Greens submitted amendments to better protect open space (known as the ‘urban fringe’) by increasing building on brownfield sites in the city. However these proposals will not be put to the vote because they are deemed “unsound,” as they do not support the aims of the Conservative National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The framework contains key clauses which make it all but impossible to oppose the building of homes.

Green amendments not accepted

These would introduce requirements such as 100% affordable housing, stricter environmental conditions and ecology studies on ‘urban fringe’ land. These were ruled as incompatible with national planning rules.

Green amendments accepted

Green amendments that were accepted for debate will ensure stronger environmental safeguards for development in the city: stricter environmental guidance, better building standards, higher energy efficiency standards, new air quality measures and new requirements that developers improve access to sustainable, low-carbon transport and reduce carbon emissions.

A summary of key Green amendments is listed below

Context

Green Councillors have consistently criticised national planning law, labelling the NPPF a Conservative Government ‘developer’s charter,’ that forces councils to grant permission to developments, regardless of their suitability or affordability, in order to meet strict national targets for housing development.

Three years ago these same planning rules were explored in a report from Shelter, with the report concluding that attempts to protect developer profit, such as viability assessments, contributed to 79% fewer affordable homes being built.

Greens also criticised the Labour Council for failing to consider alternative sites for housing development in order to ease pressure on the urban fringe. A number of new sites, such as above car parks and shopping centres, were identified in the Green consultation response submitted in 2018 but have not been incorporated into the final housing plan.

With opposition parties only granted limited amendments, Greens have called on all parties to ensure that the local plan goes as ‘far as possible’ to safeguard local communities against the worst of NPPF restrictions, and ensure the highest possible standards in development.

Councillors are due to debate the City Plan on 23^rd April and Greens have urged all parties to improve the city plan, saying that the council must do more to ensure housing developers address both the housing crisis and environmental emergency.

Green Councillor Marianna Ebel, opposition spokesperson on the council’s Tourism, Economy, Communities and Culture committee, commented:

“Two years ago, at consultation stage, Greens made our feelings on the city plan clear. We asked for the plan to include the strongest community commitments, working to increase community-led, genuinely affordable housing, instead of giving free reign to developers: many offer paltry levels of ‘affordable’ housing. We called for stricter environmental studies and research to both protect and secure the environmental status of urban fringe sites. We also identified additional housing sites that could be used without encroaching on green space in the urban fringe, for example above car parks and retail spaces.

We have remained consistent on these issues but we have lost the argument that these strict requirements can be included in City Plan Part Two – thanks to the restrictive demands of national planning law that puts developer profit before community need. We have been told we cannot introduce tougher policy for our city than the national planning rules allow.

“We have shared the rejected proposals that will not be debated as a result of planning law restrictions, alongside the Green amendments that will be debated, so that residents can see the impact that government planning law has on our city.

“Where the plan can be improved, we have pushed to strengthen it wherever possible. We are calling for greater carbon reduction in new developments, stronger commitments to air quality, and increased ‘car free’ pedestrian and cyclist access to all new housing schemes. We are also asking developers to prioritise protecting the natural environment on development sites, instead of choosing to ‘off-set’ the impact of their construction elsewhere.

“We have also pushed hard for stronger pledges on community-led housing, on affordable housing and inter-generational housing, too, and stronger protections for the many retail spaces in our city that allow small independent businesses to thrive.

“The Labour Council failed to pick up on some of our positive proposals when raised two years ago. The NPPF sets a low bar for developers – but within these constraints, where the plan can go further, it should. Every opportunity must be taken to ensure that developers work harder for our communities and for nature.”

Councillor Phélim Mac Cafferty added:

“It has been outrageous to watch the local Conservative party rage against its own government’s planning rules by talking about a vision for green space, when the Conservative party’s own laws say that green space is up for grabs by developers. Since the introduction of the damaging and short-sighted Conservative planning laws, 9 years ago, Greens have consistently opposed them.

“We have seen really significant pressure put on councils recently to comply with government edicts on housing. South Oxfordshire district council were due to adopt a plan for local housing which rejected government rules – and they were threatened with the prospect of having their planning powers taken away from them entirely as a result. We were elected by our local communities to stand up for their interests, and we cannot risk seeing local decision making thrown to the wayside by failing to secure the best city plan we could in the circumstances. So Greens have pushed hard to improve Labour’s plan – but we are naturally disappointed not to see more of our strong proposals adopted.

“On the other side of the pandemic, we will continue to lobby ministers to give our communities a real say over their own city.  Government must decentralise more of the decisions about planning to the elected representatives of our area who understand it best, so that decisions can be taken freely that benefit people and communities, not only developers’ interests.”A

33 Green proposals that amend City Plan Part Two include such measures as:

• New carbon-reduction initiatives, and demands that developers improve their energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions, with a requirement that all developers produce and publish a clear ‘energy statement,’
• A request that car-free residential developments are supported and encouraged (DM36 amendment)
• A push to tighten the policy to make Transport Statements, Transport Assessments, Construction and Environmental Management Plans and Travel Plans mandatory for all developments that are likely to generate significant amounts of movement/travel, and for those developments to consider their impact on air quality, even if these developments are not situated in a designated ‘air quality management area,’ (DM35 amendment)
• A focus on supporting zero exhaust emission transport, not just ‘low emission,’ transport, and a commitment that developers will not only improve existing cycle networks, but actively extend them
• Improvement of sustainable transport infrastructure, including improved safe pedestrian & cyclist access to the urban fringe sites designated for development (H2 amendment)
• A proposal that developers must first and foremost avoid any loss of biodiversity when developing their housing sites, with ‘mitigation’ only viewed as a second option, and off-site mitigation as the last resort (currently, many developers are able to claim that they have mitigated for any loss of environment/green space by contributing to an ‘off site’ green space elsewhere in the city)
• Protection and enhancement of rights of way that developers have to adhere to (SA7 & H2 amendments.

Green Councillor Marianna Ebel has also commented on the amendments that were classed as ‘unsound’:

“We aimed to maximise the development on brownfield sites – e.g. by attempting to increase the minimum number of dwellings at the old Brighton General Hospital site from 200 to 300. This was rejected due to concerns about the conservation efforts. We’ve already mentioned the attempt to get additional housing on top of car parks & retail space. This is not only an attempt to increase the number of housing units but could also protect some urban fringe sites if housing demand could be satisfied by being smart about how to maximise brownfield site space. However these requests were rejected as ‘unsound’ when measured against national planning law criteria.

“We demanded repeat ecological studies of urban fringe sites and stated that if housing must be built on the urban fringe as required by planning rules, only 100% affordable housing should ever be permitted, in consultation with the local community first. This was rejected as not in line with CPP1 and the NPPF. National planning law states we must deliver more housing sites.

“We asked for more community engagement – especially to protect pubs – and where this is not possible to create additional space for community facilities (e.g. meetings spaces for local groups). This proposal was classed as ‘unsound.’ We also called for stronger principles to protect Music Venues (known as ‘agent for change,’) and we hope to receive assurances this approach will be upheld in the plan.

“We asked for more areas of the city to be added to the list of important local shopping and retail parades which would have given them a layer of extra protection. But apart from Preston Drove all our suggestions were rejected as they didn’t meet the requirements and definitions set out in planning law.

“We aimed to make Transport Statements and Assessments and subsequently Air Quality Assessments mandatory – not just within the air quality management areas but in the whole city. Poor air quality causes many pre-mature deaths in our city. However this was ruled unsound as it does not align with the requirements of National Planning Policy.

“We asked for the introduction of tighter building controls and more eco-friendly building materials. Some of these were taken onboard; but others weren’t (e.g. developers having to consider the ‘embedded carbon footprint’ of a new development to get a true picture of its impact such as through measuring the carbon footprint of constructing the building itself, and the materials used, including processing and transport).

The post Greens push to improve Labour housing plan and condemn Government planning law that ‘fails communities,’ appeared first on Brighton & Hove Green Party.

Greens have raised concerns over the future of the council’s housing and development plan, City Plan Part Two, urging the Labour Council not to miss opportunities to strengthen affordable housing and environmental standards.

Greens submitted a response  to City Plan Part Two in September 2018, calling for:

– stricter, and new ecological and environment studies of urban fringe sites (urban fringe is space where the boundaries of the city meet the countryside or nature)

–  identification of further sites in the city centre lying vacant for new genuinely affordable housing, such as above car parks or shopping centres, studies for denser housing on some brownfield sites, and truly affordable housing at the Brighton General Hospital site;

– the commitment of the most outstanding and strict environmental commitments for any development granted access to an urban fringe site; requiring no less than 100% genuinely affordable homes; good landlord schemes and living wage rents;

– restricting the conversion and spread of short-term holiday let homes or AirBnB property development

–  creating a design charter and holding developers to a higher standard in energy efficient homes;

– work to create joined up cycle routes and promote accessibility and public transport options in all developments;

– a call for all developments to be assessed for air quality impacts, not just those located in existing ‘air quality’ management areas;

– call for community involvement if a local public house is threatened with permanent closure

Councillors raised a number of questions at a meeting of Tourism, Economy, Communities and Culture (TECC) committee last week, after it emerged that several proposals from the 2018 Green response, calling for stricter environmental commitments and more genuinely affordable housing, will not be incorporated into the current plan.

While welcoming some improvements to the policy, Greens have expressed disappointment that requests for more extensive ecological studies and 100% genuinely affordable housing on urban fringe sites will not be taken forward.

At the TECC committee meeting, Greens also challenged the Labour Council to detail why options for increasing city-centre housing, such as using sites above shopping centres, car parks, and at Brighton General Hospital, have not been explored, despite being raised over a year ago.

While councils are constrained by national planning rules, Greens say the city plan must still be viewed as an opportunity to hold developers to higher standards in order to meet the city’s need for affordable – and sustainable – homes.

With the plan due for decision at a meeting of Full Council on April 2nd, Greens have urged the Labour Council to look again at options for housing in the city, to ensure both the city’s housing and climate crisis are considered.

Opposition spokesperson for Tourism, Equalities, Communities and Culture committee, Green Councillor Marianna Ebel, commented:

“The City Plan shows we are struggling to meet the demand for affordable housing. The scandal is that the government’s planning law – the ‘National Planning Policy Framework,’ (NPPF) will always have the final say. For example, developers are asked to provide affordable housing – but concerns about profit margins often permit them to wriggle out of these commitments. The government’s definition of ‘affordable,’ is still too expensive for most.

“Despite the constraints, we must be as ambitious as possible about our local plan. Back in September 2018, when we put forward our response to the plan, Greens made clear our view that we need stricter environmental studies of urban fringe sites.

“We also identified additional housing sites, such as above car parks and shopping centres, that we believe can be used without encroaching on the urban fringe. We argued that if urban fringe sites are identified as locations for new housing, then this should only be considered when developments are 100% genuinely affordable.

“We are disappointed that some of our responses have been ruled out of the latest plan. But this does not rule out political leadership – and we urge the Labour Council to put our city on a path to more sustainable, ‘green,’ and affordable housing development.”

“There is no question councils are massively constrained by the damaging and short-sighted Conservative government’s planning laws. Only in the last week the government has increased the amount of homes we must build to 6,149 homes over 5 years, a demand driven by profit, favouring developers – not our community, who need genuinely affordable homes.”

Councillor Clare Rainey added:

“The Green response to the City Plan made a series of comprehensive demands to balance the needs of our communities and our environment. We have been pleased to improve some aspects of the plan, but we are disappointed that key requests, calling for new ecological and environmental studies on urban fringe sites, have been rejected.

“At committee, we raised a series of concerns about the plan that reflect the issues raised in our 2018 consultation response. We asked whether, for example, the target for carbon reduction in new developments could now be increased from 19%, given the need to tackle the climate crisis. We queried the types of ecological surveys being done at urban fringe sites and pushed for more assurances that biodiversity protections will be part of all new developments, among other considerations, such as public transport access. 

“Government planning rules favour profit above people and hold back progress: for our communities and our environment. But as far as possible, the council must work to deliver a plan that values both. We urge Labour to respond to these ideas in the weeks ahead, before the city plan is put to the vote.”

The post City Plan must go further, say Greens after response to consultation appeared first on Brighton & Hove Green Party.

Green Councillors have published their response to Brighton and Hove City Council’s development plan, City Plan Part Two, including new ideas for affordable housing and sustainable transport they say will enable the city to thrive into the future.

The response submitted by Green Councillors is available to read in full online. [1]

Greens say that while councils are constrained by national planning law, the city plan must be taken as an opportunity to hold developers to the highest standards possible on issues such as sustainability, affordability and design.

Over 50 new proposals are detailed in the Green response, including:

-launching a pilot of an intergenerational housing scheme at Toads Hole Valley, to support our ageing population;

– building more supported accommodation and emergency housing, council-owned and with support services built in;

– creating a design charter and holding developers to a higher standard in energy efficient homes;

-restricting the conversion and spread of short-term holiday let homes or AirBnB property development;

–  demanding air quality provision at all development sites, not only in Air Quality Management areas;

– a space for nature in all development; with vegetation and tree planting to mitigate air pollution;

– district heat networks and a boost for community energy, so residents have warm homes and lower energy bills;

– improving public and community spaces in the city centre, to enhance walking and cycling; and a commitment that all developments will prioritise ‘car free’ access and links to public transport;

– allowing community organisations greater involvement in discussions with developers about new facilities;

– using gaps on the high street for ‘between use’ with new business start-ups;

– greater protection for the historical and heritage fabric of Brighton and Hove’s retail;

– introducing storm drains and the reinstatement of the lost flood plain in Patcham;

– stricter ecological studies for urban fringe sites, and the commitment of the most outstanding and strict environmental commitments for any development granted access to an urban fringe site; requiring no less than 100% genuinely affordable homes;

– identification of further sites in the city centre lying vacant for new genuinely affordable housing, such as above car parks or shopping centres, studies for denser housing on some brownfield sites, and truly affordable housing at the Brighton General Hospital site;

-Demanding a consistent approach to the area between the train station and Churchill square, focusing on public space, accessibility, clearer and cleaner pavements and on-foot travel; 

Convenor of the Green Group, Councillor Phélim Mac Cafferty commented:


“We are pleased to be able to share our responses to the council’s development plan with the city. In our view, the challenges that lie ahead – a rising need for affordable housing, a growing elderly population, increasing air pollution and climate change –mean that a development plan for our city must be visionary and forward-thinking. It should hold developers to the highest sustainability standards possible as well as boosting community wellbeing and quality of life. That’s why Greens have focused on how future development plans can put the community at centre stage – prioritising affordable housing, green spaces, public transport and community facilities. 

“As we did with our political leadership in the City Plan Part One, Greens believe that a well-designed and well-planned built environment creates benefits which go far beyond just bricks and mortar, such as protecting our fragile environment, and boosting other areas of the economy such as tourism, retail and leisure. 

“The recent halt by developers of the King Alfred leisure centre project has again reminded us that the balance is still tipped in favour of developers. Yet we need to ensure community needs are met by future development plans. Although we are constrained by damaging and short-sighted national planning rules, this should not stop us from showing political leadership. The City Plan helps to inform planning policy, so we hope the Labour Council take on board new ideas that put our city on a path to more sustainable development.”

– ENDS


[1]Green Councillor Response to City Plan Part Two available in full here: 

The post Greens publish vision for development in the city as City Plan Part Two response released appeared first on Brighton & Hove Green Party.

‘Community facilities, public transport and genuinely affordable housing’ central to Green response 

Providing 100% genuinely affordable housing and cracking down on poor air quality are some of the proposals put forward by Greens in response to City Plan Part Two, the Labour Council’s strategic plan for Brighton and Hove.

The Plan builds on City Plan Part 1 which outlined the strategic approach. Part 2 sets out the council’s preferred approach to development of housing, offices and shops, community facilities, heritage and open spaces and will form a key factor in the future assessment of planning applications.

Greens have responded to the consultation calling for plans for affordable housing and public transport to go further. Developments should be based around maximising green space for residents, providing warm, genuinely affordable homes and limiting polluting transport if the city is to thrive into the future, Greens have said.

With over 50 new proposals put forward, Greens want to see development plans fulfil a stronger emphasis on the public realm and the environment in the face of climate change and increasing need for affordable housing in the city. Greens have also called on the Labour Council to take into account key proposals raised at meetings of Full Council, including the redevelopment of the Brighton General Hospital site sale into affordable housing, and a cycle network and improved public transport links.

Councillor Phélim Mac Cafferty, convenor of the Green group, commented:

“The challenges that lie ahead – a rising need for affordable housing, a growing elderly population, increasing air pollution and climate change – require a bold and ambitious response.

“This is the Labour Council’s plan but we hope our continued vision for sustainability will lead to better outcomes for our city. The Green approach focuses on how development plans improve wellbeing and quality of life. We put the community at centre stage- with things like a focus on public transport, green spaces and affordable housing- which will put our city on a path to more sustainable development.”

The post Push for bold ideas to tackle housing and environmental crises in City Plan Part 2, say Greens appeared first on Brighton & Hove Green Party.

• Government forces council to allow development on parts of urban fringe
• These and other spaces at risk of developers’ ‘free-for-all’ if council rejects government demands

Green councillors have again condemned the government’s “developers’ charter” for insisting that green spaces in Brighton & Hove’s urban fringe should be made available for development.

Under the government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) all land in the city’s limits and not in the National Park should be considered for building upon.

The government has required that independent consultants look at how much of the city’s remaining urban fringe can be developed. The consultants have identified 39 small sites across the urban fringe, where they believe 1,200 homes can be built.

The council is required to publish this independent report for public consultation at its Policy & Resources Committee Meeting in July.

Councillor Phélim Mac Cafferty, Green spokesperson on Planning said: “The government is holding our green spaces to ransom. If they don’t get the sites they want for development, virtually every open space in our city is up for grabs.”

Government rules mean that if the council’s City Plan doesn’t meet their requirements, the plan will be thrown out in its entirety. This would mean a ‘free-for-all’ for developers, who wouldn’t have to follow any locally-set rules. This would see the Greens’ proposals for 94% of new homes being built on under-used brownfield sites, high sustainability and building standards, and a good balance between space for housing, the economy, open space, transport and public services – being thrown out too..

Without a City Plan in place, all development in the city will instead be guided by the government’s relaxed planning rules – with lower standards and a presumption in favour of development.

Councillor Phélim Mac Cafferty continued “This government raid on our green spaces means that if we want any protection or high development standards across the city, we have to accept their demands. Otherwise the whole of Brighton & Hove will be exposed to the full-blown effects of the NPPF and a virtual free-for-all for developers.

“Of course homes are needed – but new developments have to be appropriate. This is yet another appalling example of the government’s dodgy definition of localism.”

Notes

The papers for July’s Policy & Resources Committee can be viewed online here: http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=689&MId=5085/

* In 2011 Greens withdrew the old Local Plan because it did not reflect national policy changes, and didn’t reflect the administration’s aspirations for sustainable local development.

* The new City Plan must be examined and approved by a government-appointed inspector. The inspector’s initial feedback in December 2013 stated that the council needed to review all urban fringe sites, and required independent consultants to assess the city’s urban fringe for potential for development in line with the government’s pro-development policy.

* More information on the history of the City Plan can be found on Brighton & Hove City Council’s website here: http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/planning/local-development-framework/city-plan.

* At a construction conference in May 2014, Labour’s shadow Local Government secretary Hillary Benn MP said that a Labour government would not repeal the NPPF legislation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/10832904/Labour-drops-plans-to-axe-national-planning-rulebook.html

The post Greens condemn government ‘raid’ on green spaces appeared first on Brighton & Hove Green Party.

In a motion passed by Brighton & Hove City Council yesterday Thursday 8 May, Greens argued that the government should “respect our communities and local democratic decision-making on planning matters”.

This follows growing anxiety among residents’ groups that the council is forced into granting permission for some developments – as the applicant will win on appeal.

Green Councillor Phélim Mac Cafferty, Chair of Planning Committee, and proposer of the motion said,

“The cornerstone of the planning system has been that decisions are taken locally by councillors accountable to local people, and with the input of residents.

“However the Tories’ deregulation of planning means that residents are being cut out of the process, protections for the environment are being reduced and we’re getting development by stealth.

“The Government’s insistence that every piece of land should be up for grabs is a cause for huge concern for us as councillors as much as it is for our communities.

“In our motion to full council we set out how share our communities’ concerns.

“We are opposed to the increased powers that developers and large land owners gain through the government’s National Planning Policy Framework.

“We are calling on Eric Pickles and Nick Boles to insist that they hand planning controls back to the city’s communities served by them and the city’s environment protected by them.

“I urge the other parties to support residents’ calls to end this free for all.”

The motion is purely declaratory.

Notice of Motion – passed 8 May 2014

 *The government’s National Planning Policy Framework was widely condemned as a so-called ‘developer’s charter’, with its presumption in favour of development.

This weights the system in favour of developers, and if applications are refused they are more likely to be given approval on appeal.

More developments are being given automatic approval – particularly conversion from office or other employment spaces into residential homes.

*The text of the motion is as follows:

“This Council resolves:

To request the Chief Executive to write to:

(1) The Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government, Eric Pickles and Planning Minister, Nick Boles;

(i) Insisting they respect our communities and local democratic decision-making on planning matters;

(ii) Expressing our deep-seated concerns with the legal changes and the proven impact on Brighton and Hove including how communities are being locked out of planning decisions;

(iii) To insist government amend the National Planning Policy Framework by removing the presumption in favour of so-called ‘sustainable development’ at all costs;

(iv) Give our communities and elected Councillors the power to prioritise our City Plan and our own planning policies; and

(2) The city’s MPs calling on them to join with us in lobbying ministers to hand back planning to the city’s communities served by it and the city’s environment protected by it. “

Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty’s speech

As the biggest, and I would argue, the most damaging changes to the planning system in the National Planning Policy Framework and the market deregulation of the planning system, our communities are telling us that their voice is being flouted, so we really must pause and critique the actions and indeed the motivations of the government.

For example we have prior approvals which means you can go on holiday and come back to your neighbour having built a huge extension. For us as decision makers accountable through the ballot box to the people, such chaos represents the democratic deficit at the heart of the government’s damaging planning changes. As we are discovering with a prior approval in the Roundhill area of the city the fact that the council can only consider three aspects to a potential refusal for a prior approval- viz Transport and highways impact; Contamination Risks on site; and Flooding Risks; it is insulting to democratic decision making.

But I would argue that such chaos fits the neoliberal, laissez-faire economic model of the Coalition Government. Government can carry on with more damaging decisions because no one can keep up with the permanent changes. It would be one thing if prior approvals were the only change. In what has been a policy revolution where landowners and unscrupulous developers are king, prior approvals represent only one tiny facet.

We’ve had a policy bonfire with 1000 pages of policy burnt to make way for 54. Less doesn’t mean better. We have had the removal of the requirement to apply for planning permission in order to change a development from commercial to residential use, where the Government risks creating unsustainable dormitory towns. We have had 4 sets of changes to the General Permitted Development Order, more centralisation of planning powers with the Chancellor, while less than half of all councils in the country have an adopted plan because the hurdles that are in place are simply too high.

The abandonment of regional planning by the Coalition Government with a ‘duty to cooperate’ means we have contradictory. But, I suppose, anything that would get in the way of the market-driven deregulation of the planning system is now up for question. That was reaffirmed only weeks ago in the Budget- we have the promise of yet further reviews of the General Permitted Development Order.

The chaos in the planning system was epitomised in March when the planning minister Nick Boles wrote to the Planning Inspectorate to say he was “disturbed” by an inspector’s report ratifying Reigate and Banstead Borough Council’s plans to release green belt for up to 1,400 homes. Boles was attempting to distance the government from unpopular decisions that were affecting a Tory-run council.

Boles’s intervention provoked a letter from the Home Builders Federation warning that his message could have a “potentially disastrous effect” on meeting the nation’s housing crisis. Boles was then forced to respond with a second letter clarifying that his first letter “did not signal a change of policy or approach”. When Nick Boles famously said “chaos is a good thing” in planning, he probably didn’t have this kind of chaos in mind.

Because a government inspector has told us to look again for more housing and because of the primacy of the NPPF, there has been a 46% increase in the appeals lodged against planning application decisions. So if we don’t get a city plan agreed by the Inspector, I have a genuine worry about what will happen to the city. There were several lobbyists who appeared at our city plan examination in public last year including the Home Builders’ Federation who are back again and inquiring about land in the city. I fear that without an adopted city plan we can face unscrupulous developers who can cite the NPPF and get away with damaging our open space, our city scape and, as a city with the second largest number of listed buildings in the country, our historic built environment.

And in a dangerous precedent, the NPPF in practice means that the viability concerns of developers now come before and above environmental and social concerns.It is developers, and not local communities, who have been put at the heart of the Government’s reforms of the planning system. Councils are explicitly told by the NPPF that they should “grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date” (Para 14). So before permanent damage is done to our precious open space and the built environment in the city, our motion today insists that Mr Pickles and Mr Boles remove the presumption in favour of so-called ‘sustainable development’.

Policies voted on at different meetings of the council by us councillors are not being given their due weight by the government inspector who instead is relying on the presumption in favour of sustainable development enshrined in the NPPF. Let us be clear: that means that there are fewer decisions being made on the basis of what we as councillors vote for and more decisions being made on what the government wants. So much for handing back power to local communities and Localism. Instead of delivering sustainable development and empowering local people, it is a developer’s charter that will force the approval of virtually all proposals, whether or not local people, or local decision makers want them. Today we say give back power to our communities and elected councillors to decide our own policies and our own priorities.

The war on taking powers away from elected councillors hasn’t stopped there. Despite the advice of the Environment Audit Committee to the CLG that they should not water down sustainability policies, Tory thinking on the subject was that the CFSH was constraining business and needed further deregulation.

Preparing for the City Plan’s Examination in Public, we produced a joint study with Bath, Swindon and Wiltshire Councils on the reduction in costs to build to CFSH 5 and 6. Falls of c 40% in cost for level 6 and up to 55% for level 5. So again work that we have done at a local level to support the fledgling eco-homes industry in a city with strong eco-building practices, this is possibly the worst message to a local fledgling movement.

A few weeks ago Nick Boles, in a letter to PINS, wrote: “…local authorities, and the communities who elect them, are in charge of planning for their own areas.” Which sounds about right. However, it’s all a con. Because when you peel back what Boles has said we are not allowed to exert control over what we could understand to be potentially harmful development because the presumption in favour of development in the NPPF, the deregulation of the planning system to woo developers and big landowners overrides all. What Pickles and Boles really mean is that we as councillors are assumed to be the apostles of unsustainable development espoused in the NPPF. And as such are required to genuflect in front of deepened government centralisation. So this is what ‘localism’ really looks like…

We say the long term public interests of planning to protect the environment will be sacrificed for short-sighted and short-term economic growth. So more than ever before we need to hand back planning to the city’s communities served by it and the city’s environment protected by it.

The post Green councillors' motion to end ‘development by stealth’ passed by Brighton & Hove City Council appeared first on Brighton & Hove Green Party.

A blueprint outlining development in Brighton & Hove has reached a crucial stage as it is examined publicly by a government representative this week.

The Brighton & Hove City Plan sets out how the city’s homes and jobs will be provided between now and 2030. It was written by the Green administration in line with ‘One Planet Living’ sustainability principles – but it must also meet a number of requirements as set out by the government. The plan is due for a public examination by a Planning Inspector beginning on Tuesday 22nd October.

Among the proposals setting out the city’s overarching approach to housing, the economy and transport are:

• Regeneration of major sites in the city including eight major development areas
• 11,300 much-needed new homes, with 94% of all proposed housing on brownfield sites
• High quality design and sustainability principles in new developments in the city, including constructing buildings that are more energy and water efficient
• Preservation and enhancement of our city centre green spaces
• Exemplar development of the highest sustainability standards achievable at Toad’s Hole Valley
• Protection for land used for sustainable local economic growth, and promotion of a resilient low carbon economy

Councillor Phélim Mac Cafferty, Chair of Planning Committee said:

“This plan sets out the vision and strategy for the city to 2030. The City Plan is crucial and will help us to deliver a vision for a confident city which will punch above its weight, win and keep jobs and provide much needed housing.

“We want to secure the right balance between meeting our substantial housing needs and ensure that there are enough businesses and jobs in the city. The City Plan also seeks to focus development in accessible locations, provide for schools and health facilities while protecting our parks, built heritage and Downland setting.

“This plan pushes a positive vision for the future of our city which looks toward a low carbon economy builds houses for our citizens and maximises the opportunities to create jobs in important sectors of the local economy including the creative industries and emerging environmental technologies.

“I believe that we have a strong plan for the future of Brighton and Hove and I am delighted that it has the support of so many of the key organisations in the city who have taken an active role in shaping this final document. It’s crucial that we get a policy agreed as soon as possible, so that the City Plan can guide the city’s local growth and shape the city of tomorrow. I look forward to the public examination which begins tomorrow and I’m confident that we will be able to meet both the city’s needs and the government’s requirements.”

Local Development Framework Core Strategy Diagram

Notes

*Updates on the City Plan’s progress can be found on the council’s website here: http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/planning/local-development-framework/city-plan.

For more information please contact the Brighton and Hove Green Party office on 01273 766 670.

The post Blueprint for city development reaches crucial stage appeared first on Brighton & Hove Green Party.

For the first time ever in the UK, a fully Green city plan, based on Green values, has come into effect.

The detailed City Plan, which outlines how the city’s homes, jobs and open spaces will develop for the next generation, based on ‘One Planet Living’ principles, was passed last week by Brighton & Hove City Council, having been proposed by the Green administration and supported by Labour. The Conservatives abstained.

Among the proposals, which set out how the city’s land will be used between now and 2030, are:

• New measures to secure more affordable housing in developments.
• An emphasis on sustainable travel arrangements for residents in new developments.
• A guarantee that should the private area of land known as ‘Toad’s Hole Valley’ be developed by its owners, it is done to the highest sustainability standards, providing a balance of homes, work space, business facilities, schooling and publicly accessible open space. Around 1,500 jobs, plus training and apprenticeship opportunities, will be created during the lifetime of the Toad’s Hole Valley regeneration project.
• More stringent sustainability standards and enhanced protection for the South Downs National Park.

Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Phélim Mac Cafferty stated, “After more than a year’s work, the Green administration has brought its vision for the future of Brighton & Hove to council and has seen it accepted as council policy.

“It’s a blueprint for the city that will last for a generation, setting out how to sustain our unique environment while providing desperately needed new homes, schools, jobs and other opportunities, at the same time protecting public and open spaces from inappropriate development.

“Based on the Green principles of One Planet Living, it’s a robust, practical and visionary plan: a long-term future for our city that could only come about with the Greens in administration.”

Notes

For more information please contact Brighton and Hove Green Party office on 01273 766 670.

The post Green vision for city’s future agreed – city plan takes forward Green principles appeared first on Brighton & Hove Green Party.