On local referenda...
View Zac Goldsmith's website on local referenda which gives an indication of the devolution of power to local power. Zac Goldsmith has championed the issue which is now seeping into policy.
http://www.zacgoldsmith.com/article.asp?contentID=3&newsID=363
Ministerial statement on garden grabbing!
The Minister for Decentralisation (Greg Clark) has implemented the commitment made in the Coalition Agreement to decentralise the planning system by giving Local Authorities the freedom to prevent overdevelopment of neighbourhoods and ‘garden grabbing’.
In respect to ‘garden grabbing’, the Minister has removed gardens from the definition of previously developed land (brownfield sites). This means that Local Authorities no longer feel forced to grant permission to ‘garden grabbing’ cases, in order to maintain their brownfield target.
In addition, the Minister has also removed the requirement upon Local Authorities to have regard to the national minimum density for housing. By doing this, the Minister has granted Local Authorities the freedom to set density ranges that suit the local needs of the area, rather than meet nationally dictated ranges.
June 15th 2010 A prominent pledge in both manifestos of the coalition parties is to give councils more powers to stop unwanted ‘garden grabbing’. Following planning regulations introduced by John Prescott in 2000, there has been a dramatic increase in development on private gardens and of intensive ‘densification’ and ‘infill’ in suburban communities. Labour’s regulations also distorted the market, contributing to a situation in which half of all new build is now in the form of flats, worsening the shortage of family homes.
The lack of affordable housing of all types is a major issue in this country. But garden grab developments, which rarely exceed the size threshold at which affordable dwellings have to be provided, do very little to meet this need. Indeed, they displace effort and attention from genuine regeneration projects. In fact, their impact on neighbourhoods can be profoundly negative – destroying green space, reducing biodiversity, degrading architectural character and placing strain on local infrastructure. Nevertheless, local planning authorities have frequently found themselves powerless to stop garden grab developments. This was a consequence of the previous Government’s planning rules (contained within PPG3, now PPS3), which classified private gardens as ‘brownfield’ land, meaning they had the same status in planning as industrial wasteland. In addition, one-size-fits-all Whitehall density targets required development at 30 dwellings per hectare, preventing councils from ensuring the right level for individual local neighbourhoods. This has allowed developers to overturn planning rejections on appeal, undermining the ability of councils to act in the best interests of their communities.
On Thursday, the new Government delivered on our pledge to restore common sense, introducing new planning guidelines that have immediate effect. They remove gardens from the definition of brownfield land and scrap the Whitehall-set density target. This will give councils real power and discretion to determine the appropriate level of development for each part of their local authority area, allowing high density building if they wish (e.g. in town centres), and ensuring that more family homes with gardens can be built in new developments.
The new Government maintained Green Belt protection, assisted by the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies which now gives councils the discretion on how to plan and shape the future of their community. Affordable housing rules are unaffected; reforms will help increase the amount of family homes available to all. These progressive and permissive changes are another step in decentralising power and protecting the local environment.
KINGSTON: Local Development Framework - Core Strategy - YOUR chance to protect green spaces!
Please fill in the Preferred Strategy Questionnaire now under: www.kingston.gov.uk/corestrategy or obtain a questionnaire from your local library.
The Council is preparing a series of planning documents known as the Local Development Framework (LDF) to guide development and change in the borough over the next 20 years.
As part of the Local Development Framework (LDF), the Council is now developing the Core Strategy. This is a very important part of the LDF because it sets the overall planning framework for the borough which will shape future development up to 2026.
As this is a key stage in the development of the Core Strategy the Council offers you to hear your views on the preferred approach.
The deadline is Friday 22nd january 2010. the online consultation portal will remain open for late responses until Sunday 31 January 2010.
LOST = back garden development in Graemesdyke Avenue, East Sheen
GARDEN LOST! July 23rd Richmond Council approved the planning application despite strong opposition by the local residents
East Sheen: Graemesdyke Cottage 09/1240/FUL for a summary please click here
The case is heard at Richmond Borough Council comittee meeting July 23rd, 2009. In the meantime residents are signing a petition to be presented to the council this week.
You can download the petition here
Historic Garden under threat!
Richmond: For summary on Asgill Lodge please click here. On April 16th Richmond Council's planning committee approved the proposal to build a house in a 400 year old garden in the historic centre of Richmond. The local residents are not ginving up their fight. Perhaps you can show your support. Please read:Richmond
28-May-2009
Dear All,
Thanks to Jonathan Holl-Allen, we have got some some expert legal advice about an appeal on the nuclear bungalow at Asgill Lodge. The planning lawyer he consulted has said that she is willing to review all the material in the case to advise us whether there is any merit in pursuing an appeal or a judical review of the case.
Jon says if she saw that there was merit in proceeding, she could write a "letter of claim" to the council, and the council would have to respond with its defence. If the council were to accept at this stage that it made an error in the way the application was dealt with, it could agree to retake the decision without the need for formal court hearings.
This would cost £1,500 + VAT. A very good deal.
If the council defended its decision, a decison could be taken by us whether to leave things there or to move forward. At each step the costs go up slightly.
We believe that it is worth spending the £1,500 to see if we can get the council to back down.
However, we personally don't have the funds, but ask if anyone is willing to contribute to a legal fund to contest the decision. We would keep any money in a separate account, and seek advice about how to run it properly.
So any avenging angels are wanted! Could you let us know as soon as possible if you would be willing to contribute and how much? Any donations would be kept confidential.
Separately, we are also looking to overturn the decision just on the trees issue by seeking an independent report on the tree.
Many thanks!
Marian Bontempo
Asgill Action Group
E-mail: marian.bontempo@btinternet.com