likely to prejudice the member's judgement of the public interest." Those rules are being applied too tightly; the judgment has to be that the application clouds their judgment so much that they can no longer discern the difference between their interests and the public interest, which may, of course, completely coincide. It is not just me who says that the pendulum of prohibition has swung too far, so that it is a kind of gagging order on local councillors. Earlier this year, the Committee on Standards in Public Life published a report, in which recommendation 28 stated: "In planning decisions the ability of elected members to represent con- stituents' interests where they have personal and prejudicial interests has been unnecessarily diminished." ….. it continued: "This should be changed to give any elected member the right to speak (but not vote) for their constituents at a planning committee meeting . . . provided"— and it then gave three perfectly reasonable conditions. The first is that "a declaration of personal interest is made", the second is that "the representations are made in an open and transparent manner", and the third is that "the member making the representa- tions . . . withdraws at the completion of their representa- tions."


… Steve Webb continued by detailed a specific planning matter that had surfaced within his Northavon constituency…...


Steve Webb concluded with this peroration… My worry is that councillors are now frightened of tripping over the rules. They are frightened of being


taken to the Standards Board for England. There is concern about over-use of the board, maliciously or by people who did not get the outcome that they wanted. I talk to councillors and ask them to speak out, but they say, "I can't say anything before the meeting, because if I do I will not be seen to be unbiased." The public do not understand that.


The report acknowledges successes but is critical of poor standards and frequent failures.


The report: recommended increasing the minimum density standard of new housing to 40 dwellings per


Ministers told to toughen density controls


The Government’s main consultants on urban planning have encouraged ministers to raise the minimum density standard for new residential development and called for the National Code for Sustainable Buildings to be extended to all new housing developments by the end of 2006.


These suggestions, plus a recom- mendation to impose a countrywide "density direction", come from the persuasive Urban Task Force, which questions the quality of much recent urban regeneration. Lord Rogers, distinguished architect and Urban Task Force chairman, wrote the introduction to the report. He welcomed the government's recent track-record on urban policy. "For the first time in 50 years there has been a measurable change of culture in favour of towns and cities, reflecting a nationwide commitment to the Urban Renais- sance", stated Rogers.


5


hectare. The Task Force has also made a case that any development proposed at a lower density should be called in, irrespective of the English region involved. (At present, this "direction" only applies in three English regions).


According to the report: "The majority of new developments remain poorly designed, with public realm and buildings of a very low quality. Where some good practice has emerged, it tends to be in smaller 'infill' schemes where designers can relate to an existing context. However, too many housing projects are just that - thoughtlessly laid out groups of cheaply built fragmented residential units relatively isolated from surrounding communities."


The Task Force has argued for a greater emphasis on good design and better urban master-planning. "Strict design codes, such as those used for planning layouts, are no replacement for well-informed design professionals."


The Task Force has emphasised the need for better resourced urban development companies and criticised the present multiplicity of bodies and government programmes involved in regenera- tion. The report noted that urban transport decisions were too often taken one by one "in apparent isolation from their impact on re- generation".


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24