|
propertyweekPlanning
The housing crisis has dominated the planningdebate in recent years and on the whole,
commercial developers have been largelysilent. But dramatic changes to the planning system
that have been made since the government cameto power have important implications for theindustrial sector. When the appetite for industrialunits returns, many developers will find the planninggoalposts have moved a considerable distance.Local authorities will become more powerful
when it comes to making development decisionsand opinions differ on whether a proposedincentives system to encourage development willresult in a smoother planning process. Work on anational planning framework and revisions to localplans will also soon gather pace, and this will provideopportunities, but also challenges, for stakeholdersin the industrial sector.
Gazeley UK managing director Nigel Godfreysums up the situation: “Planning is the fundamental
obstacle that has to be overcome for land to haveany development potential. It’s the first thing we
look at when considering a site. There is a surprising
amount of naivety surrounding this.”
The key question for all developers now is whethera planning system can be devised that successfully
considers the negative impacts of development
locally against the positives at a regional andnational level.
So far, the answer to this question is far fromcertain. Regional plans used to make the case for
strategically important development, includingemployment uses. These have already beenabolished, and a replacement framework is yetto be announced.Prologis UK managing director Andy Griffithssays: “The government is intent on changingthe planning system, which creates uncertaintyand a lack of clarity for us. We spent a lot of timeengaging with the planning process at a regionallevel. If that disappears, it is potentially problematic.”
Griffiths remains hopeful that the work done to
create regional plans will not be wasted, and that
consideration of issues above the local level will
remain in place.
“The evidence base that backed up the regional
plans is still valid,” he says. “It’s just that we don’t
know how it’s going to be applied. The nature
of our product means it will have some kind
of regional impact, so should be considered
in a regional context.”
Positive signs
The need to consider some applications in a
regional context informs a typical fear among
many developers — that returning power to a
local level risks losing sight of the wider positive
benefits of development.
Some developers are positive about the proposed
changes. Evander Properties managing director
Jeremy Greenland argues that local authorities have
been hamstrung by regional planning policies and
should benefit from increased freedoms. “It might#p#分页标题#e#
make life easier if local authorities are autonomous
and don’t have to defer to anyone,” he says.
There are other positive signs as well. Mindful
SHEDS
16 24|09|10
9 Developers are fearful that a localist planning policy will
allow nimbys to give shed development the thumbs-down.
Mark Wilding reports. Illustration by Noma Bar
local
discord
propertyweek.com
SHEDS
24|09|10 17
Planning
of the need to encourage local authorities to accept
development, the government has proposed an
incentive scheme to provide financial rewards to
councils that grant permission for both residential
and commercial uses that then go on to be built.
In principle the government has agreed to match
fund business rates on new development for six
years. However, details of the scheme are not due
to emerge until after October’s spending review.
Doubts also remain about whether the incentive
will be enough to overcome the political implications
of approving unwelcome development schemes.
CB Richard Ellis head of national planning Ian
Anderson says: “You could argue it will get easier
to secure planning permission, because councils
will be motivated by money. But at the other end
of the spectrum you will have increasing nimbyism
from people who quite often don’t want industrial
or commercial development” (box, overleaf).
Abolition of regional plans will have an impact
on the “big box” developers whose projects have
regional or even national significance. But it is not
just the likes of Prologis and Gazeley who are likely
to be affected by the changes. Until now, planning
has worked on a cascading basis, whereby local plans
are dictated by regional and national policies. Many
are local authorities who had made good progress
with local plans under the old system now look likely
to take this opportunity to revise these documents —
a process that may involve a reassessment of
employment land sites. Anderson argues that
developers of all sizes would be well placed to
take a keen interest in this process.
“Councils will be carrying out employment
Planning is the
fundamental obstacle
that must be overcome
for land to have any
development potential
Nigel Godfrey, Gazeley UK
››
18 24|09|10 propertyweek.com
SHEDS Planning
land assessments that anyone who has
an active interest in development really should
be focusing on,” he says. “It is vital that those
with an interest in development get in early
to engage with local authorities.”
Some areas have seen a quick reaction to
planning changes from those eager to ensure that
the environment for industrial investment remains#p#分页标题#e#指导essay，英国essay指导
positive. In Bristol, a city that has established
itself as the main distribution hub for the southwest,
it is not developers but industrial agents
who have taken the lead.
Bristol City Council is in the process of revising
its local plan. The city’s Industrial Agents Society,
concerned by several aspects of the document,
has responded to the consultation with several
criticisms and is lobbying the authority to make
changes. Among its concerns are a failure to identify
new land for development, an underestimation of
land required for industrial uses, an inadequate
evidence base being used to identify locations and
a lack of detail relating to industrial uses.
BNP Paribas Real Estate industrial director Jeremy
Hughes explains the situation in Bristol. “It’s in
occupiers’, developers’, investors’ and agents’ best
interests to contribute to the development of local
plans. If agents don’t have enough land allocated
to deal with, there won’t be any signifi cant new
development, let alone fees.”
He continues: “The land that has been proposed
does not help city-based occupiers. Our research
departments have recently concluded that the
waste sector, which requires B2 consent,
is the next burgeoning market after retailers.
The council’s proposals simply don’t make
enough provision for these issues.”
Watershed moment
Inff uencing plans at a local level is one way to ensure
adequate allocations of employment land to allow
development in the future. If industrial uses are not
given adequate consideration, and if development
incentives do not materialise, local opposition
could lead to a lack of industrial and distribution
space for years to come.
But as more details emerge of the government’s
intentions for planning, a further opportunity will
present itself as the proposed national planning
framework is put out to consultation with
interested parties.
Segro masterplan manager Stephen Lord says:
“Industrial developers have got an opportunity
to engage with the government on this. It’s a
watershed moment in the history of the planning
system. It’s important that the industry works
together to maximise its voice.” 9
Major infrastructure Unit:
replacing the iPc
Very few people want a nuclear power
station or rail freight terminal at the
end of their garden. Given the national
importance of these types of facilities,
how do you decide where they go?
This is the problem the Infrastructure
Planning Commission (IPC) was set up to
tackle. A Labour government initiative,
it was intended to provide a fast-track
process for all infrastructure projects#p#分页标题#e#
of national signifi cance. Developers would
be obliged to carry out large amounts of
pre-application consultation. In return,
the IPC would make a decision removed
from local political pressures.
However, just as developers began
preparing for the new system, the
commission’s future started to look
uncertain. With a general election
approaching, the Conservatives
announced they would abolish the
organisation. They have now confi rmed
that the commission will soon be replaced
with a Major Infrastructure Unit.
The announcement has not been
welcomed by the business sector.
Neil Bentley, director of business
environment at the Confederation of British
Industry, says: “We already have delayed
planning applications inherited from the
previous government, and there is still
uncertainty about how the new Major
Infrastructure Unit will work in practice.
“In the next six months, the government
must clear the backlog of delayed planning
applications. This will show investors
that it is serious about fi xing the
planning system.”
Despite concerns about the future of
the commission, very little looks likely to
change. Sta are likely to remain in post
and the secretary of state taking the fi nal
say on projects. Angus Walker, partner
at Bircham Dyson Bell and co-author of
A Practical Guide to National Infrastructure
Projects, advises developers to continue
working with the new process.
“The new government has pledged to
close the IPC, so developers are nervous
about promoting projects when there is
this uncertainty about its future,” he says.
“But people should be assured that the
process will remain relatively unchanged.”
IPC’s chairmain Sir Michael Pitt adds:
“We can reassure any developers who
are working towards the submission
of an application that examination will
not be delayed due to any future changes.”
Trained o : the proposed rail freight terminal
at Radlett is the type of unpopular scheme
developers fear will fall victim to local protests
fl
|
