that it’s there to appease those that don’t really grasp the concept. Educate Defra, don’t placate!

To find out more about Kirkwells and the work that we do visit our web site

RGF, RBS the numbers just don’t add up

2012-02-24T10:12:00.000Z

Nick Clegg

Spare a thought for poor old Nick Clegg. Yesterday, sent out to demonstrate the government’s largesse by launching Round Three of the Regional Growth Fund (RGF).

This should have been a big day for Clegg. The RGF is his baby, spending is authorised by a committee he chairs. But it wasn’t a big day, because the launch of the £1 billion pound third round of RGF was drowned out by a welter of other big numbers. Clegg must have felt a bit like Doctor Evil in Austin Powers, finger to corner of mouth “I offer you £1 billion pounds!”

OK, not a sum to be trifled with, but try these for size.

Yesterday also saw the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) release its latest results. The 82% owned by you and me (if you pay UK tax that is), state bank made a, finger to corner of mouth, loss of “£2 billion pounds!” Yet still found a bit of spare change down the sofa to pay a bonus pool of £785 million. Loss and bonuses, no the two don’t go together to me either.

So through RGF the whole of the UK gets £1 billion, and a few thousand bankers, as near as dammit get the same. Hmmmm. Still not impressed. Try this for size. In saving RBS we taxpayers shelled out £45 billion for one company. All three rounds of RGF will total – wait for it – “£3.4 billion pounds!” No wonder you didn’t get many headlines Doctor Evil, er, Nick.

Add in the small matter of quantitative easing (QE) £325 billion pounds (now that is more like it Dr Evil) and it reveals a true picture of the relative standings of finance and manufacturing in our national economy.

One is a sacred cow, protected by special pleading, a cosy relationship with government and a “too big to fail” stamp. The other has been left to whither and go its own way for thirty years. Often seen as a nice to have but not essential in a modern economy.”Yeah, we like what you do, and its part of our heritage, but we are making piles of cash over here.”

And this reveals how threadbare the Coalition rhetoric is on re-basing the economy. Vince Cable has always talked a good game, but as a nation we took our eye off the ball on manufacturing a long time ago. If actions speak louder than words then the figures from yesterday really do show how half-hearted our national and regional economic strategy is.

Before we leave banking reflect on this. These masters of the universe (their phrase not mine) believe, no doubt, in free markets. A key principle of free markets being supply and demand. So when supply rises, and demand goes down, prices fall, and vice versa. Agreed? We are only mentioning this because Stephen Hester, boss at RBS, yesterday was still justifying paying huge banker salaries and bonuses. Despite the fact he was cutting 3,000 investment banker posts (less demand for them, bigger supply of out of work bankers), and Hays the recruitment firm saw a 10% fall in hiring in the UK banking sector last year. Er, less demand, more supply, lower wages. These are just thoughts. But don’t we need to be joining the dots? If we don’t, these people will keep getting away with it. Or perhaps in the universe they master simple supply and demand don’t apply.

Government Health Warning:

We would like to highlight to David Cameron this is not anti-business. We are a business. Criticising the excesses and molly coddling of one sector of the economy does not make you anti-business. Avoiding criticising and molly coddling one sector of the economy does.

To find out more about Kirkwells and the work that we do visit our web site

Organic Fuel for Cars

2012-02-23T13:27:00.001Z

We loved this from the brilliant xkcd.

Planners: Fantasy and Reality

2012-02-22T14:18:00.004Z

These images, courtesy of Urban Planning Blog, just have to have a wider airing...

Cashing in on New Homes Bonus?

2012-02-22T08:21:00.004Z

From Parliament web site no less.

We have been doing a spot of research at Kirkwells on the New Homes Bonus. We must admit it is not something we had particularly got excited about.

Firstly, in terms of the cash on offer, after you had factored in the big ticket item of overall cuts to local government spending. And, secondly, we didn't, particularly buy the Shapps line that this would lead to a new homes bonanza. Macro-economic conditions will play far greater a role on this than any financial jiggery-pokery.

But we did get excited when we read in this morning's Guardian piece by Peter Hetherington that already a new home might not mean what is says on the tin. So for example, The Guardian reports "Kensington and Chelsea, seem to be exploiting its (New Homes Bonus) potential by redesignating older properties as 'houses in multiple occupation' to raise more money". Interestingly, even doing this, K&C have only secured £884,762 New Homes Bonus for 2012/13 - the lowest figure for any London Borough.

Nick Raynsford, former Housing Minister, following up this lead has asked a question in the House - based on the facts that 106,000 new homes were completed last year but 158,535 qualified for the Bonus! As of yet he has not had an answer. But when he does it will make interesting reading. Clawback?!

To find out more about Kirkwells and the work that we do visit our web site

Britain's First Amphibious House

2012-02-21T11:53:00.001Z

For the first time in the UK an "amphibious" home has been granted planning permission on the banks of the Thames in Buckinghamshire.

This is no reflection on the work of BACA architects but this did remind us of this from 2009...

He could always say it was performance art!

Europe According to the Greeks

2012-02-19T11:34:00.002Z

Yanko Tsvetkov's - Europe According to the Greeks

We like a map. So were pleased to see The Guardian feature on Yanko Tsvetkov's stereotype maps. Our favourite is above. Stingy Workaholics...

Yanko's web site.