General discussions

RE: Research study on suburban densification – can you help?

2025-07-29T10:08:13Z

Dear Paul,

Many thanks for getting in touch and really sorry for not replying to you sooner. We would still very much like to hear your thoughts on this. If you could drop me an email at Mark.Smith@liverpool.ac.uk then we can arange a time.

Best regards,

Mark

RE: Flags

2025-07-08T09:14:58Z

Thank you Mark

RE: Flags

2025-07-08T08:45:33Z

Flashback to Eric Pickles

The 2012 amendment to the 2007 legislation might be of asistance in relation to Schedule 3

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2372/regulation/2/made

Flags

2025-07-04T08:15:55Z

Feels like time that colleagues might be asked to advise (fearlessly and impartially) on some politically charged questions about 'flags' and based on this article perhaps time for some clearer guidance on the technical issues

A couple of points and questions that seem immediately relevant to me (but were not answered) are:

Does the specific flag in question fall within the definition of advertisement in S336 TCPA. Despite what "Flying flags: a plain English guide - GOV.UK" says "In England, the flying of flags is treated as advertisements for the purposes of the planning regime to ensure the flags do not impact on safety or amenity." It is only in fact flags which are within the S336 definition of advertisement that are controlled at all.

The most often ignored clause in S336 is this: "in the nature of, and employed wholly or partly for the purposes of, advertisement, announcement or direction".

If a particular flag crosses the S336 threshold:

Could the flag be exempt under Sched 1? (Not in this case, but I've seen other arguments about County flags, which are exempt)

Could the flag enjoy deemed consent under Sched 3? There seem to be several possible deemed consents (depending on the number and size of flags). One might argue for example that the Public Sector Equality Duty (S149 Equality Act 2010) brings the display of Pride flags within 1A as a function of the authority. 3D applies to 'cultural events' etc Class 6 (forecourts) and class 7(flags on roofs) might all be relevant.

Overall, as planners we need to look beyond the plain English guide and the populist view that 'only Union Jacks and/or the cross of St George can be flown without planning permission'

And don't get me started on whether the English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish flags are in fact withing the strict legal meaning of Sched 1 Class H - clearly they should be but does the drafting achieve this?

All reference to Schedules andClasses are to The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007)

RE: Research study on suburban densification – can you help?

2025-06-30T13:26:23Z

I appreciate you sharing this important research opportunity. As someone who works closely with housing development and urban planning, I recognize the importance of the SUBDENSE study, particularly in light of the growing demands on suburban areas to make room for expansion. I would be pleased to share my knowledge of managing planning applications for conversions, subdivisions, and infill in suburban neighborhoods.

Alongside my career pursuits, I have written and published independently on suburban change themes; most recently, I have used Kindle publishing UK platforms to share my findings with a larger audience. I think this intersection of publishing and practice provides a special perspective, and I'd be happy to contribute it to the discussion.

RE: Request For Habitat Banking Job Specification

2025-06-04T13:20:31Z

We don't sadly, but sounds a great idea and I can attest there is no shortage of work to do in that arena. and we aren't even into own banks on LPA land yet...

Good luck with it Will. If you are stuck I might be able to spare a few mins to chat the NYorks experience. everything you mentioned is relevant. Some aspects expand more than you'd think - mention the coordinating cross service working eg legal, local land charges, estates, parks and grounds, climate/natural capital team(?) LNRS team...

Tim

timothy.burkinshaw@northyorks.gov.uk

Request For Habitat Banking Job Specification

2025-05-22T12:12:27Z

Hi all,

This is my first time posting here, so I hope this is the right section! I’ve been asked to explore the potential for hiring an officer focused on habitat banking—including developing a strategy or policy, generating and marketing credits, and supporting the broader process of creating and selling off-site BNG credits. Before I begin drafting a job specification, I wanted to ask if anyone has something similar in place or could share any examples?

Thanks,
Will

Going unitary/LGR

2025-05-14T11:38:22Z

As you may be aware Surrey CC is hurtling towards going unitary and also splitting into two or three at the same time. I'm looking for any lessons learnt from those authorities that have already been through that transition, especially from a data and systems perspective.

I'm not so concerned about live applications (relatively easy to send files for the few current applications currently under consideration to relevant new authority), but more the historic data. Have authorities split and exported data or maintained it centrally somehow for all authorities to access?

Have authorities divested the County Reg 3 applications into the former District systems so they all Reg 3 are 'together', albeit in areas until those sytems are merged, or kept them in the former County system until an overall solution can be found?

I'm obviously aware there are many other dimensions around harmonising processes and policies - is that something to be tackled after LGR or are there useful prep discussions to be had around those?

RE: Healthy places / planning for health - DHSC survey

2025-04-29T09:16:25Z

I have just spotted this and tried to take a look but it has closed.

RE: Garden development in the Green Belt (Grey Belt)

2025-02-06T12:18:27Z

APP/W3005/W/24/3347049

RE: Garden development in the Green Belt (Grey Belt)

2025-02-04T14:39:29Z

Thanks, Richard. My Planning Resource susbsription is not up to date - please can you provide the appeal reference or case reference and authority, so I can research the decision you refer to.

RE: Garden development in the Green Belt (Grey Belt)

2025-02-03T15:42:46Z

Inspector refuses grey belt housing scheme over failure to meet all three of the NPPF's ‘golden rules’ | Planning Resource

RE: Garden development in the Green Belt (Grey Belt)

2025-02-03T09:21:22Z

There have already been some recent appeals that might be relevant to the Grey Belt question, with one key point being that there has to be "a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed". Take housing as a common example. If your area has a 5YHLS then a new house in 'the Grey Belt' would still be innappropriate development, but if there was an unmet need (and you're in a sustainable location and you meet the 'Golden Rules' it might be 'not innappropriate'. More generally in my opinion the recent changes to the NPPF don't change the principal that a proposal only needs to meet one test of 'not innappropriate' to be 'not innappropriate'.

RE: PD vs S73 vs New application

2025-02-03T09:06:36Z

Those are all possibilities to consider along with a possible 96A application for a non-material amendment. But what's more important than anything we think on this forum is what does your local planning authority think? Have you approached them yet? If not that would be a good place to start.

PD vs S73 vs New application

2025-01-31T17:07:46Z

Hi there,

Situation : I have an already consented householder application for a large extension. This consent did NOT take away my PD rights. Consented scheme is fully exempt from CIL and I have an exemption certificate from LA. Scheme has not started yet, with a planned start date of March 2025.

Ambition : I would like to include a habitable loft as well in the scheme which the original consent did not include (loft was not a requirement back then). Loft would sit fully self-contained within the consented roof with only veluxes and no dormers.

Question : What is the best & quickest planning vehicle to achieve this? Options as I understand are below,

Option 1 - Apply PD/Lawful dev. cert after current scheme is started - My total roof volume increase is above 50 cubic meter if you compare the existing roof as of today vs consented roof. Is it fair to assume therefore LDC is not possible?

Option 2 - S73 app after curent scheme is started - If approved, I will transition over to S73 scheme. Are there CIL implications?

Option 3 - New householder app after scheme has completed

Any other options I am missing please? Which option is possible which will also save time? Thank you.

Garden development in the Green Belt (Grey Belt)

2025-01-29T18:49:54Z

Annexe 2 of the NPPF provides the definition of PDL and states the gardens within built up area are not included. Therefore gardens outside of built up areas remain to be considered as PDL.

Paragraph 154 of the NPPF outlines some exceptions to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including:

e) limited infilling in villages.

g) limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Para 154 (e) would seem to be unaffected by the new Grey Belt rules. However, Para 154 (g) might well be.

If a home with a large garden is situated within the Green Belt, but outside of a defined settlement boundary, and is considered to be sustainably located, would that now be considered to be within the Grey Belt and considered under paragraph 155, and not have to meet the test of substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt under 154 (e)?

Thoughts please?

RE: Grey Belt Definition

2025-01-26T18:43:55Z

Hi Elizabeth

I agree that this is not going to be easy and the guidance will be key. I am not confident!!

Given the permanent nature of GB which remains in Para 142, the idea of Grey Belt doesn't really sit well with this.

When the consultstion draft came out I always saw Grey Belt as a 'decision making' issue, rsther than a Plan Making one. That's becasue due to the permanent nature of Green Belt, you would actually change Green Belt through plan making only to facilitiate development (maybe also to rectify boundaries if needed). The GB would then actually be changed and the development plan would render it no longer green belt, but allocated for another use.

With Grey Belt, the land would not be removed from green belt. Grey belt is by definition a part of the green belt. So if through decision making, some GB land was conisderd appropriate for development because it met the Grey Belt definition and an application for say housing was allowed, when built, that housing would be in the green belt.

This is why I really see it being very unhelpful/awkward defining land as grey belt in a plan if you are not actually allocating it for a certain use. And if you are allocating it for a certain use then do that and remove it from green belt in the plan, as part of the plan-led system.

This was always going to be very messy. Authorities with large areas of green belt will have small pockets of Brownfield land in them. Are those locations, which could be very remote, 'sustainable'? The NPPF is still based on 'sustainable development'. So you can have a small pocket of housng pretty much in the middle of nowhere and car dependent.

I may be wrong (what do you think?) but I think from recollection the draft definition was that ALL BF land was grey belt and then also greenfield land which didn't contribute to the 5 purposes. I can't remeber the exact worrding. But it's now changes to 'does not strongly contribute' to a,b and d. Importantly though the 'does not strongly contribute to a,b or d)' now applies to both BF and GF becasuse they have added in 'in either case'. So, where the consutlatinon version was that all BF land was Grey Belt, now because of the phrase 'in either case' it has to be any land which does not strongly contribute to a,b or d, whether BF or GF. It does make you wonder why they didn't just say grey belt is land in the green belt which does not strongly.....etc. Why even mention BF or GF if it applies to both?

I am not sure exactly what you mean about not beign able to defing Grey Belt without knowing what the proposal is? Could you expand?

Jon

Grey Belt Definition

2025-01-20T17:17:43Z

It is not going to be easy to identify and map Grey Belt land, particularly as many Green Belt parcels will be only partly affected by footnote 7 matters e.g. LB’s and their settings or areas at risk of flooding; and of course, these constraints can change over time – quite quickly in the case of areas at risk of flooding. It also appears that whether such land is Grey Belt or not will now (as opposed to the draft definition consulted on) depend on the development proposed and so in fact cannot be preidentified at all? It’s not even going to be as simple as setting out the development types that might or might not ‘provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development’ as the scale/design/layout of a particular scheme would be relevant - such that one scheme on the same site could be on Grey Belt land and another of the same type not? A scheme could be amended following negotiation (or at appeal to overcome some reasons for refusal) such that it becomes Grey Belt all of a sudden? The most we could do is map non-footnote 7 Grey Belt parcels/land and then have another set of parcels/land that might or might not be Grey Belt depending on the specific proposals put forward – all subject to change over time?

I look forward to the guidance on identifying Grey Belt to be issued later this month?

Self Build Appeals Update 2024

2024-12-04T12:29:43Z

The Right to Build Task Force is presenting an Appeals Update for self and custom build masterclass next week. https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/annual-appeals-update-2024-tickets-1086788085419

The numbers of appeals related to self/custom build are increasing (about 40-50 per month now) and no doubt with BNG highlighting the self build nature of more applications the numbers are likely to increase.

The masterclass is free for LPA officers and members with a gov.uk address (courtesy MHCLG) - contact the task force team on taskforce@righttobuild.gov.uk to get a promo code.

RE: Research study on suburban densification – can you help?

2024-11-26T11:10:22Z

This is really interesting and relevant to our work, thank you for sharing Richard. We would really like to chat with you about it - if this is agreeable can you email me at mark.smith@liverpool.ac.uk so we can set up a time.

Mark