The Flaws and Efficiencies in Current System of Planning - Essay Example

1 Outline the flaws and efficiencies in current system of planning and briefly summarise in your own words, the reason given for change. The major flaws in the present planning system demanding change are The planning system is inaccessible and difficult to comprehend. Planning system, in general is perceived to be rigid. Planning system lacks transparency. Planning system is slow in decision making. Planning system does not incorporate community consensus before taking decision. Planning department does not possess customer orientation and lacks skilled staff. Planning department usually does not ensure the enforcement of the Planning Act. Defective planning system can ruin the development of a nation and negatively impacts the economy of the area. The change in planning system is recommended to ensure the new development happens at the right place and only when it is required. A perfect planning system can stop encroachment and save Greenfield land by promoting further development on Brownfield area. It leads to development of viable projects beneficial for community. Planning system needs to have transparency to gain community trust. It requires change to meet the present requirements of fast decision making ability, transparency to encourage beneficial developments only. Not to be overlooked, there have been benefits also of the planning - Planning has preserved the Areas of outstanding beauty and landscapes in national parks over the years. Planning has conserved important buildings and townscapes. Green belts have been preserved from urban development. 2. What is a ‘plan-led’ system of development control? What proposals are put forward for reforms of this system? The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 asserts that when an agreed development plan possess appropriate policies, then planning permission application will be determined in agreement with the plan, if other applicable factors does not recommend otherwise. Other applicable factors are called 'material considerations’. This delegates the priority to the Structure Plan and the Local Plan as the vital factors in determining planning applications. Therefore, the planning system becomes 'plan-led'. Also, the planning Service directs a development control system to ensure the adherence of projected new development to the current planning policies, development plan, and other "material" considerations. Focus of Development Control policies is on key planning and development issues impacting the direct users. These policies, developed from Core Strategy policies, are used in determining planning applications. The proposal for the reform of Development control system includes: Deflating tiers in plan hierarchical structure and providing clarity on their relationship. Focused plans at local level facilitating easy adoption and quick revision Increasing community involvement at the time of organizing the plans. Integration with local strategies and plans to be improved. 3. A new single level of plan is proposed to replace existing requirements for structure plans, local plans and unitary development plans. What might this be known as and of what will it comprise? The fundamental reform of single level plan proposed is known as Local Development Framework. It would encompass: Core policies statement clarifying local authority’s vision, plan for encouraging and controlling development across area. It would state LDF’s role in achieving vision for area with precise objectives related to development of area’s environment with time guidelines. The objectives would be shared with and approved by local community. Community involvement statement for community’s participation in review of LDF and development control decisions would be incorporated. Core policy will cover key issues of the area. It would be like spatial strategy taking care of policies relevant to Community strategy. Local authorities would be identifying smaller local areas of change like urban extensions, town centres and surrounding areas requiring improvement and detailed action plans would be prepared enumerating site specific policies guiding development. Specific to situation, the plan will be based on existing action plan or entirely new, avoiding duplication and reflecting local circumstances effectively. 4. Do you think the proposal put forward will be effective? Give reasons for your answer. The planning system is above fifty years old showing inefficiency with changing times. The change is required to regain the trust and to fulfill the objectives of planning system. LDF is formulated to deliver benefits of planning system by preparation of core policies statement encompassing plan and long term vision of local authorities for the area development. The core policy would include issues important for area development, being more of spatial strategy than policy. It emphasizes the importance of local community involvement for new development in the areas. Further, there would be action plans prepared by local authorities with map of areas requiring change. The clear policies and guidelines on area of change would be communicated to and approved by local communities. This system ensures the community involvement. Policies would be revised to keep them in sync with changing requirements of the area 5. Outline important shortcomings with the current system of building control and briefly summarise in your own words, the reasons given for change. There is no vision statement in place for building control Inter-relation between building control and other regulatory regimes is not clear. Stakeholder’s involvement in decision making is not effective. Regulations look complex. Regulations change too fast. Poor enforcement. Present system of Building control requires change because of inefficient processes and unclear objectives. The system poses many problems and does not enable clear understanding of regulations. Along with that, the always changing regulations make the matter worse as the industry never gets time to adjust to the change. The regulations always change probably because of absence of well formulated and concrete vision statement and policies. Improvement in Building control system would lead to stable environment, increased understanding, thereby increased followings of regulations , improved performance management and effective use of resources. 6. What are the ‘options’ in the Package? Do you think proposal put forward will be effective? Give reasons for your answer. Instituting vision and strategy for future of Building Control Modernising system New routes to observance Customer oriented approach Improving approach towards regulation Performance management and future capacity The proposed reform covers the flaws of the existing system and hence it would definitely be effective. It would focus on the clear policies and objectives and define the interface with other regulatory regimes. It would enforce the conformity with wider sanctions of compliance and simplify the dispute procedures. The customer friendly approach would be implemented with appropriate direction. There would be stability in the regulations with clearly defined pauses. The involvement of stakeholders would be there to reinforce building control profession. Part II D &A (Alan) and KNW Ltd (Dan) have entered into the construction contract.There has been a written communication between Alan and Dan which stands as good as agreement (Dean & Dyball Construction Ltd v Kenneth Grubb Associates Ltd) within the meaning of section 107 (2) (b) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. There has been a provision under Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 part II sub section 2(B) which can be hereby applied. (a) If the agreement is made in writing (whether or not it is signed by the parties), (b) If the agreement is made by exchange of communications in writing. D&A submitted a price quotation for the construction of two houses {3 Bedroom, semi-detached houses} for £95000 each on D&A letterhead style form consisting of D&A’s standard business terms and conditions which also consisted a term clause “The contract price might be varied according to the cost and availability of labour “which was reviewed by DAN MAXWELL confirming the order on a telephonic conversation and later well accepted by K&W LTD through written communication sent one week later. On the order confirmation letter there was no price variation clause but did contain a time bound clause “time was of the essence and the order was not valid unless acceptance was confirmed by return post”. In the agreement due to the mutual trust of both parties the payment terms or the dates were not disclosed and hence the section 110briefed below of the above said Act and the scheme applied to the contract. (Conor Engineering Ltd v Les Constructions Industielle de la Mediterranee) 110. Dates for payment (1) Every construction contract shall- (a) Provide an adequate mechanism for determining what payments become due under the contract, and when, and (b) Provide for a final date for payment in relation to any sum which becomes due. The parties are free to agree how long the period is to be between the date on which a sum becomes due and the final date for payment. (3) If or to the extent that a contract does not contain such provision as is mentioned in subsection (1) or (2), the relevant provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts apply 1. The relevant provisions of Part II of the Schedule to the scheme are as follows: 2.   (1) the amount of any payment by way of installments or stage or periodic payments in respect of a relevant period shall be the difference between the amounts determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) and the amount determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (3). (2) The aggregate of the following amounts:- (a) an amount equal to the value of any work performed in accordance with the relevant construction contract during the period from the commencement of the contract to the end of the relevant period (excluding any amount calculated in accordance with head (b)); (b) where the contract provides for payment for materials, an amount equal to the value of any materials manufactured on site or brought onto site for the purposes of the works during the period from the commencement of the contract to the end of the relevant period; and (c) any other amount or sum which the contract specifies shall be payable during or in respect of the period from the commencement of the contract to the end of the relevant period. (3) The aggregate of any sums which have been paid or are due for payment by way of instalments, stage or periodic payments during the period from the commencement of the contract to the end of the relevant period.  (4) An amount calculated in accordance with this paragraph shall not exceed the difference between- (a) The contract price; and (b) the aggregate of the instalments or stage or periodic payments which have become due Dates for payment 3. Where the parties to a construction contract fail to provide an adequate mechanism for determining either what payments become due under the contract, or when they become due for payment, or both, the relevant provisions of paragraphs 4 to 7 shall apply. 4. Any payment of a kind mentioned in paragraph 2 above shall become due on whichever of the following dates occurs later:- (a) The expiry of 7 days following the relevant period mentioned in paragraph 2(1); or (b) the making of a claim by the payee. 5. The final payment payable under a relevant construction contract, namely the payment of an amount equal to the difference (if any) between- (a) The contract price; and (b) the aggregate of any installment or stage or periodic payments which have become due under the contract, shall become due on- (i) The expiry of 30 days following completion of the work; or (ii) the making of a claim by the payee, Whichever is the later. 6. Payment of the contract price under a construction contract (not being a relevant construction contract) shall become due on- (a) The expiry of 30 days following the completion of the work; or (b) the making of a claim by the payee, Whichever is the later. 7. Any other payment under a construction contract shall become due on- (a) The expiry of 7 days following the completion of the work to which the payment relates; or (b) the making of a claim by the payee, whichever is the later. On 30th July i.e. 5 days prior to 4th August, D&A received a written communication about contract termination but D&A decided to continue the job as it was in the stipulated time given to it by the time bound contract. By the 4th august D&A demanded a payment of £218,000 in INTERIM ACCOUNT Which was declined by KNW ltd with the reason “houses were not finished on time” KNW Ltd can give reference from (Multiplex Constructions (UK) Limited v Honeywell Control Systems Limited (No. 2) ) If KNW Ltd had issued a notice to setoff the job before the time limit given and had intentions of declining the payment to D&A. According to provisions made in section 111(1) (2) of the above said act - KNW should have informed D&A in writing 7 days prior 4th of August i.e.: time limit in contract. (Strathmore Building Services Ltd v Greig (t/a Hestia Fireside Design) and (Reinwood Ltd v L Brown & Sons Ltd) Suggestions, to D&A for a successful action. D&A should file a suit for recovery of INTERIM CERTIFICATES and costs under Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 Part II section 107 (2) (b),110,111(1) (2) and 115. Issues for Defense:- KNW ltd had issued contract termination notice before the time limit but failed to serve NOTICE OF INTENTION TO WITHHOLD PAYMENT. KNW LTD can allege D&A never entered into contract as per its clause which required D&A to confirm acceptance of the time bound contract by the return post. Case References can be taken from:- Reference for the same can be made from the judgement of the House of Lords in (Melville Dundas -v- George Wimpey ) which states Section 111 should apply to interim payments where these become due by virtue of the statutory right to interim of stage payments in section 109 of the above said Act. So long as the contract is in operation, a notice would be required for these to be withheld via set-off as a result of a cross claim. Reference by judgment of (Peter Mair v Mohammed Arshad) The Pursuer raised an action for payment in respect of works carried out on the Defender’s construction project. The parties had entered into a written contract. They were agreed that the contract was a fixed-price contract to supply labour to carry out works and that it was a construction contract within the meaning of Section 104 of the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996. A Diet of Debate took place in relation to the Defender’s preliminary plea. The Defender argued that the Pursuer’s averments were insufficient to give him fair notice, as the relevant invoices did not adequately specify the work done. He also argued that the Pursuer’s pleadings were irrelevant as the claim for payment made by the Pursuer did not conform to the requirements of the 1996 Act, read together with Part II of the Schedule to the Scheme for Construction Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 1998. On that basis, payment was not due and the action should be dismissed. The Pursuer’s position was that the terms of Part II of the Scheme had not been incorporated into the contract because, in terms of Section 110(1) of the Act, those terms only applied when the contract itself did not provide an adequate mechanism for determining what payments became due under the contract and when. The Sheriff was of the view that the Pursuer’s pleadings were sufficiently specific to enable the matter to precede to Proof. Bibliography "casesummaries." www.casecheck.co.uk. Conor Engineering Ltd v Les Constructions Industielle de la Mediterranee. No. EWHC 899 (TCC); [2004] B.L.R. 212. 2004. Construction law 1996 cases. . Dean & Dyball Construction Ltd v Kenneth Grubb Associates Ltd EWHC 2465 (TCC). No. 100 Con. L.R. 92. 2003. Melville Dundas -v- George Wimpey . No. UKHL 18. 2007. Multiplex Constructions (UK) Limited v Honeywell Control Systems Limited (No. 2) . No. EWHC 447 (TCC). Mr Justice Jackson. 2007. Peter Mair v Mohammed Arshad. Cupar Sheriff Court. 23 october 2007. Reinwood Ltd v L Brown & Sons Ltd . No. UKHL 12. 2008. Strathmore Building Services Ltd v Greig (t/a Hestia Fireside Design) . No. S.L.T. 815; (2001) 17 Const. L.J. 72; 2000 G.W.D. 19-735. 2000 . Read More