Planning for flexibility

It appears that the Government wants to listen to the British Chambers of Commerce's wish to improve the planning system (see my blog of 19 June 2009) but it would appear that they are not quite on the same page when it comes to what is required.
On 18 June 2009 the Department for Communities and Local Government issued a consultation paper called:

Greater flexibility for planning permissions - consultation

The consultation considers two issues:

1. Extension of time limits for existing planning permissions; and
2. Minor material amendments to existing planning permissions.

Interestingly the issue regarding time limits has arisen because the recent legislation cut the time limit for implementation from 5 to 3 years. Now faced with an uncertain economic climate developers are not rushing to implement permissions and the 3 year limit means that applying for permission without any certainty that a development could be let/sold in the short term is unappealing. This means that planning authorities are likely to be deluged with planning applications.

Bearing in mind Gordon Brown's favourite phrase during his tenure as Chancellor: "Goodbye to Boom and Bust", it is not surprising that the implementation was lowered. Why allow five years for implementation time as surely once permission is given a developer will jump at the chance to develop.

So, yet another climb-down for the Labour Government from its previous policies is proposed. Although it does not propose a complete climbdown (or really a climbdown at all). The measure proposed would be temporary and only apply to major developments. Further an extension application would be considered a new application in terms of the need to obtain an Environmental Impact Assessment and result in supplemental planning agreements (at least in the form of a confirmatory deed). Whether or not the local planning authority decides to consult on the application is intended to be discretionary.

I can't see these proposals being greeted that warmly by the developer community.

As for the proposal for minor material amendments, well, the legal community are likely to be rubbing their hands together with glee - I can feel the warmth generated by BLP's planning department already. The interim proposals are that LPAs could approve a minor material amendment "if its scale and nature results in a development which is not substantially different from the one that has been approved". If that is not a proposal for dispute and litigation then I do not know what is.

One question I have is once you have made a minor material amendment can you then make another one? If so, is the reference point the unamended permission or the amended permission? If the amended permission then it is possible to envisage a situation whereby a permission, through minor material amendments, results in a development which is substantally different from the one that has been approved - I am assuming the legislation would not be that carelessly drafted!

Who's a Jew -v- Who's a Brit

Interesting Fact: I am not British. I am Irish, born to an Irish father and a British mother. Despite having lived in the UK for most of my adult life, having paid taxes and observed and paid the price (only minor motoring offences) for breaking British laws I am not automatically entitled to be classed as a British citizen or to become naturalized as a British citizen.
In order to be apply for naturalization in Britain there is a seven part test as follows:

• you are aged 18 or over;
• you are of sound mind;
• you intend to continue to live in the United Kingdom;
• you can communicate in English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic to an acceptable degree;
• you have sufficient knowledge of life in the United Kingdom;
• you are of good character; and
• you meet the residential requirements

Exact details can be found on the UK Border Agency web-site

The two most interesting ones are the requirement of knowledge of life and being of good character. If you can show you know what it is to be British and are law-abiding you should be fine.

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal issued a ruling that a Jewish school was in breach of Race laws by refusing entry to a boy whose mother had undergone "conversion" under the auspices of Progressive Judaism. This judgment has been lauded by civil liberties campaigners and the reform and liberal jews. However, without wishing to disrespect the Lords of Appeal, their judgment is flawed and will hopefully be overturned by the House of Lords.

The real question that this case is considering is:

Who defines who a Jew is?

And it is for this reason I have set out above the criteria for deciding whether someone can become a British Citizen. I do not argue with those criteria nor with the fact that it is for the British Government to decide who can and cannot become British citizen.

Similarly, I would strongly argue, it is not for the British courts to decide who and who is not a Jew. The Court of Appeal did not rule that it was unlawful to have a school who only admitted Jews. Rather it decided that the basis on which the school decided who and who is not a Jew was unlawful. If allowed to stand such a decision undermines the basis of any faith. But ignoring that argument, the Court of Appeal's decision that the school's basis was unlawful was also wrong.

JFS (the school in question) is bound by the Court of the Chief Rabbi in deciding on the eligibility of a proposed student. The Court of the Chief Rabbi likely defines a Jew as someone:

• whose mother was born Jewish; or
• whose mother converted to Judaism; or
• who has him/herself converted to Judaism

True, on that basis someone whose mother was born Jewish but not practicing in the slightest would be allowed in whereas someone whose mother was not born Jewish, had never converted but kept all the laws would not be allowed in. But this does not preclude someone from converting and therefore does not, of itself, amount to discrimination.

As part of the conversion process which takes, I believe, up to 7 years (not disimilar to the minimum period of residency in the UK required for British citizenship) convertees must agree to abide by all the laws and regulations and show that they mean it (not dissimilar to the requirement of knowledge and good character for British Citizenship).

Now, would you expect a conversion to be allowed of someone who is not prepared to commit to all the laws and regulations? I assume not in the same way as you would not expect citizenship to be granted to someone who refused to agree to follow the laws of Britain or club membership to be given to a member who refused to follow the club's rules.

Ah, you will say, but this person's mother did convert. Wrong, she converted to a religion called Progressive Judaism which is fundamentally different from Orthodox Judaism. In doing so she did not agree to be bound by and follow all the laws orthodox Jews are bound by. Should I be entitled to set-up a new religion which has some similarity to Islam but changes the rules to suit my feelings and views and then claim that anyone who says I am not a Muslim is discriminating against me? Of course not - the only people who can define who is a Muslim are the Imans and religious leaders.

That progressive judaism started some time ago (reform judaism started in the early 18th century) does not change the fact that it is a new religion that has sought to throw off the boundaries and restrictions imposed by orthodoxy to appeal to the masses' need to assuage their guilt on failing to follow the rules and laws.

In summary, if the law allows a school to permit entry only to Jews the Courts have no right to turn that position on its head by ruling that anyone who calls themselves a Jew must be permitted entry. Anyone is entitled to convert to Judaism but they must agree to accept the laws that come with the name - M's mother was not prepared to accept such laws and so chose to become a Progressive Jew. If I created a new country and called it New Britain (sic) and named its citizens British I think they would be given short shrift if they tried to enter Britain claiming to be British citizens. Being Jewish is no different.

Reform the planning system . . . again!

Those of you who follow me on Twitter will already know that The British Chambers of Commerce have just released "Planning for Recovery" which is their views on the problems with and solutions for the planning system in the UK if we are to get out of the current doldrums.
The report is very well set out highlighting in separate chapters:

1. The relationship between the planning system and its effect on businesses
2. The current planning system and its shortcomings
3. Reforms to the planning system already on track
4. Recommendations for further reforms to help speed recovery

There is little doubt that the need for planning regulation will automatically result in delays and frustration. The report highlights a number of cases where the delays have been hideous, for example, Heathrow Terminal 5 where a formal planning application was lodged in 1993 but consent was only finally given in 2001.

Broadly the idea of reforming the planning system to enable applications to progress more quickly especially on large infrastructure projects where the needs of the many can often outweigh the needs of the few is one with which I agree. Further, on a street level removing the obstacles to sensible extensions and loft conversions to enable families to grow within houses rather than having to move would hopefully help keep house prices better regulated. However, I do wonder the deliverability of any such reform. It seems to me that loosening the reins in order to speed things up will only lead to minority views being totally ignored. Also, contrast the current calls for greater regulation in the financial industry as a result of the credit crunch with the calls for the loosening of regulation (not necessarily in planning) in the construction industry to help it get back on its feet - is the construction industry not partially to blame for the current situation?

On a slightly separate point, I do not feel that the current predicament of much of the construction industry is, of itself, any justification for reforming the planning system to enable them to get back on their feet. Factors in developers getting into so much trouble were taking on too much debt, being overly optimistic in their predictions and forecasts, overvaluing their assets and generally not doing a good enough due diligence and financial plan job. Should we really reward such poor judgement?

So, whilst I support reform to reduce delays it should not be at the cost of the minority voice nor merely to save those who showed poor judgement but rather to benefit those who acted with due care and attention. Now if someone can come up with such reform I will be impressed. Any ideas let me know . . .