Regenerating the former Gloscat College site

This week Gloucester City Council's Planning Committee voted 11-1 to consent the regeneration of the former Gloscat college site in the city centre. 

This was the cullmination of one of the most comprehensive programmes of consultation undertaken by Meeting Place Communications on behalf of Linden Homes in co-operation with the HCA and Gloucester Heritage Urban Regeneration Company. 

The currently dis-used site will be transformed with new family homes, appartments, a medical centre and community facilities. There are also exciting public artwork plans to evoke the rich history of the site.

During the project Meeting Place Communications ran public consultation events, liaised with the business community, worked with local politicians and community groups. 

Nick Webb, Associate Director at MPC, said: "there can be no doubt that through the consultation undertaken the final proposal, approved by the Council, has been the result of work not just from the developer but also the people of Gloucester".

Are we going to see a BLUE London next year?

A resurgence for Labour?

Last year the Conservatives won the most votes across the country but in London there was resurgence for Labour in some London Boroughs. While the Conservatives gained some MPs, there was also disappointment in seats such as Westminster North and Hammersmith and a recent   YouGov poll showed Labour leading the Conservatives across the capital by 19%. 

With this in mind, the challenger and former London Mayor, Ken Livingstone should be confident in defeating the Conservative incumbent Boris Johnson in next year’s London Mayoral Election. While these figures demonstrate how Londoners are likely to vote in a General Election Peter Kellner, of YouGov has undertaken an interesting piece of research, in the latest issue of Prospect Magazine. 

‘Boris Reds’

Kellner revealed that when given the direct choice between Livingstone and Johnson, Livingstone is actually trailing behind Johnson by eight points.This suggests that a number of Labour supporters simply dislike Livingstone or rather see Johnson as the London Mayor.  The polls reveal that one in five Labour voters is rooting for Boris Johnson; now known as ‘Boris Reds.’

Kellner commented, ‘They tend to think Ken has lost touch with Londoners, and that Boris is decisive and sticks to what he believes in.’ A defeat in next year Mayoral elections could see the end of Livingstone’s political career and problems for the Labour leader, Ed Miliband.    

It is true to say that an independent-minded Conservative can win in London. Boris is not afraid to differentiate himself from Cameron’s policy and in a recent interview with Prospect; he stated that he would continue to oppose David Cameron on “housing, policing, transport infrastructure, aviation, and the burden of taxation.”

Putting the village back into the city.

He spoke as the protector for London in the Conservative Conference in Manchester last week and suggested to the Coalition government that despite of the economic climate, financial contributions towards projects in London should continue than this could drive economic growth.  On housing, he stated he aims to put the village back into the city, referring that Mahatma Gandhi was wrong to suggest in 1948 that the ‘future of India lay in its 700,000 villages.’ Johnson commented, ‘We are on target to build a record 50,000 affordable homes over four years and we will do even more over the next four. But we are also insisting on homes that are big enough for families and with rooms big enough for human beings rather than hobbits. By next year this mayoralty will have planted 50,000 trees including street trees and we are not only protecting back gardens from development and consecrating green space.’

Johnson charismatic approach proved a hit at the Conference but will he triumph at next year Mayoral election, recent polls suggest so.

Invitation to seminar hosted by Pioneer

"Residential Development: the new way(s) forward"

Thursday 24th November 2011, London

The Seminar, to be Chaired by Gareth Capner (ex-Senior Partner at Barton Willmore), will examine the emerging central trends in residential development and hence will focus on Localism, NPPF, CIL, community consultation, build to let, new investment/funding opportunities, the changing role of RP's and how this (might) all add-up to stimulate economic growth.  The event will include Peter Village QC (4-5 Grays Inn) and Ian Ginbey (Clyde & Co) as keynote speakers, plus MPC’s own Anna Sabine talking about the need to engage.

Many of the leading firms in the sector have attended previous Seminars and the popular format of concise presentations with a concluding panel session is combined with opportunities to meet and hear advice from some of the leading players in the sector.

How to Book

The Seminar will commence with Registration & Breakfast between 9:15am - 10:00am and will finish with a Buffet Lunch between 1:15pm - 2:00pm. The venue has limited capacity and, as the Seminar is likely to prove extremely popular, early booking to guarantee your place is strongly recommended.

The cost of the Seminar is £165 plus VAT per delegate and includes a networking breakfast, all refreshments, conference pack, copies of the presentations and a networking lunch following the event.
Please use Pioneer’s online registration form to book a place (or places) at the seminar.

Feel free to forward this e mail to colleagues or acquaintances you feel may be interested in attending the seminar.

If you are having difficulties viewing this e mail please click HERE to view the content on Pioneer’s website  

Quiet conferences and gentle reshuffles

You may not have noticed it, but three weeks of party political conferences have just taken place. For the second year running the media sniffed around the Lib Dem event hoping to find dissent, but largely failing to track down any. 

In Liverpool with Labour, the conversation around the conference was more about why Ed Miliband couldn't connect with voters rather than policy. 

Finally, the best the Conservatives could manage was an inter-cabinet spat about a cat and the immigration laws. It was one of the least memorable conference seasons for years. Perhaps this is unsurprising, the Government have demonstrated hard -nosed economics in seeking to reduce the deficit but have yet to convince that they have the policies to grow the economy.

Labour remain tarnished by their economic record over recent years and still have some way to go to gain voters’ trust. When one option offers a slightly better solution than the other, it is no wonder that enthusiasm is in short supply.

Perhaps the most important moment for the development industry came in David Cameron's closing speech. He risked the ire of some of the rural membership by pinning his colours firmly to the National Planning Policy Framework. He may have been light on detail, but to mention a controversial policy in a high profile speech when he did not need to shows his determination to drive the policy through with the minimum amount of amendments.

A reshuffle

Following conference season we saw a reshuffle on both the Government and opposition benches. Firstly, Labour changed their front bench team; Stephen Twigg returning to the front bench as Shadow Education Secretary, Caroline Flint moving from Shadow Local Government to Shadow Energy Secretary and Hilary Benn taking Caroline Flint’s place as Shadow DCLG. Shortly, afterwards the Government were forced into a minor reshuffle following Defence Secretary Liam Fox's decision to resign over access he provided to an unofficial advisor. Philip Hammond moved from the Transport portfolio to Defence. Justine Greening was promoted to become the new Secretary of State for Transport. Hammond had been steadfast in his support for High Speed Rail 2 and eyes will be on Greening to see if she is as focused as Hammond on the project.  Both Hammond and Greening have worked for Chancellor George Osborne, leading some to suggest that the treasury's strength has grown.

The end of pre-determination: a revolution in planning politics?

In the wake of MPC’s newly released market research study on the end of pre-determination, Nick Chancellor speaks to Cllr. Peter Dean (Chair, Bromley Development Control Committee) about some of the key implications.   Cllr. Dean reflects on how the Localism Bill will affect his role as committee chair, and what it could mean for thousands of planning committee members up and down the country...

In light of the changes being proposed in the Localism Bill, what is your take on how this will affect the role for elected members?

I’ve certainly got a few observations on that – firstly I think you’ll find that more members will put themselves forward to sit on planning committees than previously was the case.  Secondly, I think that planning members will be less reticent to speak to applicants and objectors in relation to specific planning applications.  

There may be a perception among the public that the Members may pre-commit to things without giving the application a fair hearing – but this will only be a minority view in my opinion.  This is the only the real negative consequence that occurs to me.  On the positive side, Members will be more comfortable in speaking out about applications.  In so doing, they will feel that they’re representing the electorate in a better, more effective way.

Three quarters of councillors in our survey consider that members will have more freedom to speak out in favour of development.  Do you think they will 'speak out', for the most part?

For me, that’s a difficult question to answer.  Speaking out ‘in favour’ is not the way I approach things as a councillor.  I prefer to ‘facilitate’ meetings between developers and residents, allowing for them to discuss matters directly; although I am not against the principle of speaking out publicly.  For example, in Bromley we have a Town Centre Action Plan and I’m happy to talk publically about this and to lend my support.  However the Action Plan consists of over a dozen individual projects each one a major development in its own right that will dramatically change the town centre over the next decade.  In these cases I’d much rather that developers consult extensively with residents and reach a mutually agreeable position before an application is submitted.  My preference is usually not to speak out in favour of or against specifics, but rather to assist in generating dialogue between interested parties.

As far as ‘speaking out’ is concerned, I rarely see any reason to do this. Therefore  the Localism Bill, in relation to pre-determination, will only have minimal impact on the way I work.  However, it will remove the theoretical possibility of criticism being levelled at me in the event that any party believes I have compromised my impartiality one way or the other.

Another outcome of the survey was that councillors think they will be freer to meet with stakeholders – be they developers or residents.  How comfortable do you think the average councillor will be meeting with a property developer?

I think that they will be more comfortable.  Speaking personally, I don’t have any difficulty meeting with developers that I already know - once there is an on-going and established working relationship.  However, when I’m talking to developers I haven’t met before – I’ll still meet with them, but for peace of mind I will bring the ward councillor or another colleague to attend with me.  I have seen developers on my own in the past, but it’s nice to have an element of personal security, to avoid any possible issues further down the line.

Tell me about your approach to meeting with residents, and how do their views play into the role that Planning Committee performs?

I meet with residents a lot.  If talking about a major application, I will often go to the ‘leading’ stakeholder residents.  These individuals are usually self-identified – the resident association officers, local school employees, medical practices, etc.  Besides meeting residents myself, I also encourage developers to consult with residents directly, and at a very early stage.  The last couple of developers I’ve had contact with have held open days for local residents to come and see their plans.  This is before they’ve laid any solid plans down - and I strongly encourage this approach.  I want them to get the residents involved early, as it almost always leads to a better outcome.  It also makes my life as Development Control Chairman a lot easier, as neither myself nor the committee members are working for one side or the other.  We are genuinely working for the benefit of the general community!

I also want to hear directly from residents about their concerns and often meet with them face-to-face.  I make the planning process clear to them and will tell them about the part they can play in the consultation process.  I also share with them my own experiences on similar applications – including the potential up and downsides to supporting or opposing a particular scheme.  I can let a resident know whether  in my opinion  an application is likely to be approved or refused and on what basis.  

If a resident asks me my own views, I usually tell them that there is a committee of 17 councillors that will debate the pros and cons, and that I will not commit myself to a position until I have heard their views.  I would say the same thing to a developer.  I’ve got to hear the view of my colleagues; however if residents (a clear majority of them) are supportive of a particular development it is likely that the committee will also take a positive view provided there are no flagrant breaches of planning policy.

Provided the residents are involved from an early stage, my experience is that you usually come up with something that is broadly acceptable to most residents.  However, sometimes there is no agreement, and then you have to look only at planning policy.  If it fits policy, and you have an appeal precedent somewhere else, you’ve got no option but to support the scheme (even if residents are against -  although wherever possible residents should be advised of the reasons).

What was most surprising to you in terms of the research’s findings?

Broadly, the results didn’t surprise me as I’ve served on Bromley’s Planning Committee for a long while now.  If anything, I was surprised that there is a significant contingent that is opposed to the prospect of change.

Why do you thinks some oppose councillors oppose this change?

They may feel that they have to make a decision one way or another before the committee. Previously, they could reserve judgement.  Now they may feel placed under pressure to offer their support or opposition at an earlier stage. 

How do you think planning officers are likely to react to the changes, if implemented?

I think it depends on the calibre of the planning officer.  In Bromley we’re very fortunate: our officers are very good.  By and large, I don’t think they will be concerned with pre-determination.  I don’t think councillors will put them under any pressure to change their recommendations; they will continue to perform the same essential role in the same way.

Some of the policy is subjective (for example, development size, character, design or visual amenity), and officers can be open to different interpretations if the application is marginal.  Good planning officers will always present their genuine views.  If you have high calibre officers, they won’t allow themselves to be influenced by councillors, developers or any other third party.

When do you think the greatest impact will be felt – in the long, or short term?

The only changes you may see in the short term are that more councillors will be willing to put themselves forward for planning committees.  When you assess a change like this, it’s got to be over a long term period – and it may be that there are unintended consequences.  The draft National Planning Policy Framework is designed to reduce the number of guidelines and policy directives into a shorter but more flexible framework. The Localism Bill will come under the umbrella of this as yet untested legislation -  so there are some unknowns about the future.  My general view is that doing away with pre-determination will be a positive change for most planning committee members.    However, I’ll reserve my final judgement until this new system has been in place for a few years!

What are your views on localism?

My view is that it should work well.  However, I am always concerned that when you seek the views of local people, there can be a self-selection bias that distorts the reality of true local opinion.  For example, the leader of a residents association may claim to speak on behalf of several thousand people, and present this as being ‘the local view’.  It’s very difficult to know whether this is true without holding a wider consultation.  A planning decision can affect tens of thousands of people, so it’s very important that you get it right!  I want to see Localism done properly – with as many stakeholders as possible involved in the creation of Local Plans- and if this necessitates wider consultation than currently envisaged then so be it.

Pre determination - Ground-breaking survey launches

Commissioned from leading market research consultancy ComRes, the Meeting Place Communications Pre-determination report is currently the industry’s only insight into the views of   councillors directly and what effect they believe these changes will have, if indeed they are aware of them.

Our survey asked planning committee members from across England what they currently understand about predetermination, what they know about the changes and what effect they believe they will have.

The results – in particular the degree of confusion among members – were quite startling.

To find out more about the events or for a copy of the report email: vickiday@meetingplacecommunications.com or call us on 01225 422243

Enterprise Zones - time for an urban renaissance?

On 23^rd March 2011, Chancellor George Osborne’s budget announced the location of 11 new Enterprise Zones in England, to be set-up in areas covered by the newly formed Local Enterprise Partnerships.

This formed part of the new Coalition Government’s commitment to rebalancing the regional economy and promoting new business and sustainable economic growth outside of the South East of England; however, the focus of the EZ framework, within which financial incentives and relaxed planning policies will promote creation of business and jobs, remains quite broad at this stage. The DCLG has set out broad guidelines for the size and broad economic aspirations of the EZs; however, it is not clear whether the zones, the exact location of which is to be decided between the relevant LEP and central government, will focus on enhancing economic growth in manufacturing and low-carbon industries around inter-city transport corridors, or whether they will focus on restabilising the role of Britain’s towns and cities in enhancing the growth of Britain’s burgeoning services sector.

On 7^th June this year, the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership announced that the Temple Quarter site, covering 70 hectares on a key urban gateway site in Bristol, had been named as a Local Enterprise Zone, setting a precedent for Urban Enterprise Zones; but will other LEPs follow suit?

Manufacturing remains at the heart of Britain’s economic growth, despite declining heavily throughout the latter 20^th century. Where Britain was once a hot-bed of coal mining, shipbuilding and steel production, it failed to adapt to changing world markets and demand for the British product declined and moved to the Far East. However, manufacturing still accounts for 26% of Britain’s GDP, despite the realisation that Britain will never reach the peak that it achieved at the turn of the 20^th century.  Many UK towns and cities, whose heart and lifeblood was once heavy industry, have struggled to adapt in the wake of post-industrial decline and suffer from population out-migration and institutionalised unemployment. Some have seen a reprieve in the form of modern growth industries, such as motor manufacturing and service-based employment, such as call centres; however, in many cases employment clusters have shifted away from traditional centres and had a huge destabilising effect on urban cores. Manufacturing remains truly vital, with Britain currently showing strength in pharmaceuticals, aerospace, motor manufacturing and defence industries; however, the role of our urban centres in the continued development and growth of this sector is limited, with most concentrated around major transport hubs on vast sites which cannot be accommodated in urban areas. Despite this, the potential for towns and cities to accommodate services ancillary to these large industrial operations cannot be underestimated.

In September 2010, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced that the Government will explore the concept of Tax Increment Funding, a mechanism by which local authorities could borrow from the Treasury against resulting future increases in business rates from development, in an attempt to kick-start stalled comprehensive development schemes in urban areas. However, the timescale for its inception remains unclear. If Enterprise Zones were to be focussed on urban areas, it would present a real opportunity to re-establish the role of traditional centres, tap into existing transport infrastructure, swathes of brownfield land and existing population centres and combat the effects of out-migration and unemployment caused by a failure to act on post-industrial decline throughout the last third of the 20^th century. Furthermore, it would act to relieve the pressure on green belt and rebalance the regional demand for housing, taking pressure away from the South East in accommodating new homes to address the national housing deficit.

Furthermore, key to Britain’s economic success is establishing a cultural identity and enhancing the ‘wonder’ of its towns and cities, creating an environment in which people want to live, work and play, whether from home or abroad. A focus on Urban Enterprise Zones would have substantial economic benefits on ancillary retail and leisure industries and in cultivating what we have come to know as the ‘evening economy’, whereby those who live and work in a town or city will invariably spend their money nearby and enhance the overall economic activity of an area, breeding further investment and creating a pleasant urban environment and more attractive amenities. Tourism accounts for 8.6% of the UK’s economy, and key to the UK’s tourism offer is attractive and vibrant towns and cities; after all, you would struggle to find a tourist who travels to the UK to visit a pristinely landscaped business park off the A19.

It is time for an urban renaissance, which will re-establish Britain’s cultural identity and rebalance the regional economy, taking the strain away from the South East, which is bursting at its green seams. This is not to suggest that we should attempt to rekindle the industries that were once upon a time the ‘raison d’être’ for our provincial towns and cities, but reinvent and rebalance our regional economy, creating a sustainable urban environment which is conducive to economic growth and prosperity in services sector and other growth industries, cultivated by the public sector but shaped by the private sector.

Why the planning industry should say Yes! to Twitter

Twitter has become an important tool for quickly communicating a message to a group of people. It is a useful micro-blog for quick updates containing limited number of characters and a great platform for keeping people informed what you are up without the need to craft an entire blog on a particular subject. As well as, an ideal way for social messaging with the ability to follow people and have followers to allow online engagement.

In the planning industry, twitter is an ideal way to engage with a wider audience and keeping people up to date on latest developments in the area. It is a perfect way to have an online consultation on a particular planning development, allowing people to provide feedback and engage with planning developers and planning consultants.

Micro-blogging is useful for planning developers and planning consultants, a quick tweet telling people what new schemes you are doing and what they entail provides a good base for news reporting. 

Quick responses, allow people to ask all sorts of questions regarding traffic, parking, the number of dwellings a particular scheme will have. Twitter search feature can be a good way to track trends or keep up with a particular subject. It keeps people in the loop concerning the progress on planning applications or if public consultations or workshops will take place in the area. Twitter, is a useful way for people to track down news.

Twitter gives the ability for people to voice their opinions and find out what people really think. The localism bill which will hand power from central government to local councils and neighbourhoods, as part of the government’s ‘Big Society’ will give people a greater voice concerning planning developments in their area. Social media sites like Twitter, has the ability to find not only supporters, but ‘silent supporters’ for your scheme, people who feel comfortable participating online rather than facing outspoken people at public consultations.

Twitter, gives the chance for the planning industry to become involved with politics. Politicians and local councillors have increasingly turned to social media sites like twitter. This provides an excellent platform for the public, planning developers, planning consultants, politicians and local councillors to engage on one platform.

Keeping the lights on – is the debate about energy or proximity?

Just days after renewable energy projects were under fire in Wales, Germany announces a plan to go nuclear free.

It has been widely reported that the protest taking place last Tuesday in front of the Senedd building in Cardiff Bay was the largest since the Assembly came into existence. The objection from the protestors was focused on electricity pylons, sub stations and wind turbines in the Mid Wales countryside. In particular they sought a change to the emphasis favouring wind power in TAN 8.

The politics of nuclear power has always been hot to handle and especially acute in Germany. Protests there following the Fukushima disaster have led to Angela Merkal’s centre-right Government announcing that the country will phase out all nuclear power generation by 2022. This will please the protestors but already concerns have been raised as to whether this will lead to a greater reliance on carbon emitting energy generation or over-reliance on imported power from neighbours, most notably the nuclear-friendly French. Should Germany seek to retain its current domestic energy production levels with new infrastructure, then that could see just the same clashes as the politicians of Wales experienced last week.

As much as the debate is focused on energy sources, subsidies or reliability often the protests come down to something far more simple – proximity. The people of Mid Wales see the wind farms as an industrialisation of their landscape: the argument appears not to be “no to wind turbines here” it is “no to major energy development here”. It is easy to understand the residents’ concerns, but at the same time we need to ask ourselves how are we going to keep feeding this energy hungry nation? Imports from abroad can be costly and often from dubious regimes. Generation in the UK is likely to be opposed by the people living near by.

The only way that politicians can hope to make the case for controversial energy projects is to bring people into the debate as to how we will power the country. Both wind turbines and nuclear power encourage some very emotive views. In Wales, those views have come to the fore in protest. In Germany, the decision made has pleased protestors, but may have just opened the door to a great deal more popular protest as alternative energy sources are explored.

Alternative Vote Referendum - What it means for British Politics

The Alternative Vote (AV) referendum, scheduled to take place on May 5^th, has the potential to dramatically change the UK political landscape in coming years.

Drawn up as part of the Coalition Agreement, the referendum will ask voters a yes/no question on whether or not they are in favour of changing the system:

At present, the UK uses the “first past the post” system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?

The terms of the Coalition Agreement specify that the usual rules of cabinet collective responsibility are not applied to the referendum.  As such the parliamentary Conservative (‘no’ camp) and Liberal Democrat (‘yes camp’) parties are campaigning on different sides (with some exceptions).  The Labour Party leadership is campaigning in support of AV, although some 200 Labour MPs and Peers are campaigning for a ‘no’ vote. So too are Labour’s natural allies in the GMB and ASLEF trade unions.

The result of the referendum (determined by a simple majority opposed or in favour of the motion) will be legally binding on the government.  A win for the ‘yes’ campaign will mean that AV is certain to be adopted at the next general election.

AV Explained

The UK Electoral Commission has produced concise and impartial explanation of the First Past the Post and Alternative Vote electoral systems:

AV: The Debate

Opposed to AV

1. AV will remove the principle of one person, one vote counted once.
2. AV is a discredited system used only by Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji (Fiji are planning to stop using AV and opinion polls in Australia show a majority of voters would prefer First Past the Post). 50 nations use First Past the Post for elections.
3. AV will lead to more hung parliaments and as a result programmes for Government being drawn up behind closed doors rather than manifestos which are voted on by the public.
4. Under AV the person finishing third after everybody’s first preference is counted could end up becoming the MP.
5. During the 20^th century, First Past The Post helped keep the UK stable while other nations were more politically volatile.
6. Either the drama of election night will be lost as a manual count will take a long time or the manual count will be replaced by expensive machinery to tally the votes.

In favour of AV

1. Making your MP seek 50% of the vote would make them work harder.
2. “Safe seats” would be less likely to occur removing the “job for life mentality” perceived in some MPs.
3. You will have a bigger say on who your MP is. If your first choice is not elected you still can have input into who gets elected.
4. AV is often used for selecting party leaders and in trade union ballots, so why not for Parliament?
5. At the last General Election, more than two thirds of MPs were elected without an overall majority of the votes in their constituency.
6. The way we elect MPs has continually evolved over the last 200 years; there’s no reason why it needs to remain exactly the same.

What is the expected turnout?

The ‘yes’ and ‘no’ camps are currently locked in a heated battle to secure majority support from the electorate.  Voter turnout is likely to be a key factor in determining the result.  Proponents of AV had worked to secure a referendum on the same day as elections to the Scottish parliament, Welsh assembly and many local English elections on the assumption that a higher turnout in the referendum would work in their favour in some of these areas.  Conversely, some MPs were critical of the decision to hold the vote on May 5^th, arguing that it would artificially inflate turnout on an issue they did not perceive the electorate to consider important.   Even so, since there is no minimum participation threshold required for a decisive result, the issue of turnout is likely to stir controversy, whatever the outcome of the vote.

 

What do the polls tell us?

At the time of writing, political polling on the issue does not yet provide clear insight as to the likely result on May 5^th.  This is mainly due to there being a large proportion of voters (approximately one quarter) that are undecided on the matter.  Voter turnout will also be crucial in determining the result.  With English local elections rarely exceeding 35% turnout, the AV referendum is unlikely to fare much better in England, although it may be higher in Wales and Scotland where elections for the devolved parliaments are being held simultaneously.  Both of these factors mean that polling on the subject is inconclusive at the present time.

However, what AV polling can and does show are trends.  In recent weeks, a series of polls from Populus and YouGov point to the ‘yes’ campaign having lost the advantage it enjoyed in the latter half of 2010.  These polls suggest that, especially when explanations of the systems are read to respondents, there are now more people opposing the motion than are in favour

.   In its research, Populus asked half of respondents the bare referendum question, while the other half was prompted with descriptions of each electoral system before being asked to state their preference.  That opposition to the motion becomes more entrenched once AV is defined may prove a bad omen for those in the ‘yes’ camp, as it suggests that the more citizens are told about AV, the more they tend to oppose it. 

In the run up to May 5^th, the way in which the debate is framed in the media will therefore be critical, as a large tranche of undecided voters will be choosing if and how to vote.

Media Coverage

The AV referendum has attracted significant media coverage in recent weeks, with much attention focused on the activities of campaigners, and in particular, prominent MPs in each camp.  With the Conservatives campaigning for a ‘no’ vote, David Cameron and much of the Tory front bench have been dispatched to oppose the motion, with frequent interviews frequently being given in newspapers and on the radio.  Similar coverage has also been given to the Liberal Democrat proponents; the most prominent being Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister.

In addition to the coverage of the major political parties, a large number of celebrities have also become involved in each respective campaign.  In favour of AV, notable personalities in favour include Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, Greg Dyke and Stephen Fry.  James Cracknell, Esther Rantzen, Darren Gough and Professor Robert Winston (Lord Winston) have campaigned against AV.

In early April, the ‘yes’ campaign received criticism for its decision to produce two versions of a leaflet it was distributing.  In one version, used in London, the leaflet included the face of black poet Benjamin Zephaniah, who supports AV.  However, in leaflets distributed to other parts of the country, Zephaniah had been airbrushed out and replaced with actor Tony Robinson.

Media coverage of respective campaign can be expected to intensify throughout April.  However, it is likely that coverage will not be as readily absorbed by the public in the week before the vote, with many Britons taking holiday over the Bank Holiday weekend, or celebrating the Royal Wedding.

What would AV mean for the UK?

The likely impact of AV on the UK political landscape is disputed and will not become entirely clear until such a time as it is implemented.  It has been suggested that AV will lead to more ‘hung’ parliaments, although this assertion is not always borne out in other countries (such as Australia) that already use the system.  Neither is it clear whether AV would lead to more ‘proportional’ election results; again, with differing opinions put forward by each camp.  In short, there is no clear answer as to how AV will affect the composition of the House of Commons.  For this this reason, the debate has ostensibly been centred around which system more fair or practical.

The actual impact of AV on electoral outcomes will in any case depend on local conditions within constituencies.  In the South West England for example, where the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives compete for seats, it might be expected that second preference votes among Lib Dem voters would be allocated to the Labour Party.  Similarly, many first preference Labour voters might be expected select the Liberal Democrat candidate as their second preference.  As such, a front-running Conservative that failed to win majority first preference support could easily be defeated through second and third preference votes.  In other areas of the UK, with different combinations of party support, one might expect different outcomes.  However, on a national level, there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that the Conservative Party would lose seats overall, at the expense of the Liberal Democrats.

To complicate matters further, the same bill that set the AV referendum in motion, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act (not yet law), has an additional constitutional aim.  In addition to holding a referendum on AV, the bill proposes to reduce the current number of seats in the Commons by redrawing the boundaries of some constituencies; so that each is more equal by population size.  The boundary changes, if implemented as proposed, are likely to help the Conservatives by reducing the overrepresentation of seats in the north of England and Wales.  The bill is currently being passed through the legislature, but if it became law, would certainly create yet more speculation about changes in the UK political landscape.

In the short term, perhaps what is most interesting is potential for the outcome of the referendum to split the Coalition government.  There are MPs in both of the coalition parties deeply uneasy about their alliance.  At the time the Coalition Agreement was signed, many Conservative MPs were furious at having ceded the electoral reform issue to the Liberal Democrats.  For some Lib Dem MPs, the prospect of electoral reform is a primary motivation for remaining in government with the Conservatives. Whatever the outcome on May 5^th, there will be MPs in either or both parties who may start hinting at an end to the Coalition.

MPC attends “Budget 2011: A plan for city growth?” event

MPC recently attended an event hosted by the Centre for Cities, an independent, non-partisan research and policy institute committed to improving the economic performance of UK cities.

Entitled “Budget 2011: A plan for city growth?”, a panel chaired by James Crabtree of the Financial Times discussed the coalition government’s Budget, in terms of its impact on Britain’s cities.  Responding, panellists Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP (Chief Secretary to the Treasury), Mike More (Chief Executive, Westminster City Council) and Alexandra Jones (Chief Executive, Centre for Cities) offered their views on how the Budget will affect Britain’s cities.

There was certainly a lot in Budget this year for those of us in the planning sector to ponder.  MPC provides its analysis on some of the key points raised:

·         Announced in the Budget are 21 new urban Enterprise Zones, designed to stimulate growth in urban areas that lag behind in terms of growth.  Ten Local Enterprise Partnerships (in addition to one in London chosen by the Mayor) will be allowed to decide on a geographic area within their partnerships to locate an Enterprise Zone (ten further zones will be set up following a competition among other LEPs).   Firms setting up business within the Zone will be able to take advantage of substantial discounts in business rates, while manufacturing businesses will have access to new super-fast broadband services.  Crucially, the new Zones are to benefit from a simplified planning regime where applicants are not subject to the same bureaucratic hurdles as would normally apply.

o    MPC Response:  Discussion at the event raised an interesting point about how the simplified planning regime proposed for Enterprise Zones sits with the Coalition’s broader localism agenda.  On the one hand, businesses are being given much greater freedom to determine the shape of development (local authorities will have less room to scrutinise plans), yet under localism it is communities that are meant to be given more say on development (think Neighbourhood Plans).  In short, we may expect a very different flavour of localism within Enterprise Zones.

·         Beyond Enterprise Zones, George Osborne also announced that there would be a new “presumption in favour” of planning applications for so-called “sustainable development”. 

o    MPC Response: If, as the Chancellor says, the default outcome for such applications will be affirmative, then where does localism fit in?  Under localism, residents are meant to determine how development is progressed in their area (although not whether it occurs at all).  A built-in presumption in favour of ‘sustainable’ planning applications may simply override the idea of Neighbourhood Planning as touted by the DCLG.  This indicates how flexible the Treasury is when it comes to localism.  Developers will, of course, wonder what is meant by sustainable.

·         A theme that ran throughout the 2011 Budget was an effort to “re-balance” the economy, in which geography is identified as an important factor.  Re-balancing economic growth across the UK may seem like an obvious goal, but is it realistic? Responding to this provision in the Budget, Alexandra Jones raised some interesting points.  While growth in London and the South East may recently have far outstripped that in other parts of the country, it does not have to be this way moving forward, she argued.  It is reported, informally, that many business organisations choose to locate in London not only for its strategic location, but also because of a greater ‘certainty’ of outcome where planning and development are factors in their business models.  Local authorities are more likely to approve planning applications in densely populated London than many other parts of the country.  Objections by residents to applications are often less prolific within the capital.  By ensuring greater certainty in the planning process across other high-potential cities, some firms may be prepared to locate (and develop) in these regions instead, helping to redress this ‘imbalance’ in the process.

o    MPC Response:  It is indeed greater certainty that developers and the wider business community would like to see in the planning process.  MPC experience in recent months in fact points to less certainty, as some local authorities pause the advancement of Local Development Frameworks in the face of the announced dissolution of Regional Spatial Strategies.  Without the certainty of RSS, some councils are now questioning the basis on which their Core Strategies are founded, and with it, those Strategic Development Locations (SDLs) that had previously been a cause for optimism among would-be developers.  It remains to be seen when this sense of ‘certainty’ will return, and with it, a better chance of re-balancing growth in the way the Coalition would like to see.

·         From a planning perspective, one of more eye-catching announcements in the Budget was the decision to pilot Land Auctions.  Under the proposals, local government will be able to benefit from a purchase option on private land.  Local authorities would receive a future right-to-buy assurance at an asking price set by the owner.  The authority would then able to grant outline planning permission for the land, and subsequently auction it to a developer.  In so doing, it is highly likely to profit from an increase in land value derived from the allocation of planning permission.  Furthermore, this encourages development within the locale that is compatible with its Core Strategy.

o    MPC Response:  The government’s proposals are an interesting approach to promoting economic growth and provide greater certainty for developers.  They also appear to be compatible with localism, since authorities will have more power to shape development within the framework of Neighbourhood Plans.  The key will be if landowners are prepared to sell assets to local authorities at what may prove to be a below-market value.  Our analysis, however, is that there will be a nationally varied uptake, with some areas embracing the auctions, and others shunning them.  The auction approach is more likely to be rejected in areas where anti-development sentiment is high on the local agenda and Members prefer to play it safe.

o    The changes, as proposed, will certainly mean a (potentially) more proactive role for local government in promoting and enabling development.   Instead of councils simply reacting to planning applications received, they may now find themselves acting as speculators.  This will put planning centre stage in some local authorities, where Members will be held more accountable for the land they themselves select for development.

Consultation on Glos County Cricket Club's plans this Feb

MPC is working with Gloucestershire County Cricket Club and Linden Homes on their plans for development at the County Ground in Bristol.

After receiving a resolution to grant planning permission to expand their ground last year, Gloucestershire County Cricket Club has now decided to implement only one part of their planning application.  For the foreseeable future they will not be building the stands adjacent to Kennington Avenue, resulting result in a capacity of circa 17,500, rather than the 20,000 originally envisaged, of which circa 7,500 will be permanent.

They have also reached an agreement with Linden Homes which will see the proposed student accommodation being replaced by a range of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments as there is no longer the demand for this accommodation.  These new apartments will include underground parking.  Linden Homes with GCCC will be submitting a full application for this in the spring.

These revised plans will the subject of a public exhibition held as follows:

Friday 11th February, 3.00 – 7.30pm
Saturday 12th February, 10.00am – 2.00pm
In the Grace Room, The County Ground, Nevil Road

Localism Seminars kick off (in a good way...)

Several major housebuilders joined Meeting Place Communications at a localism round table discussion in Bristol. A presentation of the evolving planning policy was followed by comments from the local councillors from the region who attended. The discussion, which was led by Rob Peters of Turley Associates, focused on the differing ways in which localism was being interpreted by developers, councillors and council officers. There were mixed feelings about the effectiveness of the New Homes Bonus but unanimity on the need to engage widely with the business community and service providers near proposed new development.

Nick Webb of Meeting Place Communications said "There are different interpretations as to what localism will really mean and it is good to get together as a group and share experiences of how different local authorities are reacting to the evolving policy. What is clear is the need to engage effectively across the community."