issue 25 - march 2011

aid for londonLP GI GA N N N

Issue 25 - March 2011

t: 020 7247 4900 f: 020 7247 8005 e: [email protected] w: www.planningaidforlondon.org.uk

I am a Senior Planner in a local authority Development Management department in London’s

Metropolitan Green Belt. I also consider Listed Building applications in Greater London on behalf of the

Council for British Archaeology. I have both an Archaeology degree and a Planning degree and I’m

hoping to be able to put these skills to good use for PAL together with broadening my experience in

assessing all sorts of applications in different urban and social environments. I’m happy to take advice

from any current volunteers and I look forward to meeting a few of you soon!

Originating from New Zealand and having studied at Auckland University gaining a Bachelor of

Planning I am very keen to learn mo re about urban planning in large cities around the world. My

current experience is based around development control for smaller developments and some more

contentious sites. Since coming to the UK I have gained some experience in enforcement as a

volunteer at Newham Borough and am currently working on a Management Plans for the Parks Department at

Hammersmith and Fulham. I looked to join Planning Aid to gain further UK experience and hopefully wider my horizons in

Planning.

I am a Planning a nd Urban Design consultant currently working freelance from my office in North

London. Although I started out in architecture, I was always attracted to the larger scale projects,

especially those that involved existing communities and demanded highly sus tainable design solutions. I

have worked in several architectural, planning and urban design practices in Scotland, but have moved to

London just over a year ago in search of fairer weather. I have joined Planning Aid in order to gain a new

insight into different areas of planning and hopefully work directly with some of my local communities.

Hi, I'm Andrew and I currently work as a Senior Planning Officer at Harrow Council. I joined in May 2010

and it is my first job in London. I previously worked for West Northamptonshire Development

Corporation, and before that, East Northamptonshire Counci l, where I was lured into a career in planning

after finishing University. Having previously volunteered with Planning Aid East Midlands I was keen to get

involved with PAL. I feel its worth giving up a few hours each month to help people who might not be able

to fathom today's planning system and / or pay for someone to tell them, and hopefully engender some

good karma towards planners everywhere. Plus, it looks good on the CV.




The initial warnings came; with little time to spare PAL started to prepare for the inevitable impact of the

withdrawal of Government funding as the commissioned programme was ceased. PAL formed special task groups and with the help and experience of Trustees, volunteers and partner organisations, started to look at possible alternative funding methods to make up the shortfall. Letters were sent, bids were written, costs were cut and

tenders submitted.

As the eye of the storm approached overhead, Government announced a new fund – The Neighbourhood Planning Fund. A fund aimed at providing planning advice services for free across England but rather than a single deliverer, the market should be open to other potential service providers but only a quarter of the original fund would be available to successful applicants. PAL and Planning Aid England (PAE) accept the lifeline and bid jointly, knowing that this could provide some damage limitation if won,

but would be unlikely to prevent the loss of some of its treasured assets.

Under cover and awaiting the passing of the storm, staff and trustees gather to anticipate what the outcome will be and what resources will be needed to rebuild the Planning Aid foundations. Various scenarios are established, examining everything from surviving on reserves to capacity building if bids are successful. Everything is plotted and budgeted, nothing is left to chance.

Then all goes quiet – the storm has passed and we emerge to start to assess whether the organisations have been raised to the ground..... of course it hasn’t. After all, the storm couldn’t damage the true core asset, the volunteers. All the time there are dedicated people helping clients there will be a Planning Aid. However, there is costly damage. Structures and work for the organisation will have to change to allow repair and new developments to emerge. In terms of PAE, this is likely to mean the loss of the dedicated Planning Aid regions and the regional offices. The volunteering service is likely to become centralised or possibly some of the volunteering management tasks undertaken in the short term by the RTPI regional boards.

In London there is a further severe gust, as a second funder (London Councils) also becomes unsure about its funding provision to our service. Whilst this gust unsettles things and causes the loose debris to fall to the ground it is believed that initial storm preparation is adequate to overcome the latest turbulence. The work now begins to clear the path for new beginnings to grow and it is now we need the collaboration of all our volunteers and staff to work together in new and innovative ways that will ensure that those who need our help most continue to have access to the finest planning knowledge that money can’t buy. Apart from undertaking casework we need volunteers to assist with fundraising, community event organising and marketing of our services to local areas and groups. If you can spare any time to assist us whether from home or in the office then please let George know. We will also be having a volunteer evening at PAL offices on Thursday 31st March 2011 at 6pm -7pm to discuss new ways of working and supporting the development of our service. If you’d like to come along and contribute ideas and meet other volunteers and staff then please contact Birute [email protected] to arrange a place.




The localism bill signals a move by government towards enabling greater autonomy and decision making at a

local level. Planning has a central role to play within this, with the planning system to undergo a number of

reforms, including greater powers given to local authorities and communities to decide on how they want their

villages, towns and cities to grow. But while potentially more community planning and greater public

involvement can be exciting and bring changes to neighbourhoods, how realistic is this given the current

landscape of planning, and ultimately can the changes work in pra ctice?

On the face of it a move to more of a local focus seems to be a good thing. Our experience of researching public

opinion on provision of local services suggests that when considering planning, people like the idea of local

decision -making rather than working to a regional ly or nationally mandated plan . Local councillors in particular

are seen as potentiall y being an important link between the community and decision making bodies.

To be honest they know this town, they are councillors from round here, they know the area, they know

what it needs, what would help, so I don’t see why they should have to keep running to Parliament to say

we’re going to open ten new shops and put a new shopping centre in.

However, we know from our work on community engagement that there is a real challenge to ensure that this

big society approach doesn’t just hand power to the small groups of people with the motivation, time and

resources to affect the change (or lack of...) that suits them.

We know that the system could be made much easier for residents to get involved in the decision making

process ove r housing and planning issues. Despite recent improvements in the provision of planning application

updates on local authority websites, the terminology, layout and overall message is far from consumer friendly.

In a recent TEDx talk, Canadian community a ctivist Dave Meslin asked his audience what would happen if

private companies advertised in the same ways that civic involvement in planning is advertised.

The message was clear, for planning to be a public issue, we need to rethink how we engage people over

planning decisions and how we communicate these opportunities for involvement.

Ipsos MORI’s work in this area shows a similar picture. Qualitative research at local development workshop s

show that participants often have low awareness of development plans which can cause frustration and anger

as they had not been made more aware of plans.

First of all, what do they intend to do? It’s all just rumour now

Did they forget to put some little press release out about this? Did they put the message up in the town

hall and we missed it? I feel indifferent, impotent really, what can we do? It’s a fait accompli




Clearly resources for communications are never going to match advertising budgets of large private businesses, and these reactions are likely to be just as frustrating to those working in the planning sector as the residents themselves. However, this does raise an important point over the quality of planning’s brand reputation at a time when it seems key to encourage people to see value in engaging with the system. Indeed, the reputation of planning for some seems to have become associated with bureaucratic box-ticking exercises and the application of regulations more than helping to ensure economic and socially sustainable development in local areas. As a disgruntled planner friend put it to me recently “we are the traffic wardens of the built environment.”

The government’s localism agenda seems to want to change this. As Greg Clark recently commented on the localism bill, “Instead of being the agents of imposition, they [planners] should have much more scope to help local people articulate their vision for their town or village or neighbourhood.”

For this to be successful, it will be important to consider how greater public involvement in planning can be encouraged and how wider engagement can be enabled through better communications. But we have seen already that these are going to be big challenges, and improving communication alone is not the answer. Indeed, Ipsos MORI research into public engagement shows that while a quarter of the population say they want more of a say in local decision making, just four per cent say they are actually involved in local decisions, indicating a significant gap between those who say they want to be involved and those who really are involved.

When we look in more detail at levels of engagement between different groups of people further issues arise which suggest there are going to be real obstacles to overcome in ensuring that neighbourhood plans represent and listen to the views of all groups. Taking deprivation as an example, our research shows that levels of civic engagement and formal volunteering in an area are strongly linked to how deprived an area is - more deprived areas have lower percentages of people participating in voluntary activities. So how will deprived communities ensure their voice is heard in the process? This is just one example, but it highlights the need to tailor approaches in order to include harder-to-reach groups in any decisions about the area, and for plans to get anywhere near to being ‘representative’ of the neighbourhood they cover. Put simply, unless we want to only involve the minority that currently raise their voice about planning issues, ensuring representative engagement from across the local population will be challenging.

R2 = 0.9544

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

CivicEngagementand formalvolunteering

% o

f peo

ple

parti

cipa

ting

in c

ivic

en

gage

men

t &

form

al v

olun

teer

ing

Base: 8,768 British adults, Fieldwork dates: April 2008 - March 2009

Levels of engagement vary significantly between groups…

Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)

Ensuring neighbourhood plans represent all local people will be a real challenge…




We said at the start of this piece that localism appears popular and seems to make sense to people when considering planning decisions in their area. But our research also shows that, unsurprisingly, people are also keen to ensure that they are not losing out on standards of local services. When we asked adults across the country, the majority say that public services should be the same everywhere in Britain. The postcode lottery has become a national fixation, not least in the amount of coverage it has received in the newspapers, driven by real concerns about fairness. While this apparent contradiction means that people seem to be at odds over liking a local approach, but wanting some level of universal service provision, this is not necessarily a reason to stop local control of planning.

Indeed, this is not the only contradiction when we ask people about local planning issues. For example, the vast majority of the population recognise there is an affordability crisis with housing, but find it hard to make the connection to a lack of new housing developments being built. When probed on why people do not want more housing to be built, key reasons centre around issues of pressure and strain on current infrastructure and facilities. But we know from much of our work looking at individual reactions to developments that even when facilities are promised as part of plans, people still often oppose new developments.

The localism bill aims to present neighbourhoods with the opportunity to harness the power of local communities to create better places for London. However, to be successful we need to recognise that there is a long road ahead to achieve the real, representative engagement that can underpin this type of community planning and to ensure that real problems such as the lack of housing can be addressed.

For more details contact [email protected]




Often a contentious issue for residents and local communities alike, unauthorised developments and changes of use and the discretionary nature of local authority action against such infringements is the frequent cause of discontent and confusion. Exactly what is meant by expediency with regard to taking formal enforcement action can often seem incomprehensible and the legitimate avenues that transgressors can pursue to avoid and/or delay taking action to remediate the breach can often seem to be unfair with the dice seemingly loaded in the transgressors favour. Meanwhile, residents and communities have to live with the continued breach of planning whilst these matters take their course. Clauses 103-107 of the Decentralisation and Localism Bill therefore appear to offer something in the way of good news. In summation the clauses offer as follows: Clause 103: The right for the local planning authority not to determine a planning application when an

Enforcement Notice has been served and limits to appeal against Enforcement Notices issued after a planning application has been made

Clause 104: The right for local planning authorities to apply to the Magistrates Court for a Planning

Enforcement Order where breaches of planning are considered to have been ‘concealed’ . This Order would in effect remove the time limits of 4 yrs (works and conversion to residential use) and 10 years (changes to other uses) after which enforcement action cannot be taken.

Clause 105: An increase in the maximum fine for breaches of Breach of Condition Notices (BCNs) from

£1,000 to £2,500 Clause 106: In effect the roll out of the power contained in the London Local Authorities Acts 1995-2007

with regard to signage and advertisements. Clause 103: There is certainly much to be welcomed in limiting the scope for submitting planning

applications when enforcement action has been taken which is a popular delaying tactic, especially when certain beaches of planning control can be profitable. However it appears that it is still open to make another retrospective planning application if the Enforcement Notice is appealed to the relevant body, the Planning Inspectorate. This planning application would also have a right of appeal. It seems logical to limit this right of appeal of the application is to retain what is being enforced against reducing the appeal route to just one avenue (Planning Authorities can refuse to determine repeat applications where the proposal is materially the same as what has previously been determined).

Clause 104: This at first appears a welcome addition to Planning Enforcement Powers and recent high

profile cases have revolved around house concealed under Hay Bales (Fidler) and within a barn (Welwyn). These are remarkable but rare cases. The issue is what is concealment and to what extent will the Courts accept that the local authority should have been aware of the breach before granting a Planning Enforcement Order.




A good example of this and a London-wide issue is the unlawful conversion of houses into multiple self-contained residential units. As many frustrated complainants come to realise it is often selective use of information where it is in the interest of the transgressor to say house benefit claimants but not bother to declare to Council Tax any split into multiple units of occupation, much less to apply for planning permission prior to the conversion works. The frequent use of Approved Inspectors also removes the use of Local Authority Building Officers surveyors from surveying the works. All of the above make establishing when the conversion works and /or change of use difficult to determine and such conversions are often profitable exercises for which there is no incentive to comply until compelled to do so. However would Magistrates see such behaviour as concealment or feel the local authority should know what its respective departments are doing?

This also raises the question about appeal against Enforcement Notices once they are issued for breaches involving a change of use. There is no fee to appeal under the relevant ground ((d) that the change of use was established prior to the service of the Enforcement Notice). Such appeals as a matter of course go to public inquiry the most formal and often most resource intensive route of appeal resulting in further delay and cost to the local authority and frustration for the complainants who continue to live with the consequences of the breach often the generation of excessive noise, litter and on street parking stress. It would be welcome if this closure of the bill seriously looked at the continued right of appeal under this ground or whether instead the appellants should seek to submit an application for a Lawful Development Certificate where the local authority can set its own burden of proof, fees are applicable and the right of appeal remains should the local authority refuse to issue a Certificate.

Alternatively if a Lawful Development Certificates is applied for claiming establishment of the use and issued thus regularising the use could a local authority go to Court to apply for a Planning Enforcement Order or have to go through a process of first revoking the Certificate, another time consuming and resource intensive process? It seems clear that serious thought should go into limiting rights of appeal and training of Magistrates to make Planning Enforcement Orders the viable additional enforcement tool they appear at first to be.

Clause 105: This has to be welcome. Breach of Condition Notices are usually served for breaches of

specific conditions of planning permission, do not have a right of appeal and are effective in many instances such as breaches of permitted hours which can in the case of night time economy cause significant nuisance and disturbance for local residents. One could argue however that the fines could be on par with the £20,000 maximum which the Magistrates Court can hand down for conviction for breaches of Enforcement Notices.

Closure 106: London Local Authorities have already enjoyed these additional powers. It is welcome that they are being proposed to be rolled out nationwide. At present the Bill is being debated as Part of the Commons Committee Debates and these are expected to end on 10th March. These will be followed by reports and the 3rd reading of the Bill possibly before Easter. Once the Bill has passed through the Commons it will go to the Lords for their deliberation. You can follow the progress of this through the UK Parliament Website at: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/localism.html. Myles Joyce Team Leader Planning Enforcement LB Haringey (the view here expressed are my own)




It was a warm July evening in west London and the sunlight filtering through the trees flickered on the path ahead. The hubbub from the hall could be heard a hundred yards distant; closer, voices were clearer; angry, anxious, voices. The council were proposing to build houses on a cherished open space. All residents were opposed. The hall had not been easy to find, and arriving late the tall distinguished stranger strode down the entrance path and threaded his way quietly through the residents thronged around the entrance- residents unable to find space in the packed meeting room, but participating as best they could.As he came into the hall the stranger was spotted by the harassed figures seated to the front on a low platform. One who had been speaking with a raised voice, trying to quell the developing chaos, stopped and nodded towards him. Faces turned; the meeting became quiet for a moment then an increasing murmur spread through the room ‘It is the Planning Aid volunteer’ ‘Yes, the Planning Aid volunteer’ The sigh of relief throughout the hall was audible. Then applause spontaneously broke out, increasing in volume and interspersed with cheers as the volunteer made his way to the front to give hope and encouragement to the awaiting audience.

It was a cold and gloomy late Monday afternoon in December. A call came into the Planning Aid office. A hearing into an appeal relating to a ‘Wet’ Centre for street drinkers was booked for the next day. Because of confusion over dates no case had been prepared. Could PAL help? PAL could. One volunteer was in the office preparing for another case.The next morning after an hour reading the case file over a café breakfast in damp North London the same tall - but less distinguished –stranger entered the Council Chamber to face an Inspector and an array of objectors to the Centre, which had initially been supported by members but started without a necessary agreement and thus without the issue of planning permission. It was now facing closure through enforcement action. An apologetic attempt to explain about the confusion and request an adjournment led to booing and barracking. Angry and hostile voices demanded that the appeal should be rejected out of hand. Finally the Inspector ruled grudgingly and amidst uproar that fairness necessitated an adjournment until January.Our volunteers December tribulations were not terminated. The centre’s draft conditions had limited its opening hours and precluded weekend opening. A Christmas party was planned breaking these restrictions, and would harm the appeal if it now took placeSitting at a table in the centre a few days later preparing evidence the volunteer heard an announcement ring out ‘this is the man who has stopped your Christmas party’. Faces turned; Centre users stood and advanced slowly, intending to forcibly express their disappointment. Happily the volunteer was hurried out of harms away by helpers.

Anonymous Volunteer




Hayri Z. Korkmaz

Finance & Office Manager

Let me begin with pointing out the fact that PAL has an effective financial management that ensures the best utilisation of resources.

We have proved that. As you can read from the PAL’s Annual Report, PAL carried out all planned activities within its budget in 2009-10.

As far as the current year is concerned, despite the funding cut, PAL has delivered its activities within its budget for the current year so far and I expect that the outcome at the end of financial year will show our success. Shortly PAL will have a sound Balance Sheet at the end of the year.

What could happen in the next year as the government has introduced a severe cut in funding?

Generally speaking, “when asked what about their organisation keeps them awake at night, most non-profit executive directors and senior managers will give the short and simple answer: money.”

Having a sound Balance Sheet is a good and strong starting point for PAL and I believe, with the support of volunteers; with the effort of all of us we shall overcome the difficulties.

Please note that you can read our Management Committee’s Report and Financial Statements at our website and also can find the last 5 years report at Charity Commission’s site by clicking http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/SHOWCHARITY/RegisterOfCharities/FinancialHistory.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=802943&SubsidiaryNumber=0




We've been helping planners in Greenwich to consult with young people as they prepare their new Core Strategy that will shape the development of the borough for the next 15 or so years. After supporting over 50 young people who are active in youth councils and forums in Greenwich, to give comments on the new strategy at the recent Y Factor Youth Conference held at Eltham Green Sixth Form College in November, we have since also used the opportunity to deliver some planning training to young people in other schools. In January and February we ran introduction to planning workshops with students in Crown Woods School and Shooter's Hill School, both large comprehensives serving a very diverse population. At Shooter's Hill School we have been delivering a planning module as part of Level 2 of the Construction and the Built Environment diploma, and consultation on the Core Strategy was a great way of helping students to apply some of their learning to thinking about the preferred options that the council were considering for areas of the borough.

A press piece, mentioning PAL's work with Greenwich appeared in the council newspaper ‘Greenwich Time’ on 15th February which can be viewed on the Greenwich council website.

There are some terrific opportunities for volunteers to get experience working with young people, in both formal school settings and within the community. The work can be challenging, informative, and a lot of fun. We are looking for people who are interested in communicating with young people about their engagement in the built environment, those who are happy to share their professional knowledge and experience to excite young people about taking up planning as a career, and those who have ideas about ways in which we can innovate and develop this area of work. Please have a look below to see what current opportunities exist and then get in touch with Adam at PAL to discuss how we might work together. Why not join a growing number of volunteers who help us develop and deliver our work with young people? You'll be in good company.

• Our new young audio guide for visually impaired young people; help us make sure this gets out to those who most need it, and help us develop ways of using it to engage young people who are visually impaired in training and other projects in their local area.

• Housing and Planning project workshops in Bexley and Croydon; can you help us secure youth groups in these boroughs who we will train in planning using housing issues in the borough?

• Young People’s Planning for Safer Streets Project – Harrow & Brent; can you help us secure youth groups in these boroughs who we will train in planning using crime and safety issues in the borough?

Training School Councils in facilitating young people’s engagement in planning; help us deliver training to young people making decisions about their school and their future

• Support work on bids; contact us if you are willing to help us carry out research, or if you have ideas for bids to support work in your area or around particular themes or issues

Adam Brown - Education Outreach Officer



Main Issue 01/01/2009-31/12/2009

01/01/201031/12/2010

Case Category 01/01/09-31/12/09

01/01/1031/12/10

DC/Law 384 421 Consultancy 44 76 Plann. Definition 2 36 Volunteer 145 168 Plann. Policy 86 52 Advice Line 27 55 Training 5 36 In House Advice 403 294 Transport 8 0 Refer to External 36 18 Non Planning 35 19 Community Projects 135 83 Plann. Procedure 18 5 Outreach/Education 45 34 Clients Appeal 29 23 835 728

0

100

200

300

400

50001/01/10-31/03/10

01/01/09-31/03/09Clients Appeal

Plann. Procedure

Non Planning

Tramsport

Training

Plann. Policy

Plann. DEffinition

DC/Law

0

100

200

300

400

50001/01/10-31/03/10

01/01/09-31/03/09

Outreach/Education

Comm

unity Project

Refer to External

In House Advice

Advice Line

Volunteer

Consultancy

Volunteer Hours

Period Hours Period Hours 01/01/2010- 31/12/2010 725 01/01/2010- 31/12/2010 850 01/01/2009- 31/12/2009 738 01/01/2009- 31/12/2009 746

Management Committee Hours

For further questions on topic please contact Birute: [email protected]

This statistical report provides a brief summary of PAL’s activities during the calendar year from 01/01/2009 until 31/10/2009. Table1 and Chart 1 summarises data by the main issue of the caseto demonstrate demands during this period. Table2 and Chart 2 lists data by case category. There is some increase in ‘Consultancy’ and ‘Advice line’ while ‘In House Advice’ category shows a decrease by 27%. These changes seem to indicate that some cases are becoming more complicated therefore time spent assisting on them has increased accordingly.

Table1 Table2

Graph1 Graph2

issue 25 - march 2011

Documents

urban planning

planning degree

bachelor of planning

dierent areas of planning

senior planning ocer

planning aid east midlands

current experience

uk experience