Chris Barnett’s Post

Ending chaos with chaos? The government’s well-meaning ambition to deliver a simplified planning regime won’t be without problems. A new NPPF next week and a new Planning bill next month will make for interesting reading. We’ll be back with further analysis. https://lnkd.in/ecn3rCTa

Yesterday's much anticipated budget was an interesting one and will no doubt be debated, analysed and criticised by those much more qualified than me in the coming weeks and months. As with any budget it will please some and anger others. From a legal perspective an investment of £1.9 billion sounds positive. However, as with every sector receiving investment, the key to obtaining noticeable improvement is not the amount invested but how it is used. As a solicitor working in the civil law sector I am keen to see how that investment will be used to benefit the civil court system. There up to a 17 week delay between filing a document (application, statement of case, DQ) with some courts and it being processed. Those delays can increase if a hearing is required. Will the investment include more administrative staff at bulk centres, regional courts and the Civil National Business Centre to reduce those delays? Will more judges be appointed to reduce delays waiting for hearing dates or dealing with applications and directions on paper to progress cases quicker? Will there be more investment in technology? I would be interested to hear where my law and non-law friends and contacts think the investment should be spent. #lawyer #civillaw #budget #moj

Following on from the budget, take a peak at our latest blog for a low down on Autumn budget 2024: Winners & Losers!

In a classic case of ‘do as I say, not as I do’, legislation developed by central government requires all councils to develop detailed 10-year plans backed by 30-year infrastructure strategies with balanced budgets under the supervision of the Auditor-General. The challenge for central government is that it doesn’t have comprehensive asset management plans for schools, tertiary institutions, state highways, hospitals, public housing, police stations, etc., outlining how they will fund, build, manage and maintain these critical public assets for even the next five years, let alone 10. The Beehive simply trudges along year by year, drip-feeding financial commitments one media release at a time while playing down stories of stretched systems, asset failures, budget blowouts, building closures and mounting future liabilities. This a system that provides ministers and bureaucrats maximum flexibility to change whatever they want with minimal scrutiny. But the reality is this system has run down New Zealand’s public infrastructure. There is a faint light at the end of the tunnel for central government but it will require all the parties that make up our parliament to come together a make a commitment to taking a longer term view of infrastructure and develop plans capable of enduring changes in government. #assetmanagement #budgets #planning #government https://lnkd.in/gJ9-vP7s

Agree with this and Infracomm is about to release an Asset Management State of Play and Neil’s assessment is “bang-on” on my view. We have been trying to bring in asset management in some agencies but it’s not “sticking” as often under-resourced, under-governed and no-one is asking where it is. Just a note that proper Asset Management is at the strategic level including have we got the right assets, at the right place, at the right time not just about maintaining existing assets. I believe the strategic view is what has been missing in most central government i.e Kainga Ora doesn’t have the volume, type and location of social houses required hence has been in “catch-up”. I think we need to be clear that we are well behind the current demand in some sectors let alone factoring in future growth Jodie O’Doherty right on!

Catch up on the key points from the proposed updates to the National Planning Policy Framework yesterday: Strategic planning to be ‘universal’ https://lnkd.in/eYb5D9hu Householder planning application fees could be doubled https://lnkd.in/e7-MGAZU ‘Grey belt’ defined in proposed planning reforms https://lnkd.in/emh-g34T Housing targets to fall in London but rise everywhere else https://lnkd.in/e-ApxXwR

The blog provides a comparison of some old and new fees and includes a link to the Planning Portal's complete guide to fees applicable from 1 April 2025

The Ontario government has introduced Bill 185, the “Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2023”, which proposes to repeal a number of the government’s previous legislative changes. In their Update, Chris Barnett and Evan Barz provide their analysis of the proposed amendments to the Planning Act and Development Charges Act. https://ow.ly/Jkpz50RcLim #planning #landdevelopment

New planning application fees from 1 April 2025 is the latest blog from Jennie Baker and Seán Farrissey [Link in comments]. Following the Governments July 2024 consultation on planning fees, draft amendments to the Planning Fee Regulations have been published. If approved by Parliament, the new fees will come into force on 1 April 2025. In addition, the annual increase to planning fees will commence on the same day. This year the fee increase will be 1.7%, which will apply to the fees in the current Regulations. 

Last week it was my pleasure to present to Wellington City Council about the merits of switching from capital value to land value rates (NB: Link to video below). In short, I argue that land value rates would: - Be more efficient, equitable, and have positive externalities - Support capital investment (e.g. housing) and urban development Following my talk, Councillors were then presented with an opposing view, which instead argued the case for capital value rates. In my view, the presenter made three significant errors or omissions. First, the presenter interprets a higher R-squared between incomes and capital values as evidence that rating the latter would be more equitable. Unfortunately, the R-squared is not an appropriate basis for such a conclusion (NB: Rather, we're interested in the slope of the line). Second, the data that is used in this analysis is not a good basis for analysing the equity impacts of rating systems. Specifically, we want to understand the relationship between capital/land values and the income of *property owners* rather than *residents* (NB: Ideally, one would also use microdata, rather than averages by area). Third, the presenter argues that capital values are a better proxy for the use, or consumption, of council services. There are two key problems with this reasoning. First, if we want to charge based on consumption then why not simply adopt user charges? Second, and more importantly, much of the value of council services to users will ultimately be captured in land values. So, even when a property is completely undeveloped, such that it does not contribute to the consumption of Council services, the owner will still nonetheless benefit from these services by way of higher land values. Regardless of these points of disagreement, and regardless of which way the Council decides to go on this issue, I appreciated the opportunity to engage with Councillors on these questions. And I live in hope that other Councils in New Zealand will consider switching from capital value to land value rates in the future.