The Rural Property Portal

Rural Enterprise Dwellings in Wales – A New Approach

2012-01-07T14:59:00.000Z

It is longstanding planning policy in both England and Wales that the countryside should be safeguarded from uncontrolled and sporadic development. This remains the central policy concerning residential development in the countryside.

In July 2010, the Welsh Government published revised planning policy concerning its approach to the development needs and aspirations of rural communities in a revised Technical Advice Note TAN6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities.

It has always been recognised that, within this policy of restraint, there are particular housing needs that can only be met through the provision of individual dwellings in the countryside; primarily these have related to the operational needs of farming and forestry, where an essential need for workers to live at or close to their place of work has been established.

As a consequence of a review, the scope of exceptions have been extended to a wider range of workers in rural enterprises. This extension applies primarily to land-related businesses which, directly or indirectly, need to be located in the countryside rather than in existing settlements.

One particular problem that has been identified by the Welsh Government concerns the passing-on of farm businesses to a younger generation in the context of an ageing agricultural community. In order to encourage younger people to take on farm businesses, particular provision has been made in this guidance note to allow for additional housing on existing farms to enable the transfer of management.

The purpose of this guide is to assist applicants and their advisers in outlining the nature of the Rural Enterprise Dwelling exemption; set out the process whereby proposals will be justified and assessed; provide practical advice relevant to planning applications; and indicate sources of assistance. This guide will also assist local planning authorities in the determination of Rural Enterprise Dwelling applications.

The scope of the new policy provision is as follows:

“--- qualifying rural enterprises comprise land related businesses including agriculture, forestry and other activities that obtain their primary inputs from the site, such as the processing of agricultural, forestry and mineral products together with land management activities and support services (including agricultural contracting), tourism and leisure enterprises.” TAN 6 paragraph 4.3.2

The five groups of enterprises which are covered by the new TAN 6 policy are therefore:

· agriculture and forestry;

· activities which obtain their primary inputs from the site;

· land management related activities;

· land related tourism and leisure; and

· support services related to rural-based activities

Local planning authorities may include a broader definition of qualifying rural enterprises in their development plans where this can be justified by specific local circumstances and evidence.

This is a valuable addition to Welsh Planning Policy which English policy makers would be well advised to adopt in the same way. The NPPF may appear to offer a more flexible approach, but the real issue will be its interpretation in LDF’s at the local level. At a time when the rural economy is suffering as much if not more than urban areas, a more flexible but controlled approach to housing provision for rural businesses is very welcome.

For the document go to:

http://wales.gov.uk/docs/desh/publications/111212redpracticeguideen.pdf

Snakes and Ladders in Rural Planning - Is the NPPF good for Rural England?

2011-08-12T14:30:00.000+01:00

Here we go again. Another day, another draft planning policy, another consultation response. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is designed to give all those pesky Planning Policy Statements a No.1 haircut and replace them with a single, all singing, all dancing, policy statement. A sort of planning guidance note lite if you will. And, as you might expect though, rural planning policy is a little more complicated than that; more akin to a game of snakes and ladders.

After the disastrous change from PPG7 to PPS7 in the mid naughties – which gave local authorities the chance to block almost any rural development scheme on any pretext – the establishment of the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) and the Rural Advocate, together with arrival of the well received Taylor Report in 2008 and the re-written PPS4 (Economic Development) in 2010, began to turn the tide of understanding about the need for sound and positive planning for rural England. The pieces were moving fast up the board. Then the coalition did away with CRC, seemingly placed the Taylor Report on a higher shelf and began a wholesale reconstruction of 60 years of planning. The first slippery snake appeared. Encouraged by the Rural Coalition, the Government threw a solid five and indicated a statement on rural policy would be published during July. A ladder was in sight. But they haven’t made their move yet and it’s not clear if and when they will.

The draft NPPF (published last week) condenses rural policy mainly into one short paragraph. Section 81 notes:

Support the rural economy

81. Planning policies should support sustainable economic growth in rural areas by taking a positive approach to new development. Planning strategies should maintain a

prosperous rural economy including policies to:

support the sustainable growth of rural businesses
promote the development and diversification of agricultural businesses; and
support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit rural businesses, communities and visitors and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. The NPPF is designed to cut across all areas and provide a generic policy framework, such that specific market sectors need not be considered separately. The overarching requirement is that development must be sustainable; that is, supportive of economic growth, creating strong, vibrant and healthy communities and protective of the environment - both built and natural. I paraphrase of course.

The policies set out in this Framework will apply to the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and to the consideration of planning applications. There will be a presumption in favour of sustainable development, delivered through a positive planning system, with significant weight placed on the need to support economic development. Local policies will be variable depending upon the wishes of the local populous – or, at least, that element of them willing, able and interested enough to get engaged in the process. Localism in action.

Authorities will be required to develop planning policies and take decisions that make effective use of land, “promote mixed use developments that create more vibrant places, and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food production”.

This all looks jolly fair. A veritable feast of helpful ladders awaits us. So, where’s the catch? If you listen to some of the more alarming reactions you would be forgiven for believing that all of rural England will almost instantaneously be concreted over. Clearly this is an unhelpful overreaction. But the lack of specific guidance over some rural issues is undoubtedly worrying to those who prefer a well defined existence. The word ‘agriculture’ appears only twice in the whole 58 page document.

The real snake in the grass is, in my view, the potential for uncertainty or even conflict between broadly based policy statements. Take a proposal for a rural retail outlet. A farm shop say. Paragraph 81 suggests clear support, but earlier statements in the NPPF require sequential testing in relation to retail and leisure proposals, with priority toward town centres for sustainability reasons. How will an appropriate distinction be made?

The much argued issue about travel by car in rural areas – which has to be considered separately from sustainable transport provision in urban areas - does not appear to have been reflected in the document. The draft NPPF makes a vaguer statement; “..the Government recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas”. As there are very few if any sustainable transport solutions in rural England (and most are being cut back at the moment) will local authorities really appreciate the issues or take a safer, less flexible line, justified on the grounds of ‘sustainability’ alone?

I could go on. And I haven’t even mentioned the dread word ‘housing’ yet.

Rural England is a powerhouse of enterprise and opportunity which the Government would do well not to ignore, or inhibit through lack of proper guidance. It will be our future as far as food and water security is concerned. Yet it also contains significant areas of social and economic deprivation.

This new planning agenda will not create open season for developers. Local and neighbourhood plans will see to that.

However, in order to function sustainably, future planning policy must ensure a living, working and playing environment for rural England. Its’ very sustainability lies in the hands of those who reside there and manage the land on behalf of others who like to resort to it and in the wider interests of nature conservation. However, the countryside cannot be left to become an open museum. Development has to occur, even for housing, in order to sustain a vibrant rural economy, facilitate infrastructure and sustain ‘community’.

And for all you planners out there needing some focus for addressing future rural policy in this changing planning environment, you would do well to review the Taylor Report “Living Working Countryside”.

The future for rural England will lie in ensuring that when planning policies are up for consideration in local and neighbourhood plans, full and proper consultation responses are made, that draw on all the evidence from decades of playing the rural planning game. Failure to engage will simply ensure stagnation at best, a return to a preservationist stance at worse.

This Blog first written for and published in RuSource the Rural Information Network (August 2011)

Landed Estates - Not Just for Cream Teas

2011-06-20T22:06:00.002+01:00

RURAL LANDED ESTATES make a vital, but often unrecognized, contribution to the rural environment, community and the economy.

Often associated in the mind of the general public with National Trust type day visitor attractions or ‘huntin, shootin and fishin’ activities reserved solely for the ‘great and good’, Britain’s estates are much more involved in the rural economy from an agricultural, residential and commercial standpoint than one might think.

And this is not just true for Britain, but the same opportunities and relationships are demonstrated abroad too.

Investigations commissioned by the East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA) and the Country Land & Business Association (CLA) measured how rural estates benefit local communities and the wider economy.

In the East Midlands alone, rural estates support more than 18,000 jobs across a range of businesses. More than 70% of the estates are privately owned. Some 20% are owned by institutions or charities, with less than 10% falling under local authority or other public sector ownership.

In a report, “Working positively with rural estates”, EMDA showed that just under 300 rural estates in the East Midlands account for nearly a quarter (23%) of the region's land area. Together, they own a range of assets including agricultural land, houses, workspace and community facilities.

Estates provide 7,800 houses across the region and provide 13% of these houses at below market rents - equivalent to 27% of the social housing provision in their area. Researchers found an 81% growth in the area of workspace provided by estates over the last five years.

Two thirds of the estates own and maintain community facilities, providing at least 166 village halls in the region.

CLA regional director Helen Woolley said: "Estates make a significant contribution to the rural economy in the East Midlands. They also play a role in supporting their local community. EMDA's study into the potential benefits of the public sector working more positively with rural estates will improve our ability to support our members in fulfilling both these roles."

But the study also identified a number of barriers which prevent estates from either growing as they would like or developing their assets. These include slow broadband speeds, empty property taxes, complex planning processes and a lack of awareness of public sector funding opportunities.

And this is just for one region of the UK. The same situation is replicated throughout Britain to varying degrees. Just take a look at the many estate based workspaces advertised on www.ruralworkspace.co.uk that demonstrate just one aspect of this role in the rural economy.

A study of Cheshire and Warrington's market towns and surrounding rural areas (which are rich in landed estates) identified the need for a package of resources to improve their economic performance.

The research, commissioned on behalf of the (now wrapped up) Northwest Regional Development Agency (NWDA), identifies a range of public realm improvements to make each market town more attractive to shoppers and businesses alike.

A separate element of the report concluded there was a serious shortage of rural workspace opportunities in certain areas which was impacting upon the local economy.

Councillor Herbert Manley, Prosperity Portfolio Holder for Cheshire West and Chester Council, said: “It is vital there are enough commercial units available for rent in rural areas – otherwise businesses are forced to look elsewhere, which would be a huge loss to our rural communities”.

And let’s not forget that many of these estates are endeavoring to survive whist also supporting and maintaining our important architectural heritage. Listed buildings are a common feature of all estates. Their wider role in maintaining the countryside from an ecological and environmental standpoint is also poorly understood.

In 2009 Ruralworkspace Director Ian Butter addressed a conference in Denmark funded by Realdania concerning the role and opportunities for rural estates in Scandinavia. A similar range of social, economic, commercial and agricultural relationships arise and are constrained in much the same way. Their Future Manors programme is designed to provide support and encouragement for rural estates to diversify and re-use their heritage buildings as well as create new opportunities in rural areas.

Rural estates are an often misunderstood and under-appreciated sector of the rural economy that provide an important focal point for rural regeneration and are a significant contributor in financial, accommodation, environmental and heritage terms. The newly created Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP’s) would do well to consider their rural estates as part of any wider economic strategy.

So let’s here it for the landed estates - both here and overseas – they are much more valuable than you may think.

“Working positively with rural estates” (EMDA) can be downloaded from the Ruralworkspace document library at:

http://www.ruralworkspace.co.uk/uploads/documents/emda_Rural_Estates.pdf

Small is (not necessarily) Beautiful?

2011-05-30T11:36:00.001+01:00

You would be forgiven for having overlooked the recently released publication "Business Population Estimates for the UK and Regions 2010". Not your average bedtime reading admittedly, but helpful in revealing the nature of today's business environment in the UK. Here are a few statistics:-

 There were an estimated 4.5 million private sector businesses in the UK at the start of 2010, an increase of 48,000: (1.1 per cent) since the start of 2009

 These businesses employed an estimated 22.5 million people, and had an estimated combined annual turnover of £3,200 billion

 Almost two thirds (64.2 per cent) of private sector businesses were sole proprietorships, 27.6 per cent were companies and 8.2 per cent were partnerships

 Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) together accounted for 99.9 per cent of all enterprises, 59.1 per cent of private sector employment and 48.6 per cent of private sector turnover

Almost all of these enterprises (99.2 per cent) were small (0 to 49 employees). Only 28,000 (0.6 per cent) were medium-sized (50 to 249 employees) and 6,000 (0.1 per cent) were large (250 or more employees).

In the circumstances it is hard to understand why the SME sector is not the predominant target market for Government largesse and support. Whilst promoting overseas investment in our traditional 'Big business' sector (steel; car making, advanced technology etc) may be a wise move politically, the real strength of the economy lies in the millions of small businesses that represent all but 0.1% of all business enterprises.

On the employment front Government statistics show that at June 2010 there were 28.9 million economically active in the UK. Compare this with the 22.5 million employed in SME's and it is self evident how important this sector is. Given that at least 50% of the commercial market is located in a rural area (and demonstrates far greater resilience to closure) the importance of rural SME's is undeniable.

So what is this Government doing to help this vital engine room of the UK economy? In the words of TV magician Paul Daniels, 'Not alot'.

There is a vague suggestion that banks should stump up more help under the Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme. The Government indicate this should help 6,000 SME's each year over four years. My maths is not that good, but that is a fraction of 1% of all SME's.

The Enterprise Capital Fund is another option, although this is targeted at 'fast growing' SMEs. Open to SMEs in most business sectors, it is typically hi-tech companies that make successful applications.

What about the new Regional Growth Fund I hear you call? It isn't all it might seem. SME's can apply, but the minimum bid threshold is £1 million (blimey!) and here again the targeting is specific to projects that might help an area reduce its dependency upon the public sector.

And Local Enterprise Partnerships? Untried, untested, evolving in a patchy and uncoordinated manner, lacking any financial clout and possibly no more that a lobbying body at best.

Oh, and lets not forget some test locations for the roll-out of superfast broadband. Woopeee!

Eric Pickles (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) seems hell bent on having Permitted Development Rights for automatic conversion of office to residential use which, in a rural context if nothing else, could instantly remove a swath of hard fought-for workspace which has been essential in supporting the emergence of the micro business throughout the country. (See www.ruralworkspace.co.uk for a plethora of examples)

This may seem a rather churlish and naive comment. I'm old enough however to be on my fourth recession now and it is remarkable how history repeats itself so exactly. Only the names at the top change. Big business moans and groans and wrings its hands about their lot and Government listens, hands out cash and incentives and makes high profile visits to demonstrate how valuable they all are to the Economy; completely overlooking the real workforce beavering away on kitchen tables and in garden sheds actually doing something meaningful and employing the vast majority of the workforce.

And look again at that definition of SME, representing 99.9% of all enterprises. nearly all have between 0-49 employees. Two thirds are sole proprietors and you can bet a large proportion of companies are the same.

So we are looking here at the preponderance of the economy being supported not by 'small' but 'micro' businesses (the EU define such micro business as having <10 employees).

If the coalition want to make a real political and economic impact on Britain they would do well to recognise that their electorate are the workforce in micro business up and down the land. Help that sector in a positive and meaningful way Mr Cameron and you will be going a long way toward another term. Ignore them at your peril.

The full document Business Population Estimates for the UK and Regions 2010 can be found in the document library of www.ruralworkspace.co.uk at:

http://www.ruralworkspace.co.uk/documents/rural-economy/

Coalition set to relax rules on barn conversions

2011-05-24T21:17:00.000+01:00

From +Planning Monday, 23 May 2011

"Rural landowners have welcomed government moves to ease planning restrictions preventing disused farm buildings from being converted into affordable housing.

The relaxation is signalled in this month's government response to the Commons environment, food and rural affairs committee's February report on farming in the uplands.

The response invites authorities facing rural housing shortages "to consider amending their local planning policies to support the change of use of farm buildings to affordable homes where these are considered inappropriate for employment use, or take the need for affordable homes into account in assessing individual applications".

William Worsley, president of landowners' lobby group the Country Land and Business Association, welcomed the move. However, he added: "It is a great pity the Government does not yet recognise the need for new-build housing on upland farms." This is often a cheaper option than converting disused barns, he said.

But Ian Woodhurst, senior farming campaigner at the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: "Any conversion should be done sensitively. We don't want to see suburban designs in the middle of upland landscapes."

In their response, ministers also promise a rural policy statement before the Parliamentary summer recess".

Comment: There is an important word in the midst of all this that bears consideration and that is 'affordable'.

Just how will a single barn conversion be of interest to a Housing Association or local Housing Trust who are tasked with delivering 'affordable housing'? I doubt any current affordable housing providers property criteria could be achieved and management of a remote single unit is just not practicable. I rather think the Government have a broader agenda or, alternatively are yet again playing to the crowd. Perhaps we are seeing a change in interpretation of that particular planning word than has been the case in the last decade or so.

Perhaps the Rural Policy Statement will shed some further light.

Community Infrastructure Levy - An Update

2011-05-11T00:15:00.000+01:00

Just how excited can one human being get about such an arguably dry topic as the "Community Infrastructure Levy". If I had a life, probably not very, but as a planning consultant this legislation will rule my world (not rock my world sadly) for some time to come.

Why I hear you ask. What could possibly be so fascinating?

Well, put simply, CIL is designed to extract cash from developments in order to pay for the infrastructure to support it. A pre-determined charging schedule will be applied to most development projects at the planning application stage so that everyone knows what is expected of the scheme, especially the developer.

The justification for this is wrapped up in the smoke and mirrors of the planning system, but essentially the Government cannot afford to fund infrastructure out of our taxes by the look of it so the 'developer pays' principle is moved heavily front and centre. Arguably this has been the case for some time, but the whole 'Planning Gain' system will now be consolidated into a cash-card based contribution.

All local authorities will eventually have a charging schedule and a small number of authorities are trialling the system at the moment. Draft CIL schedules have recently been produced by the Mayor of London [ http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayoral-community-infrastructure-levy ]and Newark & Sherwood District Council [ http://www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/pp/Gold/ViewGold.asp?ID=5531 ]. The latter is very informative and shows differential charging rates for various parts of the District. It also shows the detailed assessments made that have lead to the charging schedules in accordance with the guidance. £50 per metre seems to have become a common benchmark figure, but rates vary by type of project. A zero charging sum is evident in the schedules - for affordable housing for example. Average charging rates are calculated based on development value assessments for differing projects types.

Originally introduced by the Labour Government and initially scheduled to be revoked by the coalition, CIL has evidently had a reprieve and been updated. Last month saw an amendment to the original Regulations to clarify certain technicalities and a new guidance document has just been released [ http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/communityinfrastructurelevymay11 ] which provides the whole story.

In the mean time what will this mean for day to day planning?

Developers will be able to assess their CIL at the outset based on the sq m to be built. There will be certainty over commitment and locals will know just how much is being generated from the scheme and what it will be applied to. (Well that's the theory anyway).

Planning consultants will have to become mathematicians and start applying the CIL calculations to development schemes (my head is already beginning to hurt). The new Regulations do allow for undertaking works instead of paying the charge so there will still be negotiations. And Section 106 agreements will still be required, but this time to ensure that the authority that is trousering the cash actually provide the relevant infrastructure - rather than just putting it in the Council coffers to pay for the next fact finding mission to the Seychelles or whatever. You can imagine a situation where a scheme is dependent on a new bypass, or trunk sewer that never materialises. That is going to put a crimp in anyone's development delivery programme.

I rather think that - in the end - developers may start comparing and contrasting charging rates within and between authorities in order to find a site at a lower CIL cost. There would be opportunities for authorities to outbid (i.e. under-charge) their neighbours to gain beneficial development, although I expect location, location, location will still be the predominant market driver.

What the CIL may do is help reduce land values - and this is perhaps the eventual outcome.

In the mean time, enjoy the read and watch this space for further info as CIL begins the evolve.

Ombudsman criticises South Holland District Council over enforcement

2011-05-08T11:08:00.000+01:00

A salutary lesson concerning professionalism in town planning which bears repeating in full.
From the Planning Portal.

South Holland District Council has been criticised by the Local Government Ombudsman for taking enforcement action against a housing developer contrary to legal advice and national planning policy guidance.

The watchdog has upheld a complaint from the developer and called on the council to make a full and unreserved apology to the company, Nestwood Homes Ltd. The Ombudsman also wants the local authority to pay what could be a significant amount of compensation.

The case was unusual as the Ombudsman rarely investigates complaints by developers about the planning process. The watchdog said the company suffered considerable injustice in terms of stress, damage to reputation, financial difficulties and losses and consequent strain on family and business relationships..

In this case a council officer approved plans submitted by Nestwood Homes Ltd to meet a planning condition. In approving the plans the officer inadvertently gave permission for raising the land levels on the site, so the new houses were built higher.

When work started on site, neighbouring residents began to object. The council sought counsel’s opinion, which was clear and unambiguous – the council had granted planning permission for the raised levels and that permission would remain valid unless quashed by a judicial review in the High Court.

Counsel drafted a letter to be sent to Nestwood. It differed from Counsel’s opinion in a very significant way. Whereas Counsel had advised that the planning permission was “not void but voidable”, the letter said that the permission was “void and voidable”.

Nestwood continued with the development. Reports were submitted to the planning control committee who visited the site. It decided to take enforcement action requiring four properties, three garages and much of the boundary walls and fencing to be demolished.

Meanwhile, prospective purchasers of the houses were deterred by local publicity and information provided by the council in response to local searches after enforcement action was agreed.

Nestwood appealed against the enforcement notices to the Secretary of State. A planning inspector ruled that the council had granted permission for the raised levels. He ordered the council should pay all the costs of the appeal, saying “in light of their own counsel's advice that enforcement action in relation to the raising of levels ... would be unlikely to succeed, and the relatively weak case put forward... I consider that the council behaved unreasonably in defending the appeals.”

Nestwood complained that the council acted unreasonably and unfairly, delayed making decisions, and unreasonably informed prospective purchasers that the development was unlawful.

The company director responsible for the development says he suffered a great deal of stress, family relationships were nearly destroyed, employees were at risk of redundancy, the company was vilified in the media, its reputation was severely damaged, it suffered additional costs and commercial losses amounting to £1.2 million.

The Ombudsman found maladministration on a number of points. The report highlighted that the officers’ reports to the Planning Control Committee were poorly structured, not clear and comprehensible and materially misrepresented Counsel’s opinion, and as a result a significant proportion of the Committee members did not have an adequate understanding of Counsel’s advice or of the relevant issues.

In addition the officer’s report recommended action that did not reflect the officer’s professional views and did not comply with national guidance that enforcement “should always be commensurate with the breach of planning control”.

Other failings identified in the report centred on the fact that a number of the committee members had predetermined their view about enforcement action before considering the issue at a meeting and were influenced by irrelevant negative interpretations of Nestwood’s actions that were not supported by any evidence.

The Ombudsman recommended that the council should acknowledge the maladministration and arrange for the chief executive and chairman to deliver an apology in person to representatives of Nestwood and then publish the apology on its website.

The watchdog also called on the local authority to appoint a suitably qualified independent accountant to assess the losses incurred by Nestwood from interest payments on loans taken out because of the situation, professional fees incurred in relation to the enforcement action, the costs of maintaining unsold properties on the development and solicitor's costs in making the complaint.

In addition the Ombudsman has urged the council to pay the company director who made the complaint £25,000 in recognition of the stress, strain on family relations and fear of damage to the company’s reputation caused by the maladministration.

A council spokesman said: “The ombudsman has reported and that report has to be considered by the council at its next meeting. Until the report has been considered by the council we are unable to make any further comment.”

Roger Milne

6 May 2011

Planning Issues in the Budget 2011

2011-03-23T19:47:00.000Z

Everything changes and everything stays the same.

Those of us long enough in the tooth to remember the town planning system prior to 1989 will recall that the developer had the benefit of the doubt in terms of gaining planning permission, unless the local authority could justify reasons for refusal.

So the Chancellor's comments today concerning a presumption in favour of sustainable development (whatever that is - and trailed mercilessly by Eric Pickles for the last ten days) seems no more than an echo of Conservative planning policy from 20 plus years ago.

The speech contained the following statement on planning:

"And we are going to tackle what every government has identified as a chronic obstacle to economic growth in Britain, and no government has done anything about: the planning system.

Councils are spending 13 per cent more in real terms on planning permissions than they did five years ago, despite the fact that applications have fallen by a third.
Yes, local communities should have a greater say in planning, but from today:
We will expect all bodies involved in planning to prioritise growth and jobs;
We will introduce a new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to development is ‘yes’;
We will retain existing controls on greenbelt – but we will remove the nationally imposed targets on the use of previously developed land;
And we will allow certain use class changes, introduce time limits on applications and pilot for the first time ever auctions of planning permission on land"

"no government has done anything about: the planning system" - Interesting. Every Government has tried to do something about the planning system - usually badly. The last mob actually believed that their 'baby and bath water' approach was destined to improve things. Nope. That never happened.

"local communities should have a greater say in planning, but from today:" What an interesting 'but' that is. Yes, you can have localism and devolution of decision-making to the Parish Pump level, but if that means no to economic development you can forget it.

Now, as a hard bitten planner I could be hanging out the flags and welcoming my bank manager round for a glass of bubbly to look at the pile of fees from all that 'open season' development - somehow I don't think that will be the eventual outcome, but a presumption in favour of economically beneficial development may help overcome some of the more disingenuous objections from the NIMBY lobby.

Removal of the targets on the use of previously developed land appears to infer release of greenfield land. However, saying that Council's don't now have to meet targets for the redevelopment of brownfield sites does not imply such an automatic right. The Chancellor said nothing about the continuing prioritisation of sites by way of sequential testing.

"certain use class changes" such as? We have no real guidance as yet but the more extreme 'office blocks to residential use' did not (sadly) make the speech as expected earlier last week. I would have loved to see the reaction to that!

"Time limits on planning permissions" - reduced by the last Government from five to three years to speed up implementation of consents, one wonders how much further this Government might go. Will they also alter the right to renew, which was reinstated because planning permissions (that had cost a fortune to secure) were running out before the economy had recovered to a point where a commercially successful development could be carried out.

"auctions of planning permission for land" - WHAT?

And as for Enterprise Zones - well, the sense of deja vu is complete. We've been here before.

Everything changes and everything remains the same.

The Good Old British Pub - A Future

2011-02-21T21:57:00.008Z

Driving through the dramatic Wharfedale and Wensleydale scenery of the Yorkshire Dales last week I was struck by the number of public houses and Inns with 'For Sale' boards in place. Not for me the delights of a quick brunch and a pint of something interesting. These hostelries were completely closed; and not just for the winter.

With the Dales being such a tourism magnate and with 'staycations' continuing to dominate the UK domestic holiday market one wonders why this has happened. I'm sure there are a plethora of reasons, but sad to say they are unwelcome additions to a growing trend.

The country pub, a quintessential feature of the countryside has been in decline for some time. HRH The Prince of Wales notes that "Rural communities, and this country's rural way of life, face unprecedented challenges ... the country pub, which has been at the heart of village life for centuries, is disappearing in many areas."

Fleurets Pub Rental Survey 2010 (http://www.fleurets.com) notes that "rent review activity throughout the industry has also shown a significant decline as landlords are realising there is limited opportunity for rental growth. This has been compounded by the many leasehold operators agreeing restructured lease terms direct with the landlords, who are faced with the prospect of an empty property being handed back to them, thus circumventing the need for rent reviews.

Consequently lower volumes of rent reviews are being actioned. Where reviews have been actioned, many remain outstanding. The disparity between landlord's expectations and tenant's ability to pay continues to cause dispute. Tenants are strongly opposing any proposed uplifts. Thus we anticipate continuing low levels of rent review activity".

The 'Beer Tie' was identified as a particular problem by CAMRA (the Campaign for Real Ale) in their 2009 report to the Office of Fair Trading which notes, "there are 57,000 pubs in the UK, of which 54% are leased or tenanted by either a brewing or a non-brewing pub-owning company and in almost all cases subject to the imposition of a “beer tie” and other exclusive purchasing obligations". After posting a 20% fall in profits for the first quarter of 2010 one of the larger PubCo's Punch Taverns announced a new lease arrangement that will see tenants offered a choice between beer at the market rate in exchange for higher rent, or tied beer with lower rent.

However, all is not lost. In their December 2010 newsletter Sydney Phillips (http://www.sidneyphillips.co.uk) notes, "We are delighted to report a gradual improvement in the availability of funding by commercial lenders when it comes to the pub and hotel sector. Whilst the loan to value ratios of past years are not being seen there is however once again a growing appetite to lend to profitable, well run businesses".

The Pub is also finding a new vocation in many areas as a 'multi-role combat' community hub. The Pub is the Hub (http://www.pubisthehub.org.uk) has advised over 30 communities who have considered taking over their pub, and are currently advising a number of groups who are buying, leasing or starting to run their village pub and ensure it stays as a community focal point.

Pub is The Hub works closely with the pub industry and have persuaded some breweries and pub groups such as Palmers of Bridport, Punch Taverns and Enterprise Inns to let pubs to communities on a short term basis so that they can try it first.

The town planning system has also done its bit by starting to limit changes of use and I don’t doubt the new Neighbourhood Planning system and Localism initiatives will add further to this stance.

The good old British pub may be struggling to find a new identity in a harsh and challenging commercial world, but is beginning to reinvent itself and there is plenty of assistance around to ensure its future survival.

I do hope so. I was looking forward to that pub lunch!
www.ruralworkspace.co.uk provides a further means of bringing rural Pubs, Inns and other rural property to the attention of those keen on taking up the pub challenge. Free listings are available. UK Pub Sales (www.ukpubsales.com) have already posted a number of potential opportunities.

The Commission for Rural Communities - Reborn?

2011-02-19T19:40:00.000Z

The excellent Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) was an early victim of the 'bonfire of the quango's' last year when in June 2010 the Secretary of State announced that the CRC was to be abolished.

The CRC was set up to promote awareness of rural needs amongst decision makers across and beyond Government. The need for such a commission resulted in no small part from the last Governments' desperate attempt to recover from an almost criminally negligent disregard of rural Britain over their previous tenures. CRC responded admirably and was responsible in my view for returning rural issues and opportunities to a comparable level with urban areas.

So why oh why is a ConLib/LibCon/DemconLib (whatever) Government repeating the same basic error of judgement - especially as a significant proportion of their voters are rurally located. Cost savings alone? I wonder.

Admittedly, Defra’s internal rural policy capacity is to be expanded to create a Rural Communities Policy Unit (RCPU). However, this will be a 'CRC light' version with a much reduced team drawn (thankfully) from remaining CRC staff. I hope that they will have the same degrees of freedom to represent rural issues unhindered by political expediency.

According to the CRC website, "The first stage of this transition will be completed by 31 March 2011.... From 1 April 2011, the CRC’s statutory functions of Advice, Advocacy and Watchdog will be carried out by the Commissioners supported by a very small flexible team. The streamlined CRC will act as a critical friend to the new unit and will carry out a significantly slimmed down work programme to complement the RCPU’s business plan".

A new website address will also be available from 1 April 2011 at:–www.defra.gov.uk/crc and the CRC is now being archived so the evidence base from the last five years can continue to be accessed and used.

With all that is being done to other sectors of the economy at the moment the current Government would be well advised to remember to play to its strengths - disregarding rural Britain could be a huge own goal.

Rural economy needs healthy routes to thrive, says CLA

2011-02-06T16:23:00.000Z

The CLA in the North is warning that a combination of rising fuel costs, the threat of reduced bus services, a poor and expensive rail network, and lack of access to fast broadband is threatening to bring economic recovery to a grinding halt.

Douglas Chalmers, Director CLA North said: "The current spate of fuel thefts in rural areas is simply one visible symptom of many more and deeper problems.

"The rural economy is ready and willing to play its part in helping our country trade itself out of recession, but is it able to? At the moment it feels like the opportunities are being blocked at every turn.

"The rural economy provides the nation with much more than quality food and attractive views. It is a hotbed of entrepreneurialism that in terms of economic output punches above its weight, yet is under threat of being stifled because it simply cannot afford to compete, continue or contribute.

"There is no getting away from the fact that roads and the private transport they carry are the lifeblood of the rural economy. Where buses and trains do exist, they are infrequent, expensive and do not offer a real alternative. An increasing number of premises remain unsold or unlet because they cannot access fast, affordable broadband or their location means that raw materials and products would be expensive to move. The simple fact is that if you want to get food on the shelves of our towns and cities, and tourists and clients to rural businesses, the road is the only practical alternative.

"We are already hearing of rural businesses considering relocating. Unsuitable public transport and expensive alternatives prevent people travelling to work, training or education. Rural dwellers also face social exclusion for the same reasons. But we cannot allow this to continue.

"Government must accept that they are in danger of pricing the countryside out of business, and the CLA's job is to point out that the inevitable repercussions will be felt by the whole economy, and for a very long time.

"We need to address rising fuel prices, reconsider raising rail fares above inflation, and invest in rural transport networks, not reduce them. We also need the option of universal access to fast, affordable broadband. Only then can the countryside play the part that it is so eager to play, and help this country get back on its feet."

The Significance of Rural England in the Economy of the UK

2011-02-01T21:48:00.000Z

Rural England plays a significant role in the economy of the United Kingdom, but an even larger social and cultural role.

So says a new OECD report published at the end of last month, extracts from which are provided below with grateful acknowledgement to the OECD.

The report highlights that rural England is unique among OECD regions, in that it is geographically compact, with rural inhabitants generally no more than a half hour’s drive from an urban area. There is thus a vast amount of interaction between rural and urban populations in England.

The report concludes that England’s rural population is, on average, doing better than the urban population across a broad range of socio-economic indicators. Nevertheless, rural England is also struggling with pockets of poverty and social exclusion, difficulties in maintaining access to high quality public services, an ageing population, and, most importantly, a widespread shortage of affordable housing.

Using the OECD definition, about 10% of England’s population is considered rural. Roughly 28% of the population in intermediate regions and about 4% in predominantly urban regions are rural. But England’s rural typology is based on sparseness, which captures the difference between more densely settled rural areas near urban places and the less common remote rural regions (see figures below).

Not unexpectedly to those of use wedded to the rural cause, the planning system is noted as playing a major role in determining new housing availability. With rural population growing due to an influx of retirees and commuters from urban areas, Settlement patterns in rural England have resulted in a large number of very small or micro-communities and there is a shortage of affordable housing.

The economies of rural England support at least 4.5 million jobs with the largest employers being the public services, manufacturing and distribution. Rural communities have a limited number of economic functions and a limited mix of firms. This reflects their small size in terms of labour force and local market potential. Many goods and services cannot be profitably produced in a small community and have to be imported.

The reports findings include:

The high degree of integration between urban areas and the vast majority of rural England makes it possible to establish broad policy mechanisms in many domains without any need to inject specific urban and rural approaches.

The preference in England is to protect the natural, cultural and historical amenities of its rural areas and place limits on development. The influx of older retirees and second home owners has caused housing prices in rural areas to increase, but wages in rural areas are lower than in urban areas. This is leading to local labour market imbalances in some places with a distinct shortage of social housing.

Services are more expensive to deliver in rural areas but there is no recognition of this. This is a problem that will worsen as demands for services increase due to an older rural population, many of whom expect services comparable to those in urban areas.

Strengthening the rural economy: Understanding the important role of small and medium size firms. With a smaller public sector, more private sector jobs will be needed. While rural areas have a higher incidence of new firm formation than urban areas, the population of rural firms tends to consist overwhelmingly of small businesses. The share of self-employment is far higher, and rural entrepreneurs tend to be less interested in business expansion. This has implications for private-sector job creation in rural areas.

Look for market-based solutions to rural development problems and resist the urge to replace existing financial incentives with more regulations.

Introduce a distinct rural component to the “city region” strategy or incorporate policies for those rural areas that fall outside of the city region approach. The city regions strategy—linking a major urban area with surrounding urban places and a rural hinterland—recognises the interconnections between places of different size. However, the current focus of the model is city-led development that presumes that future growth will spring from the urban core of the main city, suggesting a minor role for rural areas.

Reinforce mainstreaming with other measures in the short term, better integrate the mandates of mainstreaming and rural proofing, and clarify the responsibilities for each.

Define specific adjustments to address the problems of the most remote rural areas. A small part of the rural population is too distant from urban centres to be well served by mainstreaming. To meet national policy goals of equitable quality of life there will need to be specific supplemental policy approaches.

Strengthen the rural economy by joining up housing policy, planning policy and economic development strategies at the local level. Better consider the role of rural areas in the strategies to increase economic competiveness. Introduced diversity in employment choices by increasing employment and attracting new enterprises. Fiscal constraint will mean fewer public sector jobs in the future. The largest employment groups in rural areas are public services (health, education and public administration).

Broaden the focus beyond that of pure economic development to better identify new ways to enhance the competitiveness of the rural economy and reduce the number of government-imposed restrictions on individual choice.

Non-subscribers can browse the full text on line and purchase the PDF e-book and/or paper copy via the OECD online bookshop at: http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?lang=EN&sf1=identifiers&st1=9789264094420

ISBN Number: 9789264094420

Publication Date: 25 January 2011

Pages: 272

How the Coalition Will Bankrupt Rural Britain

2011-01-27T11:07:00.000Z

The announcement just before Christmas of the removal of Business Rate relief on virtually ALL empty property is already having a profound impact on small businesses and no less so in the rural marketplace.

Up to now, businesses with empty property with a rateable value (RV) of less than £18,000 have been spared the payment of rates. (From 1 April 2011 the empty property rates threshold will revert to £2,600).Those offices, shops and warehouses where the RV is above this threshold will either have either pay up in full or, increasingly, demolished their property to save payment. The “bombsite Britain” tax has already led to millions of square feet of property being demolished since its introduction at the higher threshold level two years ago.

However, whilst this may be a straightforward (if not still financially painful) route for the business park developer, think of all those farmers and rural enterprises who have been encouraged to diversify and re-use their buildings for workspace, who now face serious problems in meeting the additional tax.
Many have regenerated traditional buildings for re-use, investing hard earned cash in bringing them back to life in a new use, not as a property developer but as an adjunct to other business endeavours; adding a new income stream and investing for their future. And no small number of these are Listed Buildings too. A quick review of www.ruralworkspace.co.uk shows a range of typical properties.

No chance there then to demolish and have done with it and even less chance in securing a new planning permission to re-build when (and if) the market comes back - new development in the countryside being strictly controlled for obvious reasons. And where will the capital come from in any event.
They always say that no good turn ever goes unpunished and Saving Britain's heritage and encouraging the diversification and regeneration of the rural economy clearly now has its price to pay in delivering more tax, whether the revenues are there to pay it or not.

Liz Peace, chief executive of the British Property Federation, said: “If government is pinning its hopes on a private sector led economic recovery then this is a damaging and retrograde step. Empty rates is a tax on hardship at the worst possible time. The majority of the properties affected by today’s announcement will be in areas that are already economically disadvantaged, and so this will be a further blow.”

There are few if any deep institutional pockets in the rural sector, able to weather the storm. The rural economy is derived and delivered by a plethora of small, mainly family businesses and this includes those providing workspace. There is as much if not more entrepreneurship in rural than urban areas and their success rates are far higher. And this has been facilitated in no small part by an increasing supply of well serviced rural workspace.

I was speaking earlier in the week to a chap in deep rural Yorkshire who has a small range of industrial units to let that he refurbished and fitted out to meet the needs of a local food business. They were looking to establish and couldn't find the right accommodation. That food business developed successfully over several years in his units, but has now grown out of them leaving him with an empty facility. Despite considerable marketing and some near misses he has yet to find a new tenant, but the Valuation Officer has just been round to tell him he will need to find £11,000 pounds to pay in rates. How many of us could really just dip our hands in our pocket and find that kind of money to pay for a vacant property?

Here is a chap who has helped another business to establish and flourish, has found a use of value for redundant buildings in the countryside, that has contributed to sustaining the rural economy and helped in supporting his own family, that is now facing potential ruin because of a change in the tax base. And he is by no means alone in this scenario.

Surely this is not the Governments' intention. If the Coalition really feel that leeching even the most marginal of business rates out of the highly fragile rural sector is going to be good for the rural economy, let alone beneficial for society as a whole, then in my view they have absolutely no idea what they are about.

Would it not be so much better to encourage and facilitate enterprise; getting people back into work and contributing in that way. It's not going to happen in rural Britain by cutting off the very means of establishing that enterprise in the first place.

A Vision for Rural Britain

2011-01-13T18:38:00.000Z

If this Government does one thing and one thing only during its period of tenure it should (in my humble opinion) ensure a clear and certain future policy strategy for Rural Britain.

For too long under their predecessors rural UK (as opposed to simply the countryside) was ignored, positively planned against and under-represented both in Parliament and in local Government. Only latterly, with the increasingly confident voice of the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC), did the politicians wake up to the real issues surrounding one of the principle contributors to UK PLC. Tony Blair has admitted he misunderstood the issues facing rural Britain and its significance in the overall well-being of the country. The Taylor Report of 2008 (1) brought matters into sharp focus and remains I understand well thumbed by those now in power as an aid-memoir.

However, just when the CRC could be coming into its own as a real catalyst for change, they fall prey to the quango cull and once again the guiding hand is removed from the tiller. What is more, we see a new development management regime being imposed through the Localism Bill that could (if not very carefully controlled) get horribly out of hand. And all this at a time when there is an ever increasing need for the delivery of sustainability and self sufficiency in food and water to meet the needs of a population that is accelerating through 61 million toward 66 million by 2018.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) published their Rural Vision paper just before Christmas (2) which outlines key issues and challenges facing rural areas. The vision document also sets out RICS policies and recommendations regarding rural communities, agriculture, land management and natural resources. The Institution supports an integrated approach between urban and rural to ensure economic, social and environmental well being with diversity in communities - the latter being essential if the continuing pressures of rural gentrification and dormitory settlements are to be reversed.

The RICS will be engaging with a number of the Local Enterprise Partnerships across England to support the rural prooﬁng of their policy objectives. They also encourage the roll-out of high-speed rural broadband in order to support the many micro-businesses that are increasingly seeding rural Britain and provide a vital source of new employment and economic contribution. Policies concerning alternative energy are also a fundamental part of the vision. There is a risk that local authority cutbacks could impact much more severely upon rural rather than urban areas and there is a need to support outsourcing of services and delivery of new infrastructure. The RICS therefore emphasise the key role of professional bodies to delivering appropriate guidance and disseminate good practice to ensure that local authorities and communities are equipped to play their part fully in the decentralisation of public service provision.

A similar stance is adopted by the Country Land & Business Association (CLA) (3) in their January 'Land & Business' magazine. The CLA has welcomed the Governments' desire to change the planning system "that is not currently fit for purpose" but the changes must ensure sustainable economic development.

The CLA President noted that, "Radical proposals for neighbourhood planning seem to assume that economic growth and housing delivery will just happen if communities are given the opportunity to make decisions for themselves. However, there are inherent tensions between the concept of 'Localism' and providing investor certainty which may lead to communities making decisions on what they want or don't want, without taking into account what they actually need in the long term to remain sustainable".

I'm not convinced about the 'not fit for purpose' tag, but certainly Localism is going to provide an easy vehicle for the radicals and nay sayers unless much clearer guidance is provided.

Yet again rural UK faces a lacuna in policy direction and positive management, but with a continuing expectation that it will remain able to deliver to the increasing and diverse needs of a rapidly growing population that presume (at the very least) they will be fed and watered as economically as possible, whilst also being able to enjoy the wider social and cultural benefits of a well managed countryside.

This panacea is not even remotely deliverable unless those new bodies who assume power under the Localism framework recognise the real needs of rural Britain and are brave enough to resist the siren song of the NIMBY and BANANA lobby's. Maintaining the status quo however is not an option.

(1) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/livingworkingcountryside
(2) http://www.rics.org/site/download_feed.aspx?fileID=8223&fileExtension=PDF
(3) http://www.cla.org.uk/

Part 2 of Captain Pickles and the Ghost of Christmas Future

2010-12-31T13:13:00.000Z

Part 1 - http://theruralpropertyportal.blogspot.com/2010/12/captain-pickles-and-ghost-of-christmas.html

The Ghost of Christmas Future has apparated unexpectedly in the cabin of Captain Pickles, interrupting what was otherwise a thoroughly hearty guffaw over the emergence of his masterplan for recovering the fleet from the dreaded Localism Bill. The story continues.......

"Gummer, GUMMER!!" the ghost bellowed. "What do you take me for laddy, can't you see by my hair I'm bloody Lord Heseltine?". "I will be a Minister for the Environment again in the Future despite what anyone might say".

Pickles was un-phased by the outburst, which did nothing more in fact that help him to recover any composure he might have lost at this unexpected arrival. "You need to watch your temper matey it will get you into trouble". The ghost was about to launch another outburst with the words, "How in god's name did you know about that ..." but thought better of it and returned to the reason for his visit.

"Pickles, we know what you're about and I have been sent to warn you that you're dastardly plan is doomed to fail. I will show you the future and the trials and tribulations that will flow from your actions: repent now and spare yourself".

At that, the cabin grew dim and a mist rose that swirled around and enveloped them both. "Just like the gun deck on a good day" thought Captain Pickles as the mist rapidly evaporated again to reveal a meeting in progress at the 'Bowsprit and Strumpet' Inn in the dockyard. The room was full of ships crews with all their captains sat at a top table. Pickles was noticeable by his absence.

"I call this meeting to Order" said Commander Cables (evidently the Chairman). "We are here to discuss the application by your fleet commander Captain Pickles for the laying of a keel for a new Flag Ship and to release community dockyard funds to build the vessel". A murmering amongst the men rose, Pickles could hear comments such as:

"What's in it for us?..said one; We need more affordable tenders before we get more battleships... said another; What about the bats in the sea cliffs. Their flight routes might be affected by the mast heights...wailed an old hag; And the seagulls, shouted another. Cables raised his hand for silence.
"What's all this?" asked Pickles. "Its a neighbourhood community forum", said the ghost,"convened to discuss a proposal by you. They all have a vote and if you get more than 97.63% support your proposal then moves up to the next decision deck".

"How many decks are there in this confounded process?" grunted Pickles. "Oh, only seven at the moment, but when the new Dockyard Plan is finally approved there will be another ten". The ghost seemed to be quite pleased about this. Pickles decided to keep his own counsel on the matter.

"We have the applicants agent First Officer Scrapps who will speak about the application but first I would like to hear from the assembled crews about their thoughts and wishes. Remember that we must concentrate on the key issues here - do we need a new Flag Ship, where should it be harboured and what benefits will it bring to the fleet both now and for the longer term, bearing in mind sustainability, wind energy conservation, environmental amenity and national guidance documents on war wageing, looting on the high seas and the like".

"I would now like your community planning officer Seaman Clegg to outline the last two years statutory consultation process and set out the policy position".

Two hours later Clegg reached his conclusion; "...and therefore it is with the humblest of beg you're pardons and by your leaves that I conclude the application must be denied and re-submitted in full, because no detailed assessment of the means of drainage from the scuppers and heads was submitted with the application. This was brought to our attention at the last minute by the new 'Scuppers and Head Cleaners' QUANGO in the light of a recent letter from the Minister for NightSoil and BioWaste which we consider to be a material consideration in the matter". Clegg bowed even lower than his grovelling stance already provided and sat down again.

Scrapps shot to his feet, "Mr Chairman, we were advised at the pre-application meeting that no such requirement was necessary at this stage and could be dealt with by conditions. We paid twenty doubloons for that meeting!".

"As you know Scrapps, the dockyard cannot be held responsible for anything it says, does, thinks, excretes or otherwise passes off as advice, guidance, recommendations, instructions, demands or threats. We are simply here to help. Now, does anyone have anything else to say?" Cables eyes swept the room.

A hand rose slowly at the back of the room. From his position beside the Ghost Pickles saw himself rising to his feet and walk forward to the front.

"The Dockyard Community Decision-Making and Localism Policy Collective recognises Captain Pickles", announced one of the fifteen supporting consultation advisors.

"You have three minutes Captain Pickles, we will let you know when the hourglass has 30 seconds of sand left".

Pickles turned to the seamen and his eyes swept the room.

"So, defeated on a technicality eh. What next, 'Save the Barnacles', 'Spare the Wind', You can only go to sea on a full moon in the month of September? Don't you remember that sending our capital fleet to the ships graveyard cost us the south seas and all that lovely gold? When was the last time any of you drank real rum, not this eco-friendly weasel piss". There was a murmur of acknowledgement around the room.

"And what about all those dusky maidens awaiting to be grabbed off a lee shore in the caribee, Eh? Your puny little traders wont make it past Wolf Rock let alone across the oceans". Nods of recognition from some crews. "And then there's the EU....." He left the point hanging.
"That's all well and good" - preened one Captain - "but we have agreed as a local community not to do anything to upset our wider Community associates and to trade peacefully with them. That's what we pay all that Community Indifference Levy for every year".

"And what, pray tell, do they spend all that silver on, me fine fellow?" smiled Pickles.

Turning directly toward the Ghost (and of course himself) he appeared to the assembly to be looking out of the Inn window toward the harbour entrance.

"If I may indulge ye a moment longer gentlemen yer might just want to raise your telescopes to the horizon. If I'm not much mistaken that's the Spaniards".

They all looked. The horizon was full of ships sails. "And unless they've run for home, you can expect the Frenchies to be bringing up the rear, so to speak". Pickles smiled straight at the Ghost and winked.

"Didn't expect that one did yer Hesser! Never trust yer so-called colleagues laddy, least of all those you pay to be friends with; you of all people ought to have remembered that after the East Land fiasco".

"Bugger, didn't see that one coming" said the ghost of Christmas Future and with a flick of his hair he evaporated.
Captain Pickles found himself alone in his cabin, the ghost was gone and everything was just as he had left it seemingly hours ago, or was it only seconds?

He smiled. The smile of all smiles. Then began to smirk, to stifle a laugh and without any control left whatsoever began to guffaw at the top of his bellowing voice. Even Scrapps, still unavoidably engaged on the poop deck, heard the Captain as if he was stood next to him.

"A Merry Christmas and a Very Happy New Year to all my crews", laughed the Captain. For he knew it would be a VERY Happy New Year.

For the full story you can check back on my Blog at http://theruralpropertyportal.blogspot.com

Captain Pickles and the Ghost of Christmas Future - Part One

2010-12-20T10:46:00.000Z

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the ship not a creature was stirring, not even a cabin boy, the stockings were hung by the deck hatch with care in hopes that St Nicholas soon would be there.

First Officer Scrapps was not as blissfully comatose as the rest of his shipmates. Last night's Christmas party had left him feeling very ill, a combination of grog shots and some dodgy hard tack that had been served up as nibbles. He wrestled around in his bunk trying to get comfortable as the boiling, roiling tempest in his stomach did its best to inflate him to the size of a small cutter. 'This was going to end badly' he thought and calculated his fastest route to the heads.

And what was worse he was evidently hallucinating. He was sure he could hear the Captain laughing just a few cabins away in his stateroom. He'd never seen or heard Captain Pickles laugh. Ever. The slightest crinkle of a hint of a wry smile as another Frenchy went to Davy Jones locker, but never a laugh. And here he was listening to a belly laugh that seemed to be going on and on. Was the Captain as ill as he? Had he finally gone mad? Scrapps wouldn't blame him mind you, given the grief he'd been getting from all quarters in the last few months about the shipyard cutbacks. Perhaps he should go and see? At that moment Scrapps digestive system decided to reach Peak Gas and, with a time honoured call of 'Thar she blows' he threw himself out of his cot and off toward the aptly named poop deck.

Captain Pickles was indeed laughing. He couldn't help himself. It did slightly bother him that he may not be able to stop, as it was not an emotion he had any real experience of. Yet he was thoroughly enjoying the lack of control.

The day had gone well. Finally. He'd been trying to launched the Masterplan for weeks and speculation was rife throughout the fleet. Even the pre-launch guidance parchment gave little or nothing away, and when he finally rose to address the Admiralty the sad old duffers failed to realise exactly what he was doing. Just as he planned. And this was funny, oh so funny. They had absolutely no concept of what he had in store and their lack of prescience (or even simple cyniscism for that matter) showed just how stupid they all were. They applauded what they wanted to hear and failed to read the small print. The thought of their lapdog faces all eager to receive the benefit of his wisdom set him off again and he had to cram another fish pie into his mouth to stop from guffawing so loudly he'd wake the ship.

Victory was always sweet but the coup he had just pulled off was even sweeter; made positively sugar coated with a syrup finish over rotten pineapple because they just didn't get it. Oh, the sheer, unadulterated shardenfreude.

The Masterplan, (which can now be revealed in all its glorious simplicity) was no more or less than a simple double bluff. The new wallahs at the Admiralty had been pushing him hard to make curtbacks here and savings there. Decimating the fleet. His capital fleet ships had been removed to safe anchorage to be broken up for timber to make homes for paupers and those on order would be finished but supplied with no sails. Fat lot of good that was going to do; unless he could row the buggers into battle like the old Norse boats. And what was worse, so much worse, each ship of the fleet would be allowed to make its own decisions. No more direct and unarguable orders from his flagship by running up a message or three, they could each have a cosy parlay and reach a collective crew decision by majority vote. Sick. And he knew where that would all end. Did turkey's vote for Christmas?

No more raids on foreign soil, no dashes over the channel to plunder a French winery or two and outwit the revenue men on the way back - he loved doing that - and no war making, dammit. It was all going to be fuzzy and warm and fluffy and delightful and "oh ever so begging your pardon but would you mind very much if I lay a cannonade down you port side and loot your ship". Dam and blast and unholy thoughts. He was a fighting seaman and was just about to have his raison detre surgically removed, and it was going to hurt.

But the Plan was oh so clever. Surprisingly, to most in the fleet, he went along with the idea, promoting the project as his own, passing the word around that, "Yes, Localism would be a fine way to go. Never mind the threats at our door, lets all have a group hug and make a reasoned and well thought through programme of actions, that would deliver untold riches to all and a society to bring up our scurvy brats in that would be the envy of the gods" or words to that effect. His emergent bonhomie was acknowledged and after a while crews began to think he had become a new man. The Christmas party was itself a first, and he'd even stopped the regular floggings for overspends on crew comforts.

But Pickles knew in his heart that this new age of enlightenment was no more than a false dawn (he'd read that somewhere and it sounded fitting). It was in fact no more than a Nimby's Charter (Not in My Boat Yard). If there was one thing he knew and that was his men of the line. And he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was all going to end in tears before bedtime. Some ships had already professed a wish to become traders and ditch all their cannon in the interests of establishing better relations with foreign lands. BETTER RELATIONS! they might as well open the dock gates and let any tom, dick or louse ridden harry, come sailing in without a by your leave.

Let the motley crews try and deliver this new fleet order. It was not going to be as easy as they thought. Funnily enough (and very sadly he proffered - with a look of abject regret on his face- to any who asked) there was little or no money in the coffers left to implement all the changes. The boatyards were not going to make all the necessary adaptations and alterations for the price of a pint of porter. Oh no. And, for those captains whose ships had already been mortgaged up to the hilt, any rise in the penal interest rates already being charged by those mercenaries at the banks would cripple them - and then who would they turn to. Hmmm?

Captain Pickles knew that letting crews do what they wanted was a recipe for disaster. Always had been and always would be. So he would employ the simple logic of divide and rule. He would positively encourage division in the ranks and 'Local Ships' to the point where the whole operational edifice became so monstrously unwieldy and wrought with in-fighting that the call would go up for a firm hand on the tiller again and his would be first to the helm. Combine that with a little local difficulty re-emerging in the south seas (he wondered how that would happen - ho, ho, ho) and if the plan worked he'd be back in charge of the fleet within the year.

The candle by his side flickered briefly. A stray draft perhaps. No matter. He had his girth to keep him warm. There it was again and now the cabin began to spin in front of him. Damn those sweetmeats, he guessed they had been rat all along. His laughter ceased as a spiral of ectoplasm apparated at his side. A ghostly figure shimmied within a cloud of mist that turned the cabin stone cold. Icicles formed instantly on the rafters and the candles guttered out.

The insubstantial form spoke. "Pickles" it said, "Pickles, we know what you are about and I have been sent to warn you that nothing good can come of it". "Rescind your orders, make good new ways and your soul will be spared the everlasting torment of vegetarian dining and nouvelle cuisine".

If there was one thing that really captured Captain Pickles attention and that was any issue concerning food. "Who are yee matey and what do yer want with me?" Quavered the Captain.

"I am the ghost of Christmas Future. A spirit from years to come. I will show you the outcome of your foolish desires and make you change your ways".

Rapidly recovering some of his composure the Captain rose from his seat to look eyeball to eyeball with the transient form in front of him. He cocked his head and stared, squinting slightly to see if he could recognise the ghostly face, "You don't go by the name of Gummer do yee?"

To be continued........

Lets Play Validation!

2010-11-26T12:31:00.000Z

Lets Play

“VALIDATION!”

A game that all town planners can play.

VALIDATION! is a game of skill and cunning, pitting your wits against the application validation requirements.

Players pick a card to identify the type of application to be submitted. There are hundreds to choose from. Then progress round the board collecting reports and plans from your fellow professionals before obtaining enough to make your planning submission.

Be the Authority and challenge other players to see how quickly they can get an application accepted. Your aim is to balance an oppressive workload against a limited staffing level and secure maximum planning fees, whilst meeting stringent application deadlines. Consistently ask for more information, irrespective of the need for it. Charge humungous fees for Pre-App meetings without giving too much away. Use your “Lost in the System” card to delay and send applicants back to 'the office’.

Or be the applicant and try to meet your clients’ unfeasibly tight development deadlines for proposals that appear to challenge every single policy aspect in the development plan. Guide your team through the planning application labyrinth, but beware those last minute changes and only submit when you’re convinced you are ready. Avoid those deadly “There is a problem with your computer which has had to close” cards, that loose forever the last 10 pages of your carefully crafted supporting statement.

How many additional documents and plans will you be required to submit before your application is deemed valid? Use your knowledge of the new process to argue the toss with the Council.

You’ve spent hours calculating the required planning fee only to find that you apparently owe twice as much. Use your professional skill to negotiate your way through the fee regulations.

Applicants are ranked according to ability:-

Three or more submissions before validation: Amateur – a likely outcome for beginners to the game
Two submissions: Professional – product testing suggests you will achieve this level after at least 50 submissions
First time submission: Genius (or dead jammy) – you’re spending way too much time in the office

The winner is the first person to have their application fully validated (only to find that a statutory consultee requires even greater detail - despite prior consultation - so that the application is immediately scheduled for a delegated refusal and you have to fall back on the free go).

Now buy VALIDATION Plus! – all the thrills and spills of the basic game, but this time you’re on a fixed fee basis. Control those external costs, negotiate S.106 and unilateral Infrastructure Charges and explain to the client why your timescale and cost estimates are extending into infinity.

VALIDATION!

You won’t live to regret it!

With thanks to RICS Books ( www.ricsbooks.com )

Extract taken from Ian Butter's Book "The New Planning System - Questions and Answers" (2009)

Planning Costs!

2010-11-24T15:07:00.000Z

No sooner has the government introduced the opportunity for councils to make up their own planning fee tariffs (as from first April 2011) but quicker than a rat up a drainpipe a coalition of authorities has made submissions to try and have fees charged for listed building applications.

Up to now listed building consent applications have attracted no charges but clearly things are about to change. And if this is permitted then similarly conservation area consent and a raft of other secondary applications will all too soon be the subject of additional fees.

Now don't get me wrong, this is an inevitable result of the harsh spending review and the resultant "downsizing" of planning and other authority departments. It comes as something of a surprise now if a day goes past when I don't receive a standard e-mail response advising me that the relevant case officer no longer works for the authority. Departmental budgets have been mauled to within an inch of their lives and a lot of very capable professional staff are facing a rather bleak midwinter.

Yet correctly if I'm wrong but I thought it was the principal philosophy of the coalition government that economic development would be our salvation. We are expected to develop our way out of the recession delivering high-quality, profitable schemes that support thousands of jobs and house millions of people. Facilitating that proposition - at a time when even the most straightforward of developments is going to be subject to a raft of additional hurdles (not least local referenda) - must surely be one of the governments principal tasks. Opening Pandora's Box in terms of planning charges is therefore a brave and potentially damaging move.

Clearly the charging regime is designed to retrieve the real cost of servicing the planning system and at one level they seemed reasonable. But within a seriously cash strapped authority where do you draw the line between a reasonable recovery of costs and making provision for every last paperclip, telephone message pad and instant coffee sachet. And what is more, will we actually see a commensurate raising of standards and performance delivery, or are we simply having to pay more for a lower quality product in the future?

The charging regime for the average planning application could include a fee for most if not all of the following:

pre-application advice
the planning application fee itself
fees for supplementary applications such as listed building consent
fees to discharge each and every planning condition
section 106 obligation charges; soon to be replaced by community infrastructure levy
other charges levied through supplementary planning guidance

And this does not take into any account the substantial increase in application costs resulting from the alarmingly draconian validation requirements; where the ‘safety first’ principle has resulted in significant additional time and money commitments often to no real purpose.

Even quite straight forward planning applications of no significant economic benefit to the applicant (other than perhaps allowing them to continue their business) are becoming prohibitively expensive. For the average applicant the prospect of wearing their credit card out simply achieving permission is unlikely to be attractive.

This trend will do two things. Firstly there will be much more work for enforcement officers as applicants begin to "go their own way" rather than incur the cost. To some extent this is already evident. Secondly these costs will be passed straight on to the end user where possible, particularly perhaps where residential development is concerned, leading to higher end values overall.

Economic development is a two-way street. If the government are serious about encouraging economic growth to create jobs and wealth in the sunny uplands of The Big Society, they must realise that placing additional hurdles and costs in the way of a diminishing group of economic enablers is not going to fulfil their aspirations.

Right. I’m going to check down the back of the settee for any loose cash. I’ve some applications to make.

The Continuing Adventures of 'Captain Pickles' - Ahoy there! Alors

2010-11-04T21:51:00.000Z

Captain E Pickles was furious. You could say apoplectic. It was difficult to tell exactly how upset he was as a third helping of plum duff was masking his increasingly blue language.

"Fwhatft doth te blithwering idioth thin heth do in", he sprayed unapologetically into the face of his First Officer, Scrapps, who was trying to duck the worst of the puddingy shower.
"I'm sorry Captain, to whom are you referring" said Scrapps in his rather public school voice. Given the twists and turns of the last week or so his Captain could be referring to any one of a number of shipmates.

Commander Cables' outburst earlier in the week - that fleet vessels should 'get their act together' if they wanted to benefit from the recently pirated doubloons - had not been helpful. Quite why the smaller ships were being encouraged to raft up together was beyond Scrapps. Yes, they might be able to share a smaller crew to keep them in repair, but that would be as good as useless if they had to go to sea in a hurry. And this was meant to help grow the fleet back to full strength! He didn't get it. The reference to a 'begging bowl culture' was equally insensitive - it was a natural state of affairs for many of the low status ships in the outer harbour. Ravaged constantly by the worst of the weather, a begging bowl would be a positive aid to some of them.

Pickles lurched out of his chair staring incredulously at Scrapps, eyes widening to the size of saucers. "Whoom, Whoooom, vu bwiverin irriot" he screeched, "Ver breedin fking, vats whooom". A mix of masticated dough and sauce oozed from between clenched brown teeth as he stared fixedly at his evidently cretinous second in command.

"Aye Captain I follow your drift now; the King".

Only that morning King David had sent message to the fleet that henceforth they would be part of a new rapid response force jointly with - he winced - the French. Saving money was one thing, but sailing into battle with the Frenchies was definitely off the Beaufort Scale, and the Captain of the Fleet was not pleased. Not pleased at all.

Captain Pickles threw back another flagon of mead. "Correct me if I'm wrong Scrapps, but didn't we stuff the French Fleet in the Battle of Sluys in 1340".

"Yes Captain your naval history is correct" Scrapps confirmed, fawningly. The slaughter was appalling apparently.

"And, if I'm not much mistaken Scrapps, the recent Cup match at Trafalgar went no better for em, even with the bloody Spanish running onto the pitch at half time". Scrapps nodded.

"So what in all that's holy does our glorious leader think he's doing? he opined sarcastically, as he slumped back into his chair - the large lunch beginning to take effect. "Why don't they just sail what's left of their flea bitten scows over here and save wasting our powder and shot?" It was evidently a rhetorical question.

Captain Pickles sighed and speared an apple from the fruit bowl with his hook. "Do we have a decision from the assizes yet"? Earlier in the year he'd been a bit rash with the keel hauling of some crews who rebelled against the removal of Regular Seaside Sojourns and now some smartass scribe had taken his decision to the courts. Was he just being used to do the dirty work of the Silent Court? Could he get out of this quartering sea without shipping too much water?

Surely the outcome was a foregone conclusion though. Even if the Judge found him guilty there was little the unwashed masses could do about it.
The Masterplan had to be delivered, at any price. Only Pickles new the real truth and it preyed on his mind.

Where Have all the Rural LEP's Gone?

2010-10-29T18:52:00.000+01:00

So, Localism is out of the window already then. And the Bill is not due until the 22nd November!

This week saw approval of the first 24 Local Enterprise Partnerships. Following a line up in the Head Teachers' (Vince Cable) office, the red marking pen was wielded on the other 30 or so submissions. He gave them all a C minus and requested the miscreants write their essays again ('and tidy up your handwriting while you're at it lad'). In a recent speech he had already pointed out that most LEPs were “hopelessly fragmented and will have to get their act together” so it perhaps comes as no surprise.

What became immediately apparent though was the desire for larger LEP groupings - so called Super LEP's. Kent and Essex got it together so to speak (ooer) from the off and have been duly rewarded.

But 'Please Sir' I had this weird dream that regional level control was not meant to be the way ahead. I thought that those bullies the Regional Spatial Strategies had been expelled and the forthcoming localism Bill was destined to have us all working in neighbourhood groups at a micro level. "Stupid boy - you clearly didn't understand the question".

Fragmentation and local level determinations are evidently NOT the answer the examiner was looking for. And if you look hard into the Open Source Planning curriculum you will see the same degree of benevolent dictatorship being exercised there too.

Just looking at the south-west, we have the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP. Fair do's. County level at least. But what about the 'West of England' LEP. Must be the rest you think. Nope, its a grouping of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. Not exactly the full set you might conclude. The Coast to Capital LEP is a combination that covers the whole of West Sussex, Brighton and Hove, the Gatwick Diamond and the London Borough of Croydon. But what happens to East Sussex for example, lying as it does between The Kent and Coast/Capital axis. And don't ask about East Anglia or Northumberland. Looks as if they've had to take letters home to their parents.

What really bothers me is that rural Britain is poorly covered at the moment and could slip by the wayside as the limited pot of tuck-shop money drains rapidly away into early bids by the established LEP's. I doubt the Headmaster will hold some sticky buns back for those who got lost on the cross-country run.

Here is a list of the Approved LEP bids:-

- Birmingham & Solihull with E. Staffordshire, Lichfield & Tamworth
- Cheshire and Warrington
- Coast to Capital
- Cornwall & the Isles of Scilly
- Coventry & Warwickshire
- Cumbria
- Gt. Cambridge & Gt. Peterborough
- Greater Manchester
- Hertfordshire
- Kent, Greater Essex & East Sussex
- Leeds City Region
- Leicester & Leicestershire
- Lincolnshire
- Liverpool City Region
- Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Derby, & Derbyshire
- Oxfordshire City Region
- Sheffield City Region
- Solent
- S.E. Midlands
- Stoke-on-Trent & Staffordshire
- Tees Valley
- Thames Valley Berkshire
- The Marches

- West of England

The Continuing Adventures of 'Captain Pickles'

2010-10-17T11:54:00.002+01:00

Captain Pickles wiped a dribble of pie gravy from his cheek with the back of his wrist and surveyed the paperwork on his chart table. This super-hero work was all well and good, but the attendant admin seriously interrupted a continuing series of speaking engagements whilst in harbour, that primarily involved the consumption of at least three courses in the finest taverns. His interim petite dejeuner didn't even get close to filling the rumbling void.
Five months in and he'd already completed a great deal of 'The Masterplan'. True, in the coming week his senior ratings would have to put down some pesky uprisings about the legality of removing Regular Seaside Sojourns and he'd had word that some of the fleet were beginning to rebel about his changes to housing crews in multiple occupation. Just what was all the fuss about. Surely they could see that this was all for the greater good, the delivery of the Big Society.
No matter. The unwashed masses clearly could not begin to comprehend the scale and cunning elegance of 'The Masterplan' and he wasn't about to go cap in hand to the Admiral of the Fleet with his petty problems. Truth to tell he was a tad worried about the impression the growing noises from some of the smaller ships might be making back at the fleet anchorage. He didn't want to give the impression he couldn't control these scurvy crews. He'd just have to be tougher - lash a few of the more vociferous to the yard arm - wield the cat to corral the mutineers - run another series of restrictive flags up the mast. He banged his hooked fist on the ships bell.
First Officer Scrapps heard the bell and instinctively leaped out of his hammock. What now? He had only just returned from shore-side after the debacle over trying to convince the dockyard that they needed a period of ship price stability. The lack of orders over the last few years had put the price of shipbuilding through the proverbial cabin roof. That was the trouble with clearing the shipping lanes of privateers, there were just too few left to keep the market going.
He'd tried to persuade them that by scrapping shipbuilding targets and co-operating with the fleet auxiliary they could begin to deliver meaningful quantities of new ships that would be snapped up immediately. They were not convinced. The previous problems of rafting fleets of rotten hulks together and flogging them off to unsuspecting pirates looking to make a fast buck on the high seas had led to very stormy waters and they weren't about to go back to making sea going vessels that didn't deliver enough gold to cover their shareholders demands.
The Captain's voice bellowed down the passageway - "Scrapps, get in here. I have another cunning plan". Scrapps winced, pulled on his sea boots and scuttled into the captain's cabin. "I need you to go and tell the fleet that they're going to have to amalgamate their crews - fewer, larger ships is the way ahead with fewer Captains. That way the landlubbers don't get a chance to divide and rule".
Scrapps alert mind went immediately to the heart of that idea. "Surely Captain, in our shallow and shoally waters we need smaller craft, able to manoeuvre at speed. If we build larger ships they'll be unable to get into harbour".
"Exactly" pronounced Captain Pickles. "We keep the unwashed masses on shore, away from the crews, so we don't get any of that landlubber dissent creeping up the mooring ropes". Scrapps was not convinced.
"How does this play with "The Masterplan" captain?" he queried. "I thought the idea was to return the control of the fleet to the people?"
Captain Pickles popped a small sweetmeat into his mouth and surveyed his junior officer with a mixture of pity and annoyance. "What we tell the landlubbers and what we actually aim to achieve are not necessarily coincident", he said conspiratorially. "It's all about the interpretation of the flag messages, not exactly what they say". Scrapps held his piece. He knew enough not to contradict his Captain. "Certainly Sir", he said, saluted, turned smartly on his heel and left.
Scrapps returned to his cabin and took a fortifying swig from a nearby bottle of grog. Grabbing his newly sharpened cutlass he made haste for the gang plank. Instinctively he knew this was going to be the start of another lousy week in the dockyard.

Tax Increment Financing (TIF) - Options for Rural Regeneration

2010-10-12T22:53:00.000+01:00

I've noticed creeping mention of yet another potential tax based means of generating cash for regeneration schemes - the TIF or Tax Increment Financing. Now, this means absolutely nothing to me and possibly not to some of you too, but at today's Northern Regeneration Summit the issue of TIF's was raised in the Developer's and Investors Forum and appears to be gaining some credibility at Government level.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg Nick Clegg announced at the Liberal Democrat Conference that "Tax Increment Financing (TIF) would be introduced in England as part of measures for “breathing life back into our greatest cities”. Note the use of the word 'would'. The Northern Way has said that Tax Increment Financing could be a key source of funding for UK regeneration during the downturn. And Boris Johnson has given it the thumbs up as well.

According to Wikipedia:

TIF is a method to use future gains in taxes to finance current improvements (which theoretically will create the conditions for those future gains). When a development or public project is carried out, there is often an increase in the value of surrounding real estate, and perhaps new investment (new or rehabilitated buildings, for example).

This increased site value and investment sometimes generates increased tax revenues. The increased tax revenues are the "tax increment." Tax Increment Financing dedicates tax increments within a certain defined district to finance debt issued to pay for the project. TIF is designed to channel funding toward improvements in distressed or underdeveloped areas where development might not otherwise occur. TIF creates funding for "public" projects that may otherwise be unaffordable to localities, by borrowing against future property tax revenues.

Effectively TIF is a means of funding infrastructure development by borrowing against future tax revenues and has been around for some time and is a common form of regeneration funding in the US.(Is this anything like buying bundles of houses to fund city bonuses with revenues based on future market price rises?).
Now, call me a boring old cynic if you like, but quite frankly this strikes me as just another in a continuing series of snake oil sales pitches. Lets assume for the minute that the development is sufficiently significant in commercial terms to generate meaningful future tax revenues. How are these captured? In the UK all property tax receipts go straight to the Treasury and their largesse is then redistributed to the needy masses. So any generated funds are not necessarily going to be delivered directly back to the point of development. It also assumes that the scheme will in fact create a tax increment. Regeneration schemes may simply sustain an existing revenue level rather than add to it. Major housing and commercial development schemes may draw this technique into play. In the US most TIF schemes appear to be in the multi-million dollar range. In rural areas the likelihood is that development initiatives based on a TIF are going to be few and far between. The odd eco-town perhaps. Its practical use on a day to day, rural-scale, scheme would have to be very carefully determined in order to establish just how (much needed) revenues could actually be derived.
Regeneration initiatives and requirements are not solely the province of urban areas and rural Britain needs just as much attention. I wonder if this Government is going to be so wedded to almost any three-card-trick as a means of raising cash that they will fail to recognise the needs of and provide for the rural sector.

The Rural Property Portal: Changing Government - Rural Community Survival Str...

2010-10-09T14:58:00.000+01:00

The Rural Property Portal: Changing Government - Rural Community Survival Str...: "The 20th October is fast approaching: the day when it is expected the Coalition will reveal the full extent of the cutbacks necessary to pla..."

Changing Government - Rural Community Survival Strategies

2010-10-09T14:54:00.000+01:00

The 20th October is fast approaching: the day when it is expected the Coalition will reveal the full extent of the cutbacks necessary to place Britain back on a sound financial footing. The rural sector has already seen some significant changes. For example, the Commission for Rural Communities is not long for this world, The Pub Saving Programme has been withdrawn and funding for rural transport initiatives is unlikely to materialise as local authorities tighten their belts to size zero for the forseeable future. And, as noted last week, the initial round of Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) coverage for rural areas is something of a curates egg (good in parts).

Yet it is often in the face of adversity that beneficial initiatives rise to the surface. The Community-Owned Pubs Support programme was a three year £3.3m support programme which would have helped fifty communities across England to set up and run community-owned pubs. Following a “Co-operative Pubs Summit” in August, representatives from a range of co-operative organisations have agreed to step in to provide support to some 82 communities left stranded by the government cut.

The Plunkett Foundation actively supports the network of 246 community-owned shops across the UK and manages a specialist support scheme which provides funding and advice to communities looking to set up and run a community-owned shop. The success of this scheme, which in 2009 opened 39 new community-owned shops therefore saving around 10% of village shop closures, was used as the basis for the development of the Community-Owned Pubs Support Programme.

Might a similar cooperative approach now fall to be put in place for shops and other community facilities?

And what of development led Community Infrastructure Levy. CIL legislation entered the Statute Books in April and is open to local authorities to adopt, in preference to S.106 Obligations. There is something of a big stick involved in encouraging such action too. Surely any new resident to a rural area is (subconsciously or otherwise) looking for those community elements that typify 'rural life'. Why not use CIL to sustain the local pub, community shop or village hall, instead of worrying quite so much about the drains - important as they are.

We used to see requests for a 'percent for art' (in those heady days when heavily overprices street-clutter was the order of the day) so why not a 'percent for pubs' etc.

I was discussing tourism initiatives in Torbay this week and the increasing need for beneficial linkages between businesses. If you run a B & B providing breakfast but no other meals, what would be wrong in negotiating a deal with the local pub/restaurant to provide evening meals as part of a package. And if you're the pub owner, what are you doing to facilitate that linkage?

I'm sure these simple examples merely scratch the surface of a wide range of ideas, but they are often localised and difficult to unearth. So, a key objective will be for rural areas to share good practice, new ideas, smart thinking.

In November the The Plunkett Foundation’s Annual Rural Social Enterprise Conference series takes place and is considered essential for anyone interested in social enterprise and rural development. The 10th in the series, Better Business will explore how social enterprise offers the strongest and most viable model for rural communities to take ownership of the issues that affect them. Further information at: http://www.plunkett.co.uk/newsandmedia/news-item.cfm/newsid/443

Captain Pickles

I was discussing the increasingly confused and unexplained future for planning with a colleague recently and he happened to refer to Eric Pickles our planning supremo as 'Captain Pickles'. I quickly googled that and found that Captain Pickles is in fact a super-hero; who'd have known? And he even has his own theme tune:

I'm Captain Pickles - what a guy!

I can run and jump and fly!

I'm a hero, through and through.

Pretend that you are too!

Well. My flabber has never been so ghasted.

The unholy mess currently being made of the town planning system must be part of some super-cunning plan that we mere mortals cannot even begin to comprehend. Much respect therefore to Captain Pickles and I take it all back - ................................. or maybe the word 'pretend' has more than a little relevance!

Captain Pickles is a character in the children's TV show Barney the Dinosaur - and he's a pirate!!!!!!

Local Enterprise Partnerships - The Rural Perspective

2010-10-03T11:33:00.000+01:00

Following a useful interchange on @ruralworkspace earlier last week, I rather rashly suggested I would review the approach being adopted by Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP's) toward rural areas in their recent submissions to Government. Little did I know what faced me!

Almost immediately Vince Cable (Business Secretary) broadcast that most of the 56 bids are simply not good enough. Apparently three out of four of the LEP's (that are to replace regional development agencies (RDA's)) would need "a lot of work", being "hopelessly fragmented and [they] will have to get their act together".

Excellent. So as the new Government you scrap the existing framework propose a wholly new format that is poorly explained and understood in purpose, set infeasibly tight timescales that would make even the 'just in time' experts blanch and then complain when a hastily cobbled together submission doesn't come up to your exacting standards and expectations - even though you haven't actually explained what they might be. Then, just to rub a little more salt in the wound, tell the LEP's you're not going to give them much of the £1bn regional growth fund to play with anyway. I thought that was their purpose in the first place!

'That's just what they'd be expecting Mr Bond muwahahah...'

And has the new Government learned from past experience? Has it b........ Was it not the previous Government who decided to reform the planning system in 2004 only to find its grand plans crashed and burned on take-off? And we languish today in a policy lacuna between old out-of-date Local Plans, the new Local Development Frameworks (the few that there are) and Government still spewing out new dicta with the force and continuity of a time-served Mr Creosote from Monty Python.

For goodness sake guys give it a rest. Take a deep breath and stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

But I need to get back to the plot - In the interests of not smashing my fist into the laptop at every key stroke.

RURAL ISSUES IN LEPS's

Clearly the excellent work of the Rural Coalition, Commission for Rural Communities and organisations like the Country Land & Business Association (CLA) and others I'm sure, has brought the travails of the rural world firmly into the public domain. Sadly not all LEP's have got the message.

Having reviewed many of the submissions they do tend to replicate the broad, generalist statements that appear in so many policy documents - 'we will support the rural economy' ; 'rural connectivity will be improved' .. and the like. Others refer back to the on-going Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE). I use the word ongoing advisedly. Not a lot of substance. The Black Country submission does not have the words 'rural' or 'countryside' in their document at all - despite the facing picture of a cyclist in a country lane. More surprisingly, neither does the LEP for East Anglia.

There seem to be some potential overlaps between LEP's too. For example The North Tyneside and Northumberland LEP appears to cross cut with the Association of NE Councils submission, with common themes into the bargain. The East Anglia submission evidently overlaps with that for Norfolk. I have a feeling that this patchwork quilt approach to LEP's could leave some areas entirely devoid of positive support, with developmental focus being targeted toward those LEP areas that have access to the cash. However, others have gone to greater lengths. Hmm. I'm beginning to see why Mr Cable was less than enthused.

Perhaps some of the most important aspects of the submission are the supporting statistics and positive statements. Here is a snapshot of some of them:

Norfolk LEP notes that rural SMEs are almost 65% of VAT-registered enterprises in the whole county! Over 3/4 employ less than five people
Staffordshire LEP notes a significant rural community accounting for 75% of the land area, 20% of the population and 25% of all businesses
'Rural-based businesses are essential to not only the economy of the area, but also the cultural and social fabric' (Northamptonshire)
In Surrey 99.5% of businesses are small and medium enterprises. Of these Surrey has a relatively low level of medium-sized businesses, with only 2.3% of its businesses falling into the 50-199 employees category.
'Our rural economy is among the largest in the country, with new opportunities associated with food technology and the development of tourism' (Kent and Essex)
'Combined, Essex and Kent will have the largest rural economy of any Local Enterprise Partnership area, worth over £10 billion per year'. (Kent and Essex)

Don't tell me that rural England is unimportant. If you want economic regeneration and the delivery of localism in the true sense of the term, avoid addressing the needs of rural areas at your peril.

Here's a suggestion. Why shouldn't there be an LEP submission in the next round (and there will be a next round by the look of it) entirely devoted to rural areas. The Rural Coalition have pretty much prepared the document already.

I propose the "Integrated Rural England LEP" that will specifically co-ordinate and deliver the rural agenda expressed in other LEP's and provide cover and support for those areas not embodied within other plans. Perhaps the CRC (as re-born) could provide additional manpower to facilitate.

Just a thought!

Free Rural Property Listings with www.ruralworkspace.co.uk

2010-09-27T22:00:00.001+01:00

For a limited period The Rural Property Portal is offering free property or classified listings on www.ruralworkspace.co.uk

This new website provides a focal point for online access to the rural commercial property market, associated services and products both in the UK and overseas.

How it works:

You may wish to market a particular property, product or service, or simply ensure a wider online presence for your business, using the portal as a gateway to your own website.

Whether you’re a property agent, landed estate, rural business, Parish Council, local authority or private individual, you can upload and adapt information as often as you like to your own portal pages.

There are no agency subscription charges or transaction fees. Having secured your portal pages they are yours to use as you wish for a whole year. You can add more pages at any time.

Each portal page provides space for photographs and company logo’s, can be detailed with key criteria as well as general descriptions and location information, in the same way as sales particulars.

Online visitors can search the site for free without needing to register, identifying suitable properties by type, tenure and/or geographical location, including a map based option. They can make contact with you directly through your portal pages.

Professionally developed and regulated by the RICS our role is to help you reach a wider market and provide the public with a single point of reference for rural property, services and products.

For more information please visit the site at http://www.ruralworkspace.co.uk/classifieds/view/9/

or contact: sales@ruralworkspace.co.uk

The Grant Shapps Speech and Rural Housing

2010-09-24T03:25:00.000+01:00

In his speech to the National Housing Federation Conference yesterday (22nd Sept) Minister of State the Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP set out his views amongst other things on the Community Right to Build, drawing particular attention to rural housing. He noted that:

Community Right to Build

We are committed to devolving power to the people. Letting people have control over decisions that affect them.
The Localism Bill which will be introduced later this year will pass an unprecedented amount of power to locals.
Out with top down controls, and in with incentives through the powerful New Homes Bonus - working with the grain of what communities want rather than what Whitehall dictates.
Making sure that a slimmed down Homes and Communities Agency are the people you turn to when you want to get things done or if you like jargon - an enabling agent for change. I want the Agency to hand more of its power and control away to local communities. I am not simply referring to the possible transfer of its London functions to the Mayor. I want all communities to have more of a say in what happens.
I know that The National Housing Federation and Matthew Taylor have been calling for rural housing to be more affordable. That is precisely what the Community Right to Build will do.
Subject to legislation, we will give rural communities the right to build the housing and community buildings that they know are needed. As long as there is overwhelming support in their community. And on the subject of overwhelming support, I have listened to a broad range of views, including representations from the National Housing Federation. And so today I can announce that I have concluded that rather than requiring 90 per cent of residents to vote in favour of a Community Right to Build project…
We will instead be introducing the scheme with a threshold of 75 per cent local backing in a referendum.
This will allow communities to bring forward the development they want, while still ensuring they are supported by the overwhelming majority of the local community.

It all sound jolly positive and well intentioned, but the simple truth of the matter is that even at 75% (let alone the ludicrous 90%) the threshold for achieving anything meaningful is likely to be a major constraint on such positivity. Referendum or no referendum.

What I particularly liked from the speech transcript were the dot dot dots that provide an anticipatory pause before the wonderful news that the Minister has been able to significantly change his mind by no less than 15%. I wonder what analytical basis was used to determine that such a change would in fact be a valuable alteration and give rise to greater success in achieving the aims set out previously.

There are few areas of social life where any sizeable group of people can be unanimous to that extent. Even the winning fans at a Premier League football match will differ in their views on Management tactics and team selection on the day.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for local input. But it is hard enough getting decisions through the Council nowadays as it is, without seeking referenda every five minutes on all kinds of development, from an unspecified 'local' populous, with "..unprecedented amount of power"
who in the main don't really care, unless the scheme is located on their doorstep - at which time they are normally very vociferous in their opposition.

There are so many unanswered questions about how this is going to work in practice that I could go on almost indefinitely. And I'm sure your glad that I wont.

Winning or Losing?

2010-09-18T21:14:00.000+01:00

I have just deposited my son in halls of residence to start his first year at University. Despite the heady mix of pent-up excitement, bravado and barely contained panic, he put a brave face on it and stoically kissed his mother goodbye, shook my hand and disappeared into the bowls of the Student Union. I don't know how things will work out and I don't expect he does either right now, but with diligence and hard work (and not a little fun along the way I have no doubt) I expect he will do well.

This scenario is no different whether you are starting a new business, launching a website (such as www.ruralworkspace.co.uk) or creating a wholly new approach to planning, as currently proposed by the Government. The distinction with the last of these is that my lad will be tutored by experts in their field, the website was contrived by the bright young coding and design chappies at 84Labs Ltd and new businesses normally have a clear idea of their market and often consult with a range of specialists.

The Government seem to have adopted a different approach. They have contrived to confuse and dismantle the current planning system, whilst proposing a wholly new strategy to be launched in a white paper next month that may not come into operation for some 12 months. It's like closing a long running business and then re-opening it without any clearly defined product for sale and putting the business plan out to public consultation. The implications could be significant and there is a groundswell of concern beginning to build.

The Rural Coalition report ‘The rural challenge. Achieving sustainable rural communities for the 21st century’ sets out some very useful pointers for Government and - in the same way that I hope my son will listen to and learn from his lecturers - I do hope that the Government will recognise the needs of rural areas and not ignore the collective wisdom of those who have a clear and longstanding understanding of rural Britain.

Hathersage Business Centre Recognition

Shortlisted for the RIBA East Midlands Awards 2010, we have just heard that Hathersage Hall Business Centre is also now a finalist in the Derbyshire Times Business Awards 2010, for the Most Innovative Property/Building Development category. This prestigious new rural office development has also been cited by the CLA as a lead case study in the controversial Rural Challenge Report (which was published on 16 August by the Rural Coalition)

http://ruralcommunities.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/RuralCoalitionWEB_MH.pdf

Town Planning Frustrations and Opportunities

2010-09-05T11:12:00.000+01:00

After 30 or more years at the coalface of town planning it still never ceases to amaze me that a large majority of planning officers and their committees remain negatively disposed to any rural scheme that even remotely involves development outside of agriculture. Though even farming needs come in for a hard time nowadays.
What makes this even more frustrating for the well intentioned applicant is that once a scheme is out of the ground and operating successfully those same guardians of the countryside revert to self-congratulatory expositions of how clever they were to support and encourage the project in the first place.
The examples of this volte-face planning system are legion and one or two remain deeply seated in my mind. For example: the farmer who wanted to convert buildings to holiday lets which were eventually granted (following an expensive appeal) in the face of outright local authority objection, only to be featured on the front cover of that same authority's tourism brochure as an example of excellence in their holiday accommodation provision. He got his own back as they hadn't bothered to ask him first and had to pull the whole years print run.
Or what about the rural office schemes that sought to restore heritage buildings whilst providing valuable stepping stone accommodation for locally incubated businesses. I can think of four straight off the bat. The initial policy obfuscation was followed by multiple trips to committee and a grudgingly granted consent subject to an alarming array or conditions designed (one might think) to filibuster the scheme. The time and costs involved ratcheting up at every turn. Only to find that once the scheme was occupied with local businesses and being held out for architectural and other awards the authority immediately jumps on the bandwagon to the extent you'd think they paid for it themselves!
Now, it is true that councils have a tough job in balancing protection of the environment with sustaining the rural economy. There are always those who will seek to abuse the privilege (building houses in haystacks and the like). Up to now, national planning policy hasn't helped either. The pendulum swung rapidly into the deep green sector and stayed there for much of the last decade. However, the Taylor report in 2008 and new Planning Policy Guidance Statement PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth begins to redress the balance with more positive statements concerning rural economic initiatives. More on this in a later blog.
The real test will be how authorities adapt to this potential shift in approach. Will old habits die hard, or can applicants reach a position where imaginative and beneficial initiatives are identified by councils at the outset and positively supported in the interests of the rural economy? The jury is still out. But at a time of critical need in rural economies can these sorts of schemes really be ignored in the mistaken belief that the environment will be mortally wounded. The evidence proves otherwise.

Launches and Lease Terms

2010-08-31T09:44:00.000+01:00

We're off and running. A week in and there have been some tentative enquiry's and three registrations. Excellent. There can be little more worrying in any new business venture than waiting for that first phone call - or in this day and age the computer ping of a new email message dropping in to the inbox.

There remain one or two technical glitches, but nothing that cannot be sorted out by the trusty chaps at 84Labs I'm sure. Now the mind runs to whether that's it. Is the rush over? Don't panic, don't panic!

Lease Terms Shorten
An interesting article in PropertyTalkLive.co.uk (Link below) over the weekend suggests that four out of five small businesses will dodge rent reviews. Not the most helpful title perhaps, as the point is really that small businesses are currently seeking shorter lease term deals. No surprise there perhaps, but it's still useful to know that office lease lengths are averaging 4.7 years with 4 years for industrial and 5.4 for retail. A drop of between 0.5 and 1 year over the last 12 months.

The average lease length for an SME (small and medium sized enterprise) is 4.1 years compared with 6.6 for a large company. Perhaps the more interesting figure here is the latter. Even large companies are seeking to limit their exposure to long term commitments. This is probably not focussed on avoiding rent reviews so much as enabling flexible change if and when required.

The rural workspace sector is no less prone to these trends, but is perhaps more used to dealing with short-term tenancies than its urban counterpart. If not, why not? The rural workspace market is a vital nursery for new business and property providers must recognise the need for flexibility. The inability to react quickly to changing tenant (and market) circumstances can result in long voids and a sensitive cash flow position. More on this again soon.

In the mean time my eye keeps flicking to the corner of the screen for the reappearance of that little yellow envelope - who will be next to appear?

http://propertytalklive.co.uk/component/content/article/38-commercial/4207-four-out-of-five-small-businesses-to-dodge-rent-reviews?tmpl=component&print=1&page=

Starting Out

2010-08-26T09:41:00.000+01:00

Blogging. Hmm. This could be a bad idea. Too many opinions and so little time.
I've just started a new venture (www.ruralworkspace.co.uk) which aims to provide an online portal for rural commercial property, services and products.
What does this mean?
Having worked in the rural property sector in the UK for decades it never ceases to amaze me just how difficult it can be to uncover suitable places from which to run a business and the support services necessary, despite being a relatively small geographic area. The portal seeks to focus public attention from two directions - firstly the individual or agent who has property to rent or sell, and secondly the potential owner or occupier. Around this, acolyte services and products can be marketed to both groups.
And this is not just limited to rural Britain. Work in Denmark and visits to other parts of mainland Europe and North America indicate exactly the same problems.
So. Here we go. I will be blogging about relevant rural issues, pointing out opportunities and if you have any, answering your questions or possibly pointing you in the right direction.