5 minute read
ANDREW ROGERS Why planning is sexy
ROGERS
Why planning is sexy
Andy Rogers is a planning consultant and former director in architects The Manser Practice
“While not a technical term in the world of planning, we need to make the planning profession sexy again … bringing the planning system into the 21st century should be a priority…” – BEN EVERITT, MP for Milton Keynes North, speaking in a parliamentary debate on housing and planning in rural communities, July 2022
When I read that an MP considered that planning had once been sexy, I found it hard to imagine what this might mean. In the spirit of Ben Everitt’s comment I have taken on the role of Agony Uncle and culled some of the more obscure questions that, as an elected representative of the current legislature, he should perhaps be able to answer.
Dear Ben
My friendly local planning officer says that his attempts to engage his colleagues in mildly lewd banter has been referred to the council’s HR department with a possibility of pending dismissal. Can this be true? Annie Wokeman
Dear Ms Wokeman
I fear that you may be acting as devil’s advocate. You have assumed a negative perspective to the council’s policies by suggesting that the replacement of innocent office banter with lewd comments would be likely to make planning more sexy, which is clearly wrong. Shame on you!
Dear Mr Everitt
I have been asked to submit a detailed fire escape statement and checklist before my local planning authority will validate an application for the change of use of my client’s house, which has three flats, to a single dwelling. This means that I will be obliged to enter the flats so that I can confirm existing bedrooms, etc. How can I do this without being accused of a serious invasion of privacy, especially if the occupiers are in bed? Perplexed planning consultant.
Dear Perplexed planning consultant
I suggest you speak to your local planning authority about proportionality. They will probably have no idea what you are talking about since most officers don’t even understand the concept of proportion in design, let alone proportionality. However, when you have proved that the change of use will make the property more sustainable, you may not need planning permission at all (depending on which council you will be dealing with). This is just what we MPs and local councillors hate - losing control of development due to the rise of so-called “permitted development”.
Dear Mr Everitt
You and your colleagues have repeatedly said that the planning system needs to be brought into the 21st century. This reminds me that numerous planning acts have required all local plans to be put in place by various deadlines which very often have not been met, but omitted any sort of real sanction – my own authority has had all of its policy drafting plans shelved or extended indefinitely. How does 21st century planning fit in with the inevitable approvals by appeal that will follow?
Cassandra Caseofficer
Dear Ms Caseofficer
It doesn’t.
Dear Mr Ben
Ministers have praised the proposed merger of local planning services, eg LBHF, WCC and RBKC or RuT and Wandsworth. What happens when local elections change the colour and composition of the participating authorities? (and don’t say that local politics should play no part in planning because we all know they do). Mrs Mary Busybody
Dear Mrs Busybody
Dear Mr Everitt
I understand that you consider that the planning profession used to be sexy. Given that most of my local authority planning work consists of box-ticking due to the increasingly complex checklists that I have to complete, what has gone wrong? I think we should be told. A concerned validation clerk.
Dear Validation Clerk
Whether the planning profession was ever truly sexy is a matter for debate, but you must admit it made a headline-catching statement for the boring planning press. n
And, finally (as a bit of fun) here is a short quiz. Why is this sexy garden shed in a sloping garden NOT allowed as a permitted development Class E outbuilding?
Is it
1. Because the dwelling to which it relates was created by a permitted change to residential from some other use? - NO, it has always been a C3 dwelling house. 2. Because it’s not in the curtilage of the house? - NO, it’s definitely within the curtilage*. 3. Because it exceeds 50% of the total curtilage area? - NO, it’s far too small. 4. Because any part of it is in front of the principal elevation of the house? - NO, it’s entirely in the back garden. 5. It has more than one storey? - NO. it’s clearly single-storey. 6. It is more than 2 metres from the
house but more than 4 metres high? NO, its height (measured as it should be from the highest point of the adjoining ground) is exactly 3.8 metres to the ridge. 7. Its eaves are higher than 2.5 metres? - NO, the eaves are 2.2 metres high (again, as measured from the highest adjoining ground). 8. It is within the curtilage of a listed building? - NO, the house isn’t listed. 9. It includes a verandah, balcony or raised platform? - NO, it doesn’t. 10. Its drilled ground-screw supports are a specialist engineering feature? - NO, the owner installed them himself (and he’s not a builder). 11. It’s in a Conservation Area and situat-
ed at the side of the house? - NO, as noted above, it’s completely at the rear. 12. It includes a double bed? - YES, it cannot be permitted development if its use is not incidental to the enjoyment of the house, but instead provides additional primary accommodation that is ancillary*, or supplementary.
(No sex please - unless it’s incidental.)
*See my column in the last issue of PiL
