linedota.com

Having to win planning approval twice for the same project is unusual. But that is what we had to do for The Bramptons. The reason was that a borough boundary ran across the site meaning two of the eighteen dwellings being proposed fell within the borough of Pendle, whilst the remainder fell within Burnley’s jurisdiction.
 
Despite having to submit two planning applications and make representations to separate local planning committees, we thought that was a better approach than to shuffle all the houses to one side of the site in order to avoid the boundary and the politics. In other words we analysed the site and designed to its requirements in order to meet those of our client.
 
The quarter of Reedley, where the site is located, has a distinctive form of urban development. It also enjoys a range of architecturally eclectic house styles dating back the hundred or so years that the area has been developed. Working with the site’s physical, including architectural qualities, struck us as the proper way to address the issues rather than concerning ourselves with the political implications of straddling the borough boundary.
 
 
The strategy proved to be correct as we won the trust of the planners from which came their recommendations and subsequently the necessary planning approvals – all at the first time of asking. But resonating with the debate of the moment concerning planning I also think that our experience on this project told us something about the planning process as well about the planners themselves.
 
 
In some ways the process appeared to creak. Two applications, one and a half times the planning application fee, responding to different local plans and even being required to solve the same problems - such as cycle parking - twice in different ways. There certainly seemed to be something Kafkaesque about the bureaucracy entailed.
 
 
On the other hand, the planners covered themselves, if not in glory, then certainly in the mantle of professionalism, and I am not just saying that because we won the approvals. They showed great skill and care in working hard to reconcile conflicting demands in difficult circumstances for the good of their communities. There was no beggar thy neighbour attitude between the boroughs. This spirit transcended, what by comparison began to sound like shrill bickering between local residents who were in favour or against the proposals.
 
 
The key difference between the boroughs was that Burnley has a central Development Control Committee made up of council members from across the borough. This seemed to insulate some council members from being directly lobbied by local residents who were fighting a single issue in a particular parish. Pendle on the other hand has Area Committees to determine planning applications. Theoretically council members on Area Committees are drawn from a much smaller area. In the case of the Brierfield and Reedley Area Committee representing less than 10% of the borough’s population. This more local approach to democracy suggests Area Committee members might be exposed to greater political pressure from objectors or campaigners at the parish level. That at least is how it appeared to us as observers and participants in the process.
 
 
With the coming of the Localism Bill it seems that development control across the country will become more like Pendle’s system in future. The radical restructuring of the planning system, currently being proposed by the coalition government will give local communities the opportunity to say what can be built in their areas. But will those communities have the foresight, understanding and remit to look at the bigger picture of what is best for their area, town, or village, even when that might sometimes be to the detriment of their parish or local area? Many experts think not, and believe that more ghettos protecting this or that local group’s interests will emerge to the detriment of the community as a whole.
 
 
Do not forget at the heart of the proposed changes to the planning system is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This will come as a surprise to many in the local community who thought the revised system would give them more protection from profit hungry developers.
 
 
For details of the National Planning Policy Framework:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/planningpolicy/planningpolicyframework/
 
For details on the Localism Bill:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/decentralisation/localismbill/