2. Creating good developments is hard. The best developments engage with local people at an early stage. Everything here suggests that engagement will be reduced. Planning permission can be "automatic" or you can give local people a real say in development. You can't do both.
3. As @JasonGood points out, where does this leave Local Plans, Neighbourhood Plans or the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework. Does everyone continue going through the motions, knowing these documents will soon be in the bin, or do we cut our losses and start again?
4. We have a desperate need to build more - and better - homes. Nothing here suggests a way to do that. It doesn't tackle the big issues around skills, land values, land ownership....
Robert Jenrick's plans wave a magic wand and say "You *can* have full local democracy, great design, high environmental standards, beautiful buildings and top quality infrastucture alongside automatic approval of planning applications and a streamlined system." It's an illusion.
For what it's worth, I absolutely think we can do planning better. Have national & regional development plans, scrap local plans, engage people in neighbourhood plans & masterplans that get down to the detail, then fast-track developments in line with what's been agreed.
The key is for local people to have a real say AT A TIME THEY CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Local Plans are mostly too early - guesswork about what might be built in 20 years. Individual planning apps too late - by then the decisions have been made. Masterplans are just right.
Oh, and in case anyone thinks, like Robert Jenrick, that planning is all about notices on lamposts, here's Stockport's fairly standard interface. Those physical notices and letters are still important though - it's how people find out about the plans
You can follow @slowbikeiain.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: