Within a year the only method of submitting a planning application in England will be completion of a new standard planning application form. The Department of Communities confirmed the timetable for the roll-out of the National Standard Planning Application Form (1APP) this week, with a phased introduction and trials starting in February ahead of a compulsory system from October.In this latest bid to speed up the planning system, the standard forms will give everyone certainty about the type and amount of information they need to submit and will facilitate the switch to a predominantly online service. Local planning authorities will have the option of hosting online forms on their web sites; otherwise they will be available from the government’s Planning Portal at http://www.planningportal.gov.uk

Paper forms will not disappear, however, as planning authorities will still be expected to make hard copies available.

The Planning Portal is planning a series of regional workshops around the country to introduce the new standard form. The same form will cover a range of application types, including Householder, Planning Permission, Listed Building Consent, Conservation Area consent and tree applications/orders (but not building control or minerals). Further details of the roll-out programme will be posted at the Planning Portal.

[RIBA Practice Bulletin - No. 376]

House builders chose to foreshadow the government’s new housing planning policy launch this week with the results of a survey on planning approval times that found that the average housing application now takes 248 days, roughly three times the government’s target of 91 days.In what is claimed to be the first survey of its kind, the HBF looked at a sample of 580 sites being developed by 24 companies, with proposals ranging from one to 1500 new homes.

The alarming results included the finding that there is an average delay of 17 days between the submission and registration of an application (the target is 24 hours!), and an average delay of 98 days between a committee resolution to grant permission and the issuing of a decision notice. All in all, the HBF says that it currently takes over a year and three months (475 days on average) from the submission of an application to a start on site.

Stewart Basely, HBF executive chairman, said: ‘At a time when Britain faces the most acute housing shortage since the industrial revolution, we are seeing significant and systemic delays in the planning process… there are some key areas of the planning process that need to be targeted to make it more efficient and effective.’

[RIBA Practice Bulletin - No. 376]

The government’s planning policy on housing was reshaped yesterday with the publication of the final version of Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3), the long awaited successor to PPG3. The document has had several draft incarnations, as ministers struggled to find an acceptable balance between market forces and local authority prescription. The RIBA’s first sight reaction to the definitive statement was very positive, with a number of new policies to be welcomed.PPS3 puts more pressure on authorities to identify appropriate sites for new housing, introducing a requirement to plan 15 years ahead in order to provide for a rolling 5-year supply of ’sustainable and deliverable’ sites.

At the same time, councils are given more flexibility to determine how and where new homes should be built. Local planners will be able to set their own density and car parking standards and will be able to set separate targets for different types of brownfield land in their area.

Local policy options on affordable housing are strengthened and there will be extended powers to require developer contributions to affordable housing on smaller sites where they are judged viable. Rural authorities are separately instructed to take greater account of local affordability issues and make provision for additional housing.

The emphasis on design quality that was introduced in PPG3 is also strengthened, with a more forceful direction to local authorities to turn down poor quality applications.

Where the new PPS3 has a brand new thrust is its emphasis on the provision of family homes and amenities for children. For the first time planners will be required to consider children’s housing needs by providing for gardens, play areas and green spaces.

The government is concerned that the trend towards high-density flats for first time buyers and singletons needs to be moderated. Housing minister Yvette Cooper pointed out yesterday that four out of five new homes in London are currently one- and two-bedroom flats. ‘We need to insist on more family homes,’ she declared.

Part of the solution here will be more freedom for local authorities to promote mixed communities and to ensure that larger houses are developed alongside flats and smaller homes.

Proposals to allow planners to dictate the detailed mix of housing types in an earlier draft PPS3 were fiercely opposed by house builders. Reactions to the new PPS3 on how these provisions will be interpreted in practice will no doubt emerge over the coming weeks.

The emphasis on the reuse of brownfield land is retained. The shift here is to require local authorities to take stronger action to bring brownfield sites back into use. Supporting this policy will be a new National Brownfield Strategy to be developed by regeneration agency English Partnerships. The Department of Communities published a discussion paper on the proposed strategy this week alongside PPS3 - English Partnerships is due to submit detailed policy recommendations to the government early next year.

Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing is available to download now at: www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1504591

English Partnerships’ National Brownfield Strategy discussion paper will be posted shortly on its web site at: http://www.englishpartnerships.co.uk

[RIBA Practice Bulletin - No. 376]

First phase of £18m P21 mental health redevelopment for Cumbria Partnership NHS Trust. This is at Carelton Clinic Carlisle.

Will Alsop’s ‘eyebrow-raising’ masterplan to transform an abandoned waterfront in Middlesbrough could finally become a reality.
Three years after the astonishing scheme was first unveiled, the developer behind the £200 million Middlehaven project, BioRegional Quintain (BRQ), has agreed terms with urban-renaissance company Tees Valley Regeneration.

However a spokesman has admitted that some of the ‘more frivolous’ elements of Alsop’s original masterplan – such as a building shaped like a toaster – have had to be dropped.

BRQ is now expected to deliver more than 750 homes, offices, shops, cafes and a hotel as part of a 90,000m² development hailed as the ‘largest carbon-neutral scheme in the UK.’

The developer has assembled a gaggle of top-name architects to design the individual elements of the ambitious project, which includes one building nicknamed ‘Marge Simpson’s Hair’ and another dubbed ‘the Sugarcubes’.

Among the practices lined up to work on the scheme are Grimshaw, Studio Egret West, Branson Coates, FAT and Feilden Clegg Bradley.

The announcement has delighted Ray Mallon, the elected mayor of Middlesbrough. He said: ‘Now the sceptics have their answer. Work will soon be under way transforming the redundant waterfront into a thriving community.’

He added: ‘We set our standards high – some say too high – but in BRQ we have a company internationally renowned for its innovative approach to sustainable development and I welcome them into the town.’

[AJPlus Nov '06]

Primary schools have been waiting in line for their turn to access the government’s billion pound schools renewal programme. Their own £7 billion programme is not due to get underway until April 2009 but this week the DfES named 23 local authorities across England as pathfinders to trial new approaches to state-of-the-art eco-friendly classrooms and facilities.

A new cash injection of £150m is being made available for the pilot projects, which will be undertaken during 2008-09. Priorities will also include better school kitchens and modernised sports, music and ICT facilities.

The main programme will then go on to rebuild or remodel 8,000 of England’s 18,000 primary and primary special schools, taking 900 of the worst schools out of use in the process.

The DfES set out its proposals earlier this year in its prospectus Every Child Matters: Primary School Programme. In the light of the positive response to consultation, the DfES says implementation will be broadly in line with the principles and timescales given in this prospectus, which can be found at the dfes website 

‘Most primary schools are reaching the end of their design lives – they are over 25 years old and some 60 per cent were built between 1945 and 1976, often using rapid but poor quality construction techniques,’ says schools minister Jim Knight. ‘This is about moving from simply patching and mending these aging buildings to having a strategic, joined up approach to planning and design.’

The 23 authorities named as pathfinders this week are: Barnet, Birmingham, Bradford, Cornwall, Darlington, Ealing, Essex, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Kent, Knowsley, Manchester, Newham, North Tyneside, Nottingham City, Rotherham, Sheffield, Solihull, Somerset, Swindon, Torbay, Waltham Forest and Wigan.

The final publication of the new Part B of the Building Regulations, which relates to fire safety in buildings, is expected to be severely delayed.
It is understood that there is every likelihood that the final version of the document will not see the light of day before February 2007 at the earliest.

This would leave architects and engineers in a state of disarray, as it would give them only weeks to prepare for the strict new regulations to come into force.

The final Part B document is being widely trailed by government mandarins as a serious increase in the already stringent rules.

The potential for yet more delays to Part B leaves open the possibility of a repeat of the Part L debacle of earlier this year.

The rush to publish Part L meant that the final document – which was available just days before it became law – was littered with mistakes and a costly reprint had to be ordered (Error-ridden Part L published ).