Memorandum by Planning Aid for London
(PAL) (UWP 29)
THE PROPOSED URBAN WHITE PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Planning Aid for London (PAL) is a Voluntary
organisation of professionally qualified town planners, solicitors,
barristers and other professionals supplemented by a small team
of four paid staff. Its core function is to give free professional
services to those who cannot afford a planning consultant to help
them in a range of planning, regeneration and environmental matters.
It has 200 such Volunteers based in every part of London and has
recently celebrated 25 years of the service. Since current records
began in 1983, PAL has given advice in 19,000 individual cases
ranging from representing objectors at complex Public Inquiries
into superstore developments, to interpreting a private Act of
Parliament in order to save an historic building in Greenwich.
Its stakeholders are principally those ordinary
individuals and community groups without a voice in the development
system and its volunteers. It is a registered charity and its
aims include educating the public about the planning system, how
it works and how they can have a say in it.
It is the only London wide voluntary sector
organisation devoted to the field of planning and continues to
give advice across London, particularly in the absence (currently)
of a London wide local authority.
This memorandum of Evidence follows the format
of the main recommendations in the Executive Summary of the Report
of the Urban Task Force "Towards an Urban Renaissance".
Its recommendations followed by PAL's responses are shown in sub
headings in italics, other matters raised are shown by other sub-headings.
DESIGNING THE
URBAN ENVIRONMENT
"Introduce a national urban design framework"
"Undertake a series of Government sponsored
demonstration projects"
"Require local authorities to prepare
a single strategy for dealing with their public realm"
These recommendations are supported on the basis
that sound urban design principles (including those of permeability
and vitality of the built environment) will create more acceptable
environments for pedestrians, cyclists and other ordinary users
of the built environment, and could help to redress the unbalance
in the domination of the public realm by provision of space for
vehicular traffic.
"Amend planning and funding guidance
to improve the use of density standards and prevent urban development
proposals with densities too low"
While higher densities are welcomed as factors
in improving the vitality of towns these must be accompanied with
clearer and stronger minimum design standards for residential
developments.
Large numbers of complaints are made to planning
aid services and, we understand to the Local Government Ombudsman
on this subject. Too many Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) issue
vague and meaningless guidelines, which are ignored whenever the
authority lacks the will to concern itself with the plight of
the individual neighbour/objector. Increasing density standards
will lead to burgeoning complaints from existing residents about
proximity of new buildings, while clear minimum window to wall
distances, for example, could be accommodated with a few amendments
to the design and without necessarily reducing the number of proposed
units.
Clear and comprehensive design guidelines should
therefore accompany rising density allowances to protect existing
residents. These should be incorporated into the Development Plan
(rather than demoted to the non-statutory level of "Supplementary
Planning Guidance") to ensure they have at least the force
of other LPA planning policies and to enable residents to find
them amongst a plethora of documents.
RELATIONSHIP OF
THE NEW
GUIDANCE AND
PROPOSALS TO
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
PLANS
Achieving success both in an increased "commitment
to public participation" (page 4) and "streamlined planning
decisions" (page 5) is at least difficult. However with better
communication and co-ordination of community views speedier decision-making
that includes public participation can be brought about.
Planning aid services have in certain areas
acted as intermediaries in the statutory process of adopting development
plans, both explaining the process to communities and the public
and co-ordinating them and their spokespeople to make for a smoother
Public Inquiry with more co-ordinated and therefore fewer representations
from objectors.
PAL welcomed the Government's move to a two
stage Development Plan process but was disappointed in the reduction
of time made available to objectors. If planning decisions later
on are to be streamlined the policies on which they are based
must receive proper consultation in order to make them robust
enough to stand up in the heat of debate over particular proposals.
The focus of the Task Force on higher density
standards makes robust Development Plan policies more important.
Stronger policies result only from wider support at their inception.
The Task Force's suggestion to rule out all site specific policies
is not supported because planning briefs for major sites or "masterplans"
(proposed by the Task Force) involve site specific policies and
are instrumental in engaging people in their local urban environment
and its regeneration.
There is a case however for exercising flexibility
where appropriate, about the use which is designated for particular
sites, where encouraging mixed-use development and regeneration
in general.
Participation at the Development Plan stage
therefore can pay dividends later on with smoother decision-making,
and planning services would submit case studies to this effect.
"Make public funding and planning permissions
for area regeneration schemes conditional upon the production
of an integrated spatial masterplan."
Briefs or masterplans as suggested here are
an opportunity to harness community enthusiasm and gain publicity
for good practice in urban regeneration and must be supported
for these reasons.
MAKING THE
CONNECTIONS
"Introduce home zones"
"Place local transport plans on a statutory
footing"
"Commit a minimum of 65 per cent of
transport public expenditure to walking, cycling and public transport
over the next 10 years"
Home zones or play streets or "voonerf"
are vital to improving the quality of life for residents (particularly
for those who do not drive such as children). Making inner urban
areas stable environments for families with children in this way
would do much to strengthen a sense of community in urban areas.
However the Task Force pays little attention
to the parts of the city which its people visit most often, its
major thoroughfares. While high levels of traffic on some roads
is perhaps inevitable in the immediate future, design solutions
are often adopted in the wider streets which insulate the pedestrian
from the worst effects. These include ensuring adequate space
between pedestrian and traffic, tree planting and clear pedestrian
priority crossings where they are needed. In narrower streets
and other sites where such measures are not possible reducing
the capacity of the roadspace will be the only option if civic
spaces are to regain their integrity and become once again habitable.
Once the decision to reduce capacity is made in these narrower
streets which can be characterised as "traffic canyons",
then measures such as more space as sanctuary to pedestrians and
physically segregated cycle lanes along the major route become
straight forward ways to regenerate these important urban streets.
Reduction in vehicle capacity where necessary, would complement
traffic reduction targets required under other legislation.
"Extend a well-regulated franchise system
for bus services"
"Set a maximum standard of one parking
space per dwelling for all new residential development"
These proposals are generally supported. The
parking space requirement needs to be dropped to one space per
dwelling because current parking and highway standards cause the
bulk of land waste and low density developments.
MANAGING THE
URBAN ENVIRONMENT
The main recommendations in this section aim
to strengthen LPA's powers, resources and enforcements powers.
While it is important to support the role of LPAs as the strategic
manager of the urban environment, there must be proper control
of local authorities who abuse these powers.
Some of the chief developers of greenfield sites
are local authorities themselves, particularly when the need arises
to fund new buildings for education or other departments. Local
authorities are unfortunately in some cases using financial and
property development arguments to persuade their own planning
committees to approve schemes, which should be refused because
of the loss of playing fields which will result.
Moves to strengthen enforcement powers under
planning legislation should be supported. The discretion exercised
by LPAs allowing them only to take enforcement action if they
believe it "expedient" to do so, causes much anxiety
amongst those aggrieved by unauthorised development that is over
bearing or causes nuisance. Decisions not to take action should
be more transparent and should always be taken by public committees
of the LPA rather than behind closed doors. Stronger measures
against noise nuisance are also highly justified and as in the
case of planning enforcement many of those who come to planning
aid are disappointed by the failure of local authorities to take
action here.
Neighbourhood committees and management structures
of LPAs are still in their infancy. Local residents and communities
tend to support them as does PAL. While some authorities appear
unable to make them work properly, the London Borough of Sutton
has shown it is possible not only to make planning decisions in
Neighbourhood Committees but has proved it can do so whilst remaining
the best authority in London at making those decisions within
the statutory time limit.
DELIVERING URBAN
REGENERATION
"Urban Priority Areas including streamlined
planning consents"
As pointed out above the prospect of trying
to streamline planning consents at the same time as strengthening
the commitment to participation is likely to flounder unless sufficient
investment is made to build capacity of third party objectors
to make their case, quickly, relevantly and succinctly. The Government
should consider making funding available to third parties engaged
in fighting Public Inquiries particularly when the third party
is the only party presenting a case against the development.
INVESTING IN
SKILLS AND
INNOVATION
"Joint working between professional
institutions"
"Regional Resource Centres for Urban
Development, promoting innovation and good practice, co-ordinating
urban development training and encouraging community participation"
Planning Aid for London provides a regional
resource centre on urban development matters and training in community
participation techniques. It supports the recommendation, which
would broaden such provision and believes the resource centre
should be available for community as well as professional use.
A range of different organisations, which jointly agree a strategy
to deliver such a resource across a region, could form such a
centre.
As an example of the difficulties faced by those
wanting to or forced to come to terms with major redevelopment
schemes of a regional/citywide scale, there are no public libraries
or offices where the Development Plans are stocked for all London
Boroughs.
The importance of such centres is made all the
greater by the decision of Government that new regional authorities
must be "streamlined" probably with few resources open
to the public.
PLANNING FOR
CHANGE
"neighbourhood masterplan . . . full
participation of local people"
"replacing planning gain with standardised
impact fees"
In order to avoid indulging in raising unrealistic
expectations neighbourhood masterplans must be given the same
statutory weight as Development Plans, thus ensuring they are
not cast aside once developers decide their priorities.
Planning gain is one of the least well received
features of the planning system. Community, local authority and
developer alike universally suspect it. It is secretive (many
authorities will not release the agreements to public view and
little or no action is taken against those who do not) and often
fails to secure fair benefits for the community. It is often seen
as a form of bribery where communities are promised benefits by
rival developers in order to secure consent. The sooner it can
be replaced with a more transparent system the better.
MANAGING THE
LAND SUPPLY/CLEANING
UP THE
LAND/RECYCLING
THE BUILDINGS/MAKING
THE INVESTMENT
The recommendations in these sections include
a sequential approach to the release of land and buildings and
regularising the arrangements for contaminated land both of which
are supported.
Allowing local authorities to retain a proportion
of the business rate collected is a common sense proposal which
would remove the anomaly whereby there is no taxation incentive
for local authorities to sustain a healthy local economy. Indeed
currently a growing local economy puts increasing strain on local
authority services and finances and could be regarded as an expensive
problem, rather than economic success.
The integration of Single Regeneration Budget
and English Partnerships funding is essential particularly to
those community and voluntary sector led regeneration projects
which should be further encouraged. European funding application
procedures must also be integrated. Funders of regeneration in
the public sector must move away from the complex procedures accessible
only to those professionals in the field rather than those in
local communities who really need it.
It is the fiscal recommendations of these sections
however, which will be the main test of the success or otherwise
of the urban renaissance.
Increased investment packages, new financial
instruments for the private rented sector and tax incentives for
developers, investors owners and tenants are to be supported but
more importantly must come at the earliest stages of implementation
of the Task Force recommendations. This is because they would
set the economic climate for the regeneration to occur, and a
fertile economic framework is essential to attracting the private
sector investment needed to succeed.
Gideon Amos MA RIBA
Director
12 January 2000
| 
