The Balancing Act: Navigating Planning Regulations and the Power of Local Voices with John Pearce

Unlock the mysteries of planning regulations and their real-world applications as John Pearce, a seasoned planning expert, joins us for a riveting exploration of development orders and local democracy. This episode is a must-hear for anyone keen to understand the tug-of-war between government mandates and community rights. We delve into the world of Class Q development and SDOs, dissecting their implications on projects like the Wethersfield Air Base asylum center, where government authority often clashes with the will of the people. Prepare to be enlightened on how these powerful tools can both aid and undermine local concerns in the face of urgent development needs.

The conversation gets even more gripping as we discuss the role of local scrutiny committees in monitoring government overreach and the legal arsenal at the disposal of local authorities to halt unauthorised constructions. From the complexities of enforcing planning regulations to the nuances of judicial reviews, this episode lays bare the intricate dance between enforcement and local governance. Discover the high-stakes game of planning enforcement, where every move can have lasting impacts on the community fabric, and how recent judicial decisions are tipping the scales.

Finally, we illuminate the empowering potential of community engagement in shaping neighborhood plans amid recent legislative changes. This discussion is not just about the bricks and mortar of planning law but also celebrates the community's voice in the development narrative. We highlight the importance of local participation in planning processes and how it can leave an indelible mark on the future of neighborhoods. Whether it's through green energy initiatives or heritage centers, the legacy left by residents' active involvement can echo through generations. Tune in for an episode that not only informs but also inspires action and involvement.

Chapters

• 0:06 Exploring Planning Regulations and Government Orders
• 12:27 Local Planning Authority and Development Orders
• 28:45 Enforcement and Review Options Discussion
• 35:41 Neighborhood Planning and Community Involvement

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:06

Hello and welcome to the Field Association on Air. We are a group of residents who are passionate about tackling all aspects of local and national government decisions that affect local communities. In each episode, various members of the Field Association will be exploring a range of subject matters, discussing all the angles of each issue and interviewing those who can add an expert or helpful point of view. So grab yourself a tea or coffee and listen in as we look to navigate through these current challenges. Okay, so in today's podcast I've got John Pierce. Now John's local and obviously compared to someone like myself, but I would say compared to a lot of people and expert around the planning side of things, and we thought it'd be really interesting to get John's view on some of the terminologies around planning, what said, what that means and how that impacts on where there's field, particularly the, obviously the base as such. So welcome John. Thanks for joining us on the podcast.

Speaker 1: 1:08

The best thing to do is just a little bit about your background, please, john, and also sort of your involvement with WASC and sort of what WASC is. Just remind our listeners, please.

Speaker 2: 1:19

Okay, well, so my career was spent in planning mostly with the London borough and East London In the last few years. Well before that I was at Baselton Development Corporation building the Newtown, which I know people got various views about More now, laterally with London borough, dealing with mostly with policy in the last few years, also many years before that, in what is now called development management, which is dealing with planning applications and enforcement. So it's a total mix of experience across various aspects of third-town planning. In the last few years I was responsible for policy development, which would be the local plan, with responsibility for trees and conservation, environmental management, including sustainability, interspersed with periods as head of development management dealing with enforcement and planning applications.

Speaker 1: 2:32

Okay, well, that's really quite a mixed background actually, but all involved in planning, enforcement and that sort of thing. So one of the things that we've got quite used to over the last year or so is, this term, class Q, particularly in respect of Weatherfield Air Base, where, of course, the asylum centre is up and running to some sort of degree. Can you just remind people what is class Q and what are the parameters around that?

Speaker 2: 2:56

Okay, well, probably people are probably more familiar with what's called the general development order, which is an automatic permission given by Parliament to exempt the need for planning permission. So most of us that involves extensions and porches and dormers of a certain size, but most of us are fairly familiar. But you can do certain things without permission as a householder. The general development order has got over 40 different classes of development which you've got automatic permission not just householders, but highway authority, drainage authorities, electricity undertakers, all kinds of developers, but one of them is Crown Land. The Crown has exemptions under that order and within that the Crown has got very extensive powers under emergency powers and that is part Q. Q is Crown Development for automatic approval given by Parliament, but it's subject to certain restrictions and that is it's got to be involved with an emergency.

Speaker 2: 4:11

And that is where the whole issue has been argued about over the last year or so with the number of authorities, including Franchry ourselves, gabe and challenge this and Lincoln West Lincoln was, lindsay challenged it and what part Q emergency actually means. What is an emergency? I think many of us think that what has happened at Weathersfield is not an emergency because it's something that emerged over time. It wasn't an earthquake, which is what you can expect in the government development response to an emergency. Covid maybe could be an emergency, or certainly an emergency, but placing the Sonam Seekers of Weathersfield probably is arguable and that's what we've been arguing about for the last 12 months. That's part Q.

Speaker 1: 5:14

Okay, so, like you say, the technicality of this round isn't an emergency, or isn't it? I mean, that's almost what the argument boiled down to, isn't it? And my understanding is that the Class Q can only be effective. Is it for 12 months? What happens after 12 months?

Speaker 2: 5:31

yeah, it used to be six months. It's now 12 months since COVID. After that 12 months, the temporary consent lapses. I should have said that it's an emergency response, but only for a limited period. At the end of that 12 months, it goes back to the rest of us needing planning permission.

Speaker 1: 5:51

Okay. So now, obviously part of the argument has been that the government surely you knew this was going to be longer than 12 months. You were never going to set this up and then roll it back up and disappear within 12 months. And, of course, the arguments that we all heard was no, that was absolutely the case. It's only ever going to be 12 months, and it was only after it started that we thought, oh well, hang on, perhaps we could do it for a bit longer. So, whether that's the case or not, but if they want to do it a little bit longer, then we move on to something called an SDO. So potentially, I'm assuming the government have to come out with something at some stage, because the 12 months will be up soon. So if that is the case, what is an SDO, john? What does that lead us into then?

Speaker 2: 6:35

Right, what we just talked about, the Part Q, was a general development order which applies to everybody in the same bit of legislation. A special development order is like a one-off that the government can use and that applies to very specific developments. It's very rare that it's used. It was used as part of the Brexit chaos. If you remember, at the ports they introduced special development orders to allow certain development, to allow easier access across the channel. But it's very rare and what it is is an order which the government lays before Parliament, the same way that a general development order is, and it gets Parliament to give this planning commission direct to the government. And in this case it would be a special development order for an asylum centre at Wethersfield and it would be laid before Parliament. It has to be laid for 40 days and, assuming the Parliament agrees it, then the minister signs it off and gives it planning commission, the minister being the ha prem.

Speaker 1: 7:51

Okay, so that one thing that you said there which is really interesting is the the SDL special development order that's laid is specific to what's going on up there, so the asylum center at the moment, I'm assuming. Now, of course, there has been some talk in the past about prisons. If they wanted to continue down the avenue we don't know if they will or they won't, but would that be a separate order or would they? Could they combine one order to cover both potential outcomes? How would that work?

Speaker 2: 8:24

I think the prisons is a rather different case, so clearly permanent, especially development orders are usually seen as usually it's not often used, but I'm expecting to be a fairly temporary proposal, like in some maybe three or four years. The Home Office has said it's going to apply for three or four years, but at Wethersfield now the prison would be the subject of a planning application and the slight complication there is is that the government has recently put forward the levelling up and regeneration bill which has now been enacted. So it is law now approved just before Christmas, and this is a bill which effectively gives the Crown the right to make a planning application to itself and grant planning commission for virtually anything that it cares to mention. Now, unfortunately, we're rather I can't say blessed, but we've got this very large site on our borders at Wethersfield Airfield which is owned by the Crown. The Crown now has the power to give itself planning permission for virtually anything it likes.

Speaker 2: 9:49

Situation before the Act was that the government could give itself planning permission for something that was urgent. It had to be in the national interest. Now, virtually everything the government does could be said to be in the national interest, but it had to be urgent and it was quite a complicated process. So that process was never used by the government and it was enacted in 2006 by the Labour government when they abolished the overall ability of the Crown to give itself planning permission for anything. The government required the Crown to make a planning application, except where a proposal was urgent and in the national interest. But, as I say, that has not been used because of the complexity of it.

Speaker 2: 10:47

Now the Act that's just gone through simplifies the urgent cases and, in the words of the minister when he introduced the bill, he said this would allow asylum centres, for example, to be agreed in days rather than months.

Speaker 2: 11:04

So it's clearly directed at that kind of situation. Now there's another part of that bill and it's an extension of that, to allow non-enriched cases, and when introducing the bill, the minister said that would allow the government to develop prisons. So clearly that is directed at that kind of situation as well. So what it means is that the planning application is not made to brain tree, as was the case as planning authority. It would be made by I think stand at the moment by actually the Minister of Justice directs to Michael Gove, who's currently the responsible Secretary of State. Michael Gove will then decide the planning application rather than the planning authority. Now it will be a consultation process, so, effectively, brain tree will become a consultee in the same way that we're a consultee when brain tree received planning applications. Brain tree will be a consultee, just like us. So it does circumvent the local democracy to a very large extent by cutting out the local planning authority and therefore local communities. So it is so.

Speaker 1: 12:23

Okay. So, John, you just mentioned goodness, there's so much information there. But let's take the SDO then for a start. So the SDO is for a short period of time, so if that is three, four, five years, whatever it is, what generally happens if a special development order is laid, is it a bit like the class Q, where after that period of time then everyone packs up and it goes back to what it was? Or can it be extended? How does that work? Just that part of it initially.

Speaker 2: 12:50

Well, the order is not so constrained in the same way that the general development order is, because it's unlike the general development order which applies. You know, it's an order which, as I say, applies to 40 separate classes of development and that's always been laid and agreed by Parliament. Especially development order hasn't been laid yet, so we don't know what the precise terms of that order will be, but I hope obviously have said they intend to lay an order to allow the asylum center to continue for another three years.

Speaker 1: 13:26

So on that that makes complete sense. But then with the new powers that the government have got, why don't they just instigate and do the asylum center on the new living up sort of powers and just forget the SDO and say, well, let's just build a funky asylum center up there now.

Speaker 2: 13:43

Yeah, and that's a very fair point. We've been saying that the last for us 12 months almost that the government had 12 months to make a planning application. They could have gone through the normal process of going through for entry or make a plan application and get proper consultation, proper impact assessment of all the relevant impacts which we're getting familiar with traffic and contamination, and social cohesion and all the rest of that. That could have been properly considered. Well, the government's going to curtail all that by making a special development order which is giving itself another automatic permission, but not part Q, because that was only for 12 months. So I get around that by laying a special development order for three years. So it's the same kind of idea but it's not constrained by the terms of the general development order, which is the 12 months. The emergency point special development order won't be constrained in the same way because the Home Office will be making the same, making a planning application in its own terms, laying it before Parliament, and if Parliament doesn't object then it goes through.

Speaker 1: 15:01

So there's a little bit not depressing but concerning. I mean, basically, even though there are checks and balances in theory in place, what we're saying is these different mechanisms available to the government, because they probably know that the suggestion of asylum center or prison will be unpopular and might not hit some of the planning elements that they need to, and targets and restrictions, but they can almost just override this. So that's kind of in summary, what those three elements allow them to do, isn't it?

Speaker 2: 15:35

Yeah, yeah. What it would effectively is is Parliament overriding local democracy. And I could say what parliament is democratic? Elect parliament. And he can argue. That's part of the parliamentary process. Where it does does cut out the scrutiny that a local planning authority would apply, because instead of having quite a long period to look at all the ramifications of the proposal, it just becomes a consultee. It could presumably give 21 days, like everybody else, to respond, so you don't get the same level of scrutiny as you would if it was an application to the local authority, which is actually very familiar with local circumstances and local people's feelings.

Speaker 1: 16:25

all that, I think, will be removed, so that's what it is Parliament, and, if I'm reminded, that's what really wasque was. That was the whole point of wasque, wasn't it? It was to scrutinize what was going on and look at the whole objectively, look at the planning side of things, wasn't it? Is that correct?

Speaker 2: 16:45

Yeah, in WOSC emerged when we've got the consultation document from the Ministry of Justice for the two prisons and I think there's a misunderstanding of what was being proposed. Well, basically, confusion. It wasn't very clear, the proposals was being clear, where exactly is to be placed. And there's a lot of concern across the whole of this area, not just Wettersfield and Finchingfield, but across a whole host of parish councils in the area. So Wettersfield called a meeting of parishes and 13, 14 parishes turned up to a meeting. So meeting and it was pretty clear that everybody was unanimously pretty outraged by what was coming forward. So the result of that was to you can't, there's no such thing as a, an inter-parish council. There is no mechanism in law. But Wettersfield came up with this mechanism whereby Wettersfield was set up, wosc Wettersfield Airbase Scrutiny Committee to which all the other parishes they're interested would be invited to become a member. So WOSC is comprised of 13 parish council members but all under the umbrella of Wettersfield Parish.

Speaker 1: 18:18

Council. That makes complete sense. Okay, so there's other elements, though, that are at the disposal of local authorities, and there's two in particular that we keep hearing in the news and appearing in court and all sorts of bits and bobs. West Lindsay District Council have certainly implemented this when it comes to Scampton, and those terminologies are a stop notice and an enforcement notice. I mean again, would you be kind of because there's so many different elements flying around just to explain to our millions of listeners, john millions Just what a stop notice is and enforcement notices, please?

Speaker 2: 19:00

I think what the best way I can explain it is to just relate it to you and I first, because the complications arise when it comes to Crown Lod and if we build an extension the back of our house there's more than what is permitted automatically under the development order, we're in breach of planning control. The decision is to whether the authority decides to do anything about it is there, so they've got complete authority to take action where it's expedient. A breach of planning control is not a criminal offence. You haven't broken the law at that point. You do later on, but at that point you don't. So the local authority has to decide whether what you've done is actually planning objectionable Not that you've done it, but is it objectionable.

Speaker 2: 19:59

In other words, you know, would it have got planning permission had you applied?

Speaker 2: 20:03

If you would have got planning permission, then they would consider expedient that's the words of the act to serve you with an enforcement notice. But if it is objectionable you know you affect your neighbours or it looks awful or whatever, then it's open to them to serve enforcement notice against you. Now you then have the right to appeal against that. Now one of the grounds of appeal is that you didn't need planning permission for it. That's relevant. Come on, spark you in a minute. But assuming you go through the appeal process, if you lose the appeal, then you don't comply with the notice which will give you a certain number of days to remove the offending structure. If you don't comply with that, at that point it becomes a criminal offence, but only then, and at that point you could be prosecuted. That's, that point is not criminal offence. Now, moving on to the crown, the crown owner. Rather advantageous position, because you can't prosecute the crown At the end of the day or for anything, which makes it rather complicated. Now, however, in planning law, you can serve enforcement notice against the crown Even though you couldn't prosecute if at the end of the day they didn't comply with it. You can serve it. Ordinarily the crown would be respectful and comply. But they don't have to. Ordinarily that's what they would usually do if they got enforcement notice. They kind of get the idea they go along with it. But in the case of our Park Q situation, when they reach first occurs, that is when they started implementing the 12 month period, which was around about March of last year. They did it by replacing windows and doing some fairly cosmetic things, putting up temporary fences, and although that was development I know it's a breach you wouldn't or narrowly have considered it expedient to enforce against it. Right, because it's fairly minor. If you were replacing windows and some of those barret blocks, you probably wouldn't object too much. Fairly innocuous kind of development, not really enforceable.

Speaker 2: 22:45

Now, as time has gone by, we've got these porter cabins and the policy for the base is that that's in the local plan. The policy is that it's outside a development boundary of a village or a town and therefore it's countryside and countryside policies apply and therefore you shouldn't be building development of that kind in the countryside. So you have 100 supporter cabins here and that would, to my mind, be enforceable and ordinarily, if I was the planning officer, I would be thinking about serving on enforcement notice. Now I'm not clear why I'd brain-treated having done that, but there's also the issue of a stop-notice. Ordinarily If you and I were carrying out development and we got enforcement notice, we could also get a stop-notice attached to it. You don't have to and again, that's fairly unusual. The stop-notice stops what you're doing dead. If you've built something, it's probably too late, but if you're in the process of building it and it's clearly going to be unacceptable, then you could have got a stop-notice saying stop and you'd have to stop not carrying on finishing it. Now, theoretically, the council could have seen all these border cabins going up, which would have been a breach because there's certainly development, and they could have served a stop-notice saying all right, stop, no more.

Speaker 2: 24:25

Now the problem with stop-notice is it carries compensation risks to the local authority If you get any enforcement notice and there's doubt about whether you needed planning permission or not, which in this case there's been doubt because of Part Q. We've been going through the courts and the last lady justice found against us. She found that planning permission was not required. Now if that was the outcome on a planning enforcement case, then there's a risk of compensation and the compensation would be based on the cost of stopping somebody doing something that didn't need planning permission. That makes sense. So in this case, if you stop them picking the border cabins in and required all the asylum seekers to leave, because there's obviously a change of use as well, which is development then there would be a compensation risk of the cost of doing that, of putting them back at hotels or whatever it might be, and that cost. And I don't know whether that was a reason why the authority hasn't gone down that route, but it may well be because the cost could be quite hefty.

Speaker 2: 25:54

What's not quite so clear is why they didn't serve an enforcement notice on the border cabins as they started to emerge Now. The problem now is they've got this judgment from Lady Justice Thornton in the High Court saying that planning permission is not required, and that would be a complication, should we say? And serving an enforcement notice where there's a risk of the outcome being from an inspector would be a different process. It would be a much more detailed investigation. There'd be all kinds of witnesses called to a public inquiry. It's a totally different perspective to a judicial review which is simply looking at whether the Home Office acted unlawfully. This would be based on whether there was a planning justification for serving an enforcement notice. But as time's gone on, it's become more difficult for the authority to serve an enforcement notice. I think they could have done earlier, but that's their decision. They've obviously got reasons which I don't know.

Speaker 1: 27:10

Well, that's an excellent explanation and that just shows how tricky in some ways, how tricky the situation is. You look at West Lindsay and they've gone, enforcement and stop, and what we do know is that no asylum seekers so far have been placed. Speaking to someone in situ up there recently, it was quite interesting, in fact I'll get her on the podcast at some stage she was saying that they're still doing tinkering behind the scenes but haven't done some major expansion. And of course, as I say, there's no asylum seekers come on. In Weathersfield there have been asylum seekers come on, and so there's an obvious well, one did do an enforcement and stop and that seems to have been quite effective. One didn't and that seems to have created some sort of situation.

Speaker 1: 28:00

But almost what you're saying is it's not just that simple and the transparency thing has always been something that's been challenging because it's come on, braintree District Council, why aren't you explaining what's going on? I'm talking to us about this, but what you've just explained, it's quite difficult to get your head round. I mean, who are they going to have this conversation with? Almost who are they going to explain the conundrum with about whether we do or we don't? So clearly this has been done behind closed doors. And then, of course, the government were quite cheeky in the respect that they called, from memory, an emergency one day on TV, didn't they National emergency? And the next day, literally almost under the cover of darkness, snuck some people in and went. Well, they're there now, you know, unlucky. So there's a number of moving parts to this, isn't there?

Speaker 2: 28:49

Yeah, and that is the injunction that was served by the local authority which did attempt to stop the process early on. That was a legitimate attempt to do it. The only difficulty with that is that you can't serve the junction on the crown and although Braintree argued that fairly valiantly, the judge wouldn't accept that. But this was an enforcement. There's an argument about whether this injunction was related to enforcement situation and the argument was it wasn't, and that was very arguable with because there was no enforcement at that point. There was before there had been a number of asylum seekers put on the site and portocavins had arrived. Well, it jumped and tried to do stops a future event happening, rather than enforce the situation that already occurred.

Speaker 1: 29:49

That makes sense. So to ask the question then and what you said made sense about is potentially more difficult for BDC Braintree District Council to serve an enforcement notice now, but is it still possible, whether it's the right thing on us to, is it still possible even at this stage to do so?

Speaker 2: 30:10

Oh yeah, it is possible to serve enforcement notice. Anyone who's been up there can see there's a vast number of portocavins, which clearly contradicts policy. There shouldn't be any building in the countryside apart from buildings that you expect to see in the countryside a farm building or something of that nature, something that's in a rural area. Normally that is permissible in policy, but not what we're seeing up there now, which is a vast number of portocavins that have got absolutely nothing to do with uses in the countryside. So there's certainly a policy objection to it.

Speaker 2: 30:46

The enforcement notice could be served and if it were served there could be an appeal process or it could be a public inquiry and the inspector could hear it and it may come to a completely different view to Lady Justice Thornton. It's quite possible if they heard all the evidence. Yeah, and Lady Thornton was, as I said, was looking at the judicial review process and whether the Home Office had made an unlawful decision to proceed to the development. Well, in her view, again, it's arguable. I don't know if we're going to appealing it but again, if you or I, if we made a judgment as to whether we were going to build a porch on extension, we think we've got planning permission and we decide to go ahead, we would become open to the potential enforcement situation Now, whether that decision we made was unlawful, it was completely entitled to come to a view.

Speaker 1: 31:55

So if I was to pin you down, maybe unfairly, and say if it is unfair, but if I was to pin you down because from what you've said, I would say, listen, bdc, if you, what you've come out and said is not the right place, you've done an injunction, you're fighting this, you're going for an appeal. All those things on the JR side of things the judicial review, the enforcement notice it kind of seems to have worked to a degree at Scampton. Everyone seems to be talking to each other. Almost why wouldn't you, from what you've explained, that'd be. I'm sitting here thinking, well, wouldn't you do that? But is that fair? Would you come to the same conclusion? Or is it slightly more complex?

Speaker 2: 32:36

It comes back to what I was saying earlier on on our simple householder thing. There has to be a planning objection to what you're doing, not the mere fact you've done it. Now at Scampton, I believe there are different kinds of consider how the listed buildings involved you said they hadn't implemented it what they enforce. If there's no asylum seekers on site, no building works, there's nothing to enforce, there's no breach.

Speaker 1: 33:07

So it has to have been a breach then to enforce, which could have been some starting building works or some such thing.

Speaker 2: 33:13

yeah, it could have started building works and I believe there's listed buildings. There may well be reasons why there's experience in serving enforcement owners. In our case, I don't think it was expedient. Early on all the cameras appeared. It became more expedient because it's clearly against policy. It's become more difficult because we've got a judgment now.

Speaker 1: 33:45

But what you've just said, john, is it's a different process. So the judgment is going in one direction, but potentially enforcement notice if I've understood correctly what you said would be a slightly different route and assessed in a slightly different way.

Speaker 2: 33:59

Yeah, they're different purposes. The enforcement route is to remediate a planning breach. The judicial review is not to remediate a planning breach. It's to see whether the public body, decision maker, namely the Home Office and the Department of Levelling Out and the Ministry of Defence whether their decision making was illegal. Was that my legal decision they took? Did they take it unlawfully? The judges said, well, it's hard to make a decision. I'm not saying they shouldn't have made a decision, but the judges saying, well, they made the decision lawfully.

Speaker 1: 34:42

Okay, so it's an option that's still on the table, but it's really up to the local authority to decide whether they can do that.

Speaker 2: 34:49

It's a localism. I think it would be good if they explained why they decided not to. That would be quite helpful.

Speaker 1: 35:00

Yeah, that'd be really useful. Okay, well, listen, let's explain the stop all and the enforcement notice. That's brilliant. Hopefully everyone's got a better understanding as to what they are. A couple of things to finish up with, really, john, the neighborhood plan. One of the things that's been talked about is well, what are you going to do with the site? It's not being used for a sign or whatever. I know you're slightly involved. We did a podcast on the neighborhood plan. Any updates on anything to add on the neighborhood plan? How that could be useful.

Speaker 2: 35:29

Yeah, it's still progressing. I think that's a fair question to ask. Why are we bothering? Because it's owned by the Crown, they can do what they like in theory. But the law, as I said, has been changed to allow an application for a prison to be made direct to Secretary of State Michael Gove. At the moment he will be the decision maker. Effectively, it's like an appeal being made against the local authority decision. They're going direct to the government and cutting out the middleman, if you like.

Speaker 2: 36:04

The government, like the local authority, have still got to decide planning applications in accordance with the local plan. That is still a legal requirement. The all planning applications have to be decided in accordance with the development plan, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. So the neighborhood plan is part of the development plan. So whatever the neighborhood plan ends up with has to be respected by Michael Gove as a decision maker, because he's required by law to have regard to it. Now if he wants to override the local plan, he has to have other reasons to override it.

Speaker 2: 36:48

Now we've seen in recent decisions with other prisons elsewhere very recently Gartery, for example, that the inspectors are found in favor of the local authority, and the same at Chorley the inspectors are found in favor of the local authority recommended refusal that would have suited Wethersfield necessarily and then the minister overriding that on the grounds of national importance and jobs.

Speaker 2: 37:18

And we've always said from the beginning of WOSC that all the planning considerations can be trumped by those two things of national importance and jobs. So we've had some very good local people involved, helping WOSC, the technical group, looking very thoroughly at national interest and jobs and come up with very good arguments as to why they shouldn't override normal planning objections of landscaping, tax, traffic, ecology, heritage, all those kind of usual things would not, we don't think, be overridden by the jobs advantage to the area or the national interest because it's such a poor location from a prison's perspective. So it's still worth doing a local plan which involves the base. It's not all about the base but it's still worth pursuing because that sets the policy position for it which has to be taken into account whoever makes the decision, whether it's the local authority or whether it's the government.

Speaker 1: 38:31

That's brilliant. So basically, the message is get involved in the neighborhood plan, get involved with the meetings, put in your two Paineith Worth, because it will have an impact, well one for generations to come what's up there, but also on the whole planning scenario. So with the neighborhood plan and John, I know there's been initial round of meetings. There's been some output from that, isn't there? What's the next step of the neighborhood plan that will be coming soon to local people?

Speaker 2: 39:01

We've got responses to the survey that went up for Christmas. We've had about 360 responses to that, which is quite a good response. If you're taking one per household there's the 367s probably better return than the local elections. So it's a good response. They're being analyzed. We've done a quite detailed analysis of what people feel. It's very interesting the views coming forward. You know the limitity on certain things, like why they come in, what they love and so on. Then we've got a housing needs survey which was looking at what people's housing requirements were over the next few years. There's been a number of responses to that. That's being analyzed independently of us, the Royal Council for Essex. So that's being looked at so that can feed into what the local housing requirement is. We tie that up with a wider requirement across the district and beyond so we can do a comparison. So that's being analyzed.

Speaker 2: 40:17

The next steps are to set up some focus groups to try and establish some objectives and a vision of the area. That will then lead into the preparation of policies which would apply for the next 10 or so years. That then becomes part of the development plan how to go to Braintree. Braintree then has to. They don't prove it as such. But you have to make sure it's consistent with the regulations, certain conditions that have to be met. Then at that point, on Braintree, you have to take it under their wing and progress it through an examination with the independent examiner. If that is agreed, then it goes to a local referendum. I'll final approval. 50% of those people who vote have to agree to go forward with it and that becomes part of the development plan.

Speaker 1: 41:20

Well, I think what's really interesting about what you've said there and, in fact, the whole process, there's a small number of people that have really put loads of time, effort and energy and knowledge into this to make this happen.

Speaker 1: 41:34

I would wholeheartedly urge people in the local community to get involved. I mean, it'd be terrible if there was an apathy around this, because my understanding is, having seen some of the results, that the number one concern is around the base and what's going to happen and the impact on everything from house prices to mental well-being because of some of the reasons why people want to live in the countryside and in rural areas and those sort of things. And we have a real chance here as local communities to actually put forward ideas. And some of the ideas about the uses for the base are fantastic, and they include everything from green energy coming back into the grid and even to put back into the site itself, through to some sort of small housing, veterans' houses or some sort of things, and different heritage centres from the museum and, of course, some of the heritage elements, the Cold War stuff that's up there. That's correct, isn't it? There's so many opportunities and it would be a legacy for the local community, wouldn't that?

Speaker 2: 42:44

I agree. It is a great opportunity, and probably the only opportunity we have, of shaping the plan, shaping the development plan, which has to be divided by unless there's some very good reasons why it shouldn't divided by not just, as I said, the local planning authority, but by the government as well. They have to have regard by law to the development plan, the recent acts that's been passed the Levelling Up the Generation Act gives greater strength to the neighbourhood planning and the role that communities should play in shaping their own environment, and that is enshrined in law. It's complicated by the fact that we've got this huge crown site next to us, so that's even more reason why we should establish a policy position for it.

Speaker 2: 43:36

It's not all about the base. There's a lot of just come back from these survey response. There's a lot of interest in the rest of the project, not just the base but the general environment and why people came here. Because of its beauty, of its landscape, of peace and quiet, of the ecology, of the heritage and so on. There's many, many good things about the area and it's got to be protected. And, as we're on the, there's a need for some development. There's a need for local needs, housing and we have the chance of saying where we'd like to sit, if we don't do anything, then it will be done to us on.

Speaker 2: 44:21

We go to influence it.

Speaker 1: 44:23

Well, I think that's an excellent comment. At the end, I mean, you're absolutely right. If we don't do something, it will almost be forced upon us, which is really pertinent message for people to take away, john, from your point of view. Anything else that I've missed, anything else you'd like to add or say, or should I go through?

Speaker 2: 44:42

I just think I'd like to say that this whole process has illustrated, I think, for the community together in a way that perhaps nothing else could have done, and the people that have come forward to get involved in this process, both in the Labour Plan and the team, which is a dozen people with very kind of useful skills All kinds of skills could be something very good at talking to other people, which is a very good skill in itself.

Speaker 2: 45:16

Other people like to bury their heads in data, and that's another useful skill. So a lot of different skills come together, not just in the WASC. The WASC technical team, which I'm involved in, has revealed there's so much talent in the community can achieve a lot just by putting this together. You know I'm also the same with the Labour Plan team. There's a lot of people involved, not just in the team, but also people who said they don't want to be involved in the team but they'd like to be involved in some way or other. People get involved in the periphery. That's great and it's been a really high-opening experience of what community planning can do.

Speaker 1: 46:02

Well, that's a brilliant way to end the podcast, john, and I concur with all of that. I think it's a great opportunity as well to say for anyone listening and to pick up on your point the skill set required and needed and the energy required is so vast. Whatever you can do, please get involved with or help or contact me in thefieldassociationorg email. Jump on the website and they've got links to all the various elements, whether it's the Swap or the Field Association itself, and get involved, because there's all sorts that everyone's involved with and it needs all sorts of skills. That's a really, really good point, and thanks to everyone that's involved, because it makes the whole thing, doesn't it? It makes the whole picture come together for us all.

Speaker 2: 46:46

There you go, excellent All right, john?

Speaker 1: 46:48

Well, listen, thanks for your time. I shall let you go back to your data crunching or number crunching or I don't know, looking at various planning orders or what have you, and Deffo speaks to you soon. So thanks, john. Thanks very much indeed.

Speaker 2: 47:02

Thanks, andy, this opportunity is for you.

Speaker 1: 47:08

Thanks for listening. We hope that you enjoyed this episode and found it informative. Please make sure that you subscribe to our podcast so you don't miss a single episode. If you have a question that you would like to raise, or if there is a subject that you think would make an interesting episode, please email us on the link below. If you would like to support the show further, you can do so by clicking on the link below as well. Until next time, goodbye.