{"id":1742,"date":"2010-09-07T10:04:20","date_gmt":"2010-09-07T10:04:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ihbconline.co.uk\/newsachive\/?p=1742"},"modified":"2010-09-07T10:04:20","modified_gmt":"2010-09-07T10:04:20","slug":"think-tank-residential-planning-by-ballot","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=1742","title":{"rendered":"Think tank: residential planning by ballot"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/strong>The Government has been urged to adopt a system of \u201ccommunity-controlled\u201d planning with housing schemes allowed unless 50 per cent of those directly affected by the proposals object by a ballot.
\n<\/span>
\nUnder these proposals from think tank Policy Exchange, developers would be free to offer financial incentives to households to back schemes as well as inducements to local residents in return for supporting development. This could involve paying for a park or a playing field.<\/p>\n

According to the report: \u2018Making housing affordable\u2019, developers would have to take on board local concerns about the quality of new homes and would have to propose homes that local people approved of.<\/p>\n

In the case of National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) existing planning rules would remain in force. In addition, a local authority would be able to designate up to 75 per cent of its existing undeveloped land as \u201coff limit\u201d to developers.<\/p>\n

The authors of the report said that if councils wanted to build social homes they could grant themselves planning permission so long as they won the support of those directly impacted. Funding would come from central Government bonds. Councils, though, would no longer be able to require developers to include social housing as part of their developments.<\/p>\n

In addition, the report called for the scrapping of all density and other housing targets arguing that the more consensual model proposed where developers and residents worked together \u201cshould hugely increase the numbers and quality of new homes built\u201d.<\/p>\n

Report author Alex Morton said: \u201cIt should be up to local people how much development is allowed near them, through ballots of those affected by proposed developments. The cash incentives will be bigger in areas where housing is more expensive, meaning it is likely that more homes will be built in areas like London and South East England.\u201d<\/p>\n

The report argued that the Coalition Government\u2019s current planning reforms were not radical enough, pointing out that the scrapping of regional housing targets \u201chas led to even fewer councils saying that they plan to allow development in their area\u201d.<\/p>\n

These proposals are included as part of a strategy designed to increase the supply of homes and stabilise property prices.<\/p>\n

A Communities and Local Government spokesman said: \u201cThe new Government has wasted no time in shifting power away from the centre down to local communities. We have launched the New Homes Bonus, which will ensure communities benefit financially when they back more housing, and the new Community Right to Build will give communities the power to build new homes, shops and community facilities where they are needed.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Search Planning Portal: LINK<\/a>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Government has been urged to adopt a system of \u201ccommunity-controlled\u201d planning with housing schemes allowed unless 50 per cent of those directly affected by the proposals object by a ballot. Under these proposals from think tank Policy Exchange, developers … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1742","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sector-newsblog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1742","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1742"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1742\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1743,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1742\/revisions\/1743"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1742"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1742"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1742"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}