Memorandum by British Association of Settlements
and Social Action Centres (PG 63)
PLANNING GREEN PAPER
KEY POINTS
The new planning regime must be devised so that
there is a degree of predictability that it will cause fewer conflicts
in the future. (paragraph 15).
The emphasis on businesses obtaining faster
planning decisions could be in conflict with improved community
engagement. (paragraph 17)
There must be a common minimum set of requirements
for each local planning authority to meet to ensure that different
communities have common understandings and expectations of how
the planning system is to operate. (paragraph 18)
Differences in local planning authority performance
are often determined by the level of resources available, and
the Government must ensure that local planning authorities have
the level appropriate to deliver the minimum requirements. (paragraph
18)
Community involvement in the planning process
should be a requirement on local planning authorities, not something
that is merely encouraged. (paragraph 19)
There should be a consistent set of Government
guidance, and possibly even legislation, on the minimum requirements
for community involvement in all areas of strategy and service
activity. (paragraph 19)
The preparation of such guidance should build
on the community engagement benchmarking work funded by Joseph
Rowntree Foundation, and the community involvement indicators
work being carried out by the Audit Commission. (paragraph 19)
There needs to be a clear definition of the
type of schemes that will be subject to Statements of Community
Involvement. (paragraph 20)
There needs to be clear guidance to local planning
authorities on what constitutes good community involvement practice
on schemes not subject to Statements of Community Involvement.
(paragraph 20)
Tighter timetables for decision making will
truncate the actual time available for consultation, and result
in many people not knowing about an application until too late.
(paragraph 20)
The Government should consider instituting statutory
mechanisms for underpinning the key importance of its commitment
to community involvement, eg neighbourhood governance structures,
and Citizens Juries, and advisory committees. (paragraphs 21-24)
Regional planning should build up from Community
and Neighbourhood Strategies. (paragraph 26)
The need for sub-regional planning should be
a matter for bottom-up determination by neighbouring Local Strategic
Partnerships. (paragraph 27)
Pre-application discussion should be subject
to public announcement. (paragraph 28)
Business planning zones will undermine community
credibility about the Government's commitment to Community Involvement.
(paragraph 29)
Outline planning permission can enable the achievement
of speedy decision making without compromising community involvement.
(paragraph 30)
Planning Aid should be complimented by support
to local multi-purpose service and project organisations and advice
services to provide planning advice. (paragraph 31)
Local planning authorities should be required
to meet in open committee, with the community having the right
of deputation. (paragraph 32)
Community organisations should have the right
of appeal against planning decisions that they have opposed. (paragraphs
33-35)
Delegation to officers should be limited. (paragraph
36)
Consideration needs to be given to different
requirements relating to planning applications in which the local
authority has an interest or stands to benefit as a result of
sale to a developer. (paragraphs 34 and 36)
INTRODUCTION
1. Many communities are fed up with the
way developers and property owners continually reshape the built
environment in their neighbourhoods adversely effecting the quality
of life of residents, and with large regeneration schemes that
provide no benefit to neighbouring communities.
2. Communities often feel their wishes and
interests are ignored in the planning system. This is why planning
issues are often a catalyst for community action.
3. Members of bassac operate in neighbourhoods
which are often in or adjacent to large scale physical redevelopment
schemes and see little positive benefit. bassac therefore welcomes
the publication of the Planning Green Paper as starting a dialogue
on how to build an improved system which is integrated with any
other positive Government initiatives such as Sustainable Development,
Active Citizenship, Community Strategies, Neighbourhood Renewal,
and Local Strategic Partnerships, and the government's concept
in the Urban White Paper of putting communities at the heart of
decisions affecting their areas.
THE PLANNING
REVIEW
4. bassac made a submission to the Planning
Review. It also took part in the preparation of the British Urban
Regeneration Association's Steering and Development Forum's submission,
and a meeting with Lord Falconer. bassac has continued to be involved
in the Forum's deliberations on the submission in response to
the Green Paper, and in the meeting with Brian Hackett and DTLR
colleagues held on 12 March.
5. In its submission to the Planning Review
bassac made the following key points, some in support of statements
made by the Secretary of State:
— the planning system needs to be radically
reformed into a tool for developing sustainable communities;
— if the outcome does not strengthen
community participation in planning decisions then confidence
in getting involved in urban and rural and neighbourhood renewal
will be undermined;
— the planning system of the future
must engage communities and contribute to people feeling connected
with the process of government;
— planning is a key lever to help create
a decent society and quality of life;
— past planning mistakes contributed
to the break-up and decay of communities; and
— planning is a key process to achieving
environmental, economic and social sustainability.
6. bassac welcomed the Secretary of State's
emphasis on:
— planning's role in creating sustainable
communities;
— not allowing commercial interests
to run roughshod over legitimate environmental concerns;
— the right of the community to express
their views about decisions which affect them.
THE TRANSITION
FROM PLANNING
REVIEW TO
GREEN PAPER
7. bassac is concerned that in the transition
between the Secretary of State's announcement of the Planning
Review and the publication of the Green Paper, some of the contextual
vision has been lost. It is important that this context is crystal
clear, because many businesses involved in development, and many
voluntary and community organisations, and the people active within
them, have not yet understood the way seemingly separate Government
policies and initiatives interlock.
8. The Green Paper sets out detailed proposals
for making the planning decision process speedier and more efficient,
and for strengthening community involvement. It does not sufficiently
think through that these may be incompatible objectives, and that
the proposals will not sufficiently end the current imbalance
against community interests at the heart of the present planning
system.
9. The Green Paper summarises the business
criticisms of the planning system. These criticisms seem to be
the driver behind the proposals to speed up decision making. Business
is often at the heart of the problems that the planning system
has to deal with. Many business interests consider that their
wishes must take precedence, despite being formulated without
any engagement with the local community, or any consideration
of potential negative impacts on the community or other businesses.
In the new context of the Government agendas of Sustainable Development,
Community Strategies, urban, rural and neighbourhood renewal,
Local Strategic Partnerships, and the revival of local democracy
and citizen engagement, business can no longer expect to have
precedence over other interests. The Confederation of British
Industries expects business interests should be better understood
by planners, through university planning courses including economics
and finance of developments. Equally businesses, especially those
engaged in larger scale developments, need to be trained in understanding
the new context in which planning is to be a tool to achieve the
Community Strategy.
10. Business is not a "homogenous"
entity. Many developers ride rough shod over the interests of
existing businesses operating in areas they wish to redevelop,
especially the needs of local shopkeepers whose economic viability
can be undermined by the developments of larger developers and
businesses. The thrust of some business lobby views on the future
of the planning system, particularly for speedier planning decisions,
will benefit developers and large businesses rather than smaller
more locally based businesses. Businesses genuinely committed
to making a positive difference through their planning developments
to a local area, will be seeking to be actively engaged in the
area's Local Strategic Partnership.
RESOURCES
11. Some of the inadequacies of the current
planning system that are identified in the Green Paper seem to
be more an issue of lack of resources than the statutory legal
framework. A changed framework will not work better unless it
is adequately resourced.
DETAILED COMMENTS
Paragraph 2.4 Speed and Predictability
12. There is a confusion here between different
processes by which blight occurs. Blight can be caused as a result
of the time it takes:
— developers to buy out property owners,
a process over which the community has no influence until the
developer is ready to submit a planning application;
— for an implementable planning decision
for a site which has become redundant eg factory or school;
— for a decision to be taken on a controversial
planning application where the community may prefer a prolonged
period of blight rather than agree an unacceptable application;
and
— a developer to act once a planning
decision has been taken; often going back with a revised scheme.
13. From the community perspective it will
often take considerably longer than eight weeks to properly consider
the implications of an application. It is not the time it takes
to make a decision that should be paramount, but reaching a broadly
acceptable decision, ie the final outcome which will affect an
area for decades.
Paragraph 2.5—Community Engagement
14. bassac agrees that the problem with
the current planning system is that it is "consultative",
and does not engage the community in a way that it feels empowered.
The community is the weakest player in the current planning system.
This is partly due to the limited rights to make representations,
and the lack of a right to put in a community appeal against a
planning approval. It is also due to the lack of a system of neighbourhood
governance structures that would enable the different interest
groups within the community to have a strong voice in deciding
planning applications. Such structures are needed if the Government's
overall goal of putting communities at the heart of local decision
making (eg as expressed in the Urban White Paper) is to be realised.
Paragraph 2.8—Reducing Planning Conflict
15. However, inadequate the present planning
system, there is no point changing it if a new set of conflicts
arise which will result in it being "subject of constant
attack and its decisions suspect". The planning process is
not neutral. It is determined politically through the legislative
framework and the local decision making process. Conflict will
always be inherent when different interests cannot be reconciled.
The new planning regime must be devised so that there is a degree
of predictability that will cause fewer conflicts.
Paragraphs 2.9, 4.7-4.14—Local Development
Frameworks
16. bassac supports the idea of Local Development
Frameworks connected up with the Community Strategies, and of
local plans, particularly where these are linked to Neighbourhood
Renewal Strategies. The Frameworks and Community Strategies are
not that dissimilar to Structure and Development Plans. The best
of these combined a vision that is now to be enshrined in Community
Strategies, and a detailed development framework. The major difference
is that the Plans were drawn up by local authorities and consulted
upon with the community and other agencies, whereas the Community
Strategies are to be developed and owned by Local Strategic Partnerships
between local authorities and partner organisations. The idea
of local plans builds on the development briefs for small areas
already prepared by local authorities. The Frameworks and local
plans will become the detailed planning tool for partnership approved
Community Strategies. The inclusion of a map of the area as part
of the Framework is crucial. It enables people to visualise areas
discussed in accompanying print documents. It also enables community
organisations to visually identify very small local areas on which
they would like to see action taken.
Paragraph 2.10—Speedier Planning Decisions
17. The emphasis on businesses obtaining
faster planning decisions could be in conflict with the improved
community engagement (paragraph 2.11).
Paragraph 4.16—Making the new system work
18. bassac agrees that there must be a common
minimum set of requirements for each local planning authority
to meet to ensure that different communities have common understandings
and expectations of how the planning system is to operate. Differences
in local planning authority performance are however often determined
by the level of resources available, and the Government must ensure
that local planning authorities have the level appropriate to
deliver the minimum requirements.
Paragraphs 4.21-4.24—Engaging the Community
19. bassac supports increased community
involvement in the planning process. It should be a requirement
on local planning authorities, not something that is merely encouraged.
It also supports the concept of Statements of Community Involvement.
The Government is promoting improved community involvement in
Community Strategies, Neighbourhood Renewal Strategies, and in
specialist service delivery. There needs to be a consistent set
of Government guidelines on community engagement across all these
areas. This will avoid the danger of disputes about minimal expectations,
and should also address the issues of co-operation over community
engagement so that communities do not feel overloaded with what
to them appear to be similar consultations by different public
agencies. There should be joint Departmental guidance, and possibly
even legislation, on the minimum requirements for community involvement.
The guidance should include benchmarking so that there is some
agreed basis on which the adequacy of Community Involvement Strategies
can be challenged. If developers are to be expected to undertake
Community Involvement they need clear guidance on what is expected
of them, otherwise they will enter the exercise with a degree
of uncertainty as to whether they might be open to challenge.
Similarly the community needs to understand the basis for their
involvement. The preparation of such guidance should build on
the community engagement benchmarking work funded by Joseph Rowntree
Foundation, and the community involvement indicators work being
carried out by the Audit Commission.
20. The following issues need to be addressed
in order to ensure that communities are clear about their Community
Involvement rights:
— Statements of Community Involvement
will only apply to large developments. There is no definition
of what is meant by "large development". A significant
number of applications could have a big impact, while not being
large developments. These are likely to fall outside the definition
of "large". There needs to be a clear definition of
the type of schemes that will be subject to Statements if there
is not to be confusion at community level, and accusations of
manipulation of definitions;
— Small planning applications will
not be required to have a Statement. This puts the onus on local
planning authorities to carry out consultation. There needs to
be clear guidance to local authorities on what consists good community
involvement practice on schemes not subject to Statements;
— Even if a developer complies with
a Statement, it does not mean that the final proposals will resolve
all problems. The local planning authority will still need to
carry out consultation;
— Tighter timetables for decision making
will truncate the actual time available for consultation, and
result in many people not knowing about an application until too
late.
21. There are a variety of community engagement
techniques that Government good practice guidance should be promoting,
such as Planning for Real. bassac also suggests that the Government
institute statutory mechanisms for underpinning the key importance
of its commitment to community involvement, eg neighbourhood governance
structures, and Citizens Juries, and advisory committees.
22. Neighbourhood Governance Structures.
At present the only neighbourhood governance structures that have
a statutory basis are Parish and Town Councils. Many local authorities
are establishing informal structures eg area forums as vehicles
to engage local communities. The size of these forums varies from
small neighbourhoods to districts the size of a quarter of the
local authority area. The latter size is too large to foster the
genuine engagement of communities, especially those living in
neighbourhoods which are going to be significantly affected by
planning decisions. These forums are subject to the political
and financial whims of the local authority (viz Community Councils
from the 1970s and decentralised Neighbourhood Area Offices and
Forums from the 1980s). Serious community engagement that is sustainable
requires statutory provision.
23. Citizens Juries. These would involve
a panel of local residents questioning local residents, community,
voluntary and business organisations, the planning applicants,
the planning officials and other involved agencies about the potential
impacts of an application. There might be a role for the local
Member of Parliament as Chair. If the Government made it a requirement
on planning officials and applicants to appear before such Juries,
and that the planning authorities had to treat such Juries as
statutory consultees, this would give a clear signal to communities
that the Government intention for meaningful community involvement
had teeth.
24. Advisory Committees. A number of local
planning authorities have Conservation Area Advisory Committees
examining applications affecting conservation areas and listed
historic buildings. Membership can comprise local amenity societies,
relevant local professional organisations eg architects, local
historical societies and residents associations. These Committees
often have a level of expertise not contained within Planning
Departments, and view planning applications more in their historic
and built environment context that Planning Departments are often
capable of doing. Their work has been of considerable value to
local planning authorities in either providing grounds for rejection
for unsympathetic developments, or suggesting improvements to
applications, and in contributing to the development of local
plans. There is a strong case for the establishment of such Committees
to consider applications for the whole planning authority area
and for there to be a requirement on local planning authorities
to take their views into account. The operation of such Committees
has not prevented member organisations from lobbying outside their
role on the Committees. Such Advisory Committees could be an additional
safeguard to protect the interests of communities.
Paragraph 4.25—Sustainability Appraisal
25. bassac supports the need for sustainability
impacts
Paragraphs 4.39-4.41—Regional Planning
26. bassac supports the continuing relevance
of regional planning policy. However, such policy should be rooted
in the Community Strategies and Local Development Frameworks and
address issues of conflict between them, and issues that are wider
than individual local authority areas. The temptation to have
regional policies determined "top-down" dictating Community
Strategies and Local Development Frameworks should be avoided
as such an approach will act against community engagement in shaping
local areas. In many cases concepts of a region are artificial
economic and political constructs, to which communities do not
relate.
Paragraph 4.49-4.5—Sub-regional Planning
27. It is likely that in considering the
Community Strategies and Local Development Frameworks many Local
Strategic Partnerships will identify the need for discussions
on a sub-regional planning basis than a regional one. The need
for sub-regional planning should therefore be a matter for bottom-up
determination. Where the regional planning authority identifies
the possible need for sub-regional planning it should be required
to negotiate with and convince the relevant Local Strategic Partnerships,
and not impose it upon them.
Paragraphs 5.9-5.10—Pre-application discussion
28. A major drawback with current pre-application
discussion is that it is done behind closed doors, with planning
officers becoming involved in shaping an application, so that
often it is a foregone conclusion that they will recommend its
acceptance to the Planning Committee. This leaves them open to
accusations of personal compromise, and of compromising public
consultation. If pre-application discussion is sought by an applicant
it should be subject to public announcement, the availability
of the ideas to public scrutiny and the opportunity for the public
to discuss the ideas with the developer and Planning Officers.
Absence of such a requirement will act against confidence in the
Government's commitment on the role of community involvement.
Paragraphs 5.36-5.38—Business Planning Zones
29. bassac is very concerned about the ideas
for Business Planning Zones in which planning consent will not
be required if the application is in accordance with tightly defined
parameters. It is not possible for the Government to assess whether
the level of impact of a Business Zone on neighbouring communities
is low or not. That can only be decided locally. Who will decide
on what is a "Business Zone"? Will it be the local authority
or the Local Strategic Partnership? Will it be subject to public
discussion and community involvement on the Community Strategy,
the Local Development Framework or a Local Action Plan? The Government's
commitment to Community Involvement will be undermined if communities
believe they have no voice on the potential effects of a Zone
on their areas. A planning application in a Business Zone might
be subject to concern by existing businesses within the Zone.
How will their interests be protected?
Paragraph 5.42—Outline Planning Permission
30. An advantage of the outline planning
permission process is that the community knows that an applicant
may come forward at a later date with detailed planning proposals.
This enables the community to develop its ideas on the application
in advance. This can enable the achievement of speedy decision
making without compromising community involvement.
Paragraphs 5.57-5.58—Community advocacy:
Planning Aid
31. The Planning Aid system has been an
important resource for communities concerned about planning applications.
However, it is dependent on the volunteer capacities of planners.
Willowbrook Centre, a member of bassac, provides a complimentary
model, being a specialist planning advice resource to communities
in the London Borough of Southwark. There are a range of multi-purpose
service and project organisations which already work in the field
of community involvement. They could take on a specialist planning
role as well. Many advice service organisations could also take
on a planning brief, alongside their existing specialist areas
such as welfare benefits, employment, and education. This would
enable volunteer planners to concentrate on helping in those areas
where no specialist organisations exist.
Paragraph 5.59—Open Committees
32. It is regrettable that the Green Paper
does not require all local planning authorities to meet in open
committee. While closed Committees do not necessarily mean that
the community cannot find out when an application is going to
be considered, it means that the officers' reports will not be
public. The community therefore will not know whether its views
have been correctly represented. Nor will members of the community
be able to attend to observe the decision making process. Where
Committees are open, and the agenda and reports are available
in advance there are opportunities for last minute interventions
through individual Councillors or through deputations to present
community views to the Committee. Planning Committees should be
required to meet in open session. There should be a statutory
right to deputations.
Paragraphs 6.9-6.23—Third Party Rights of
Appeal
33. bassac regrets the Government's rejection
of the arguments for third party right of appeal. In its comments
to the Planning Review it argued that "As a last safeguard
to community interests, community organisations should have the
right of appeal against planning applications that they have opposed".
34. Communities which consider that planning
decisions have been forced upon them, despite the improved opportunities
for their engagement, will feel very embittered if they do not
have a final right of challenge through appeal against the decision.
There are at least two frequent types of planning decision where
the embitterment will be greatest:
— decisions on local authority owned
land, or local authority land sold to developers, as the local
authority will not be seen as a disinterested part in its role
as local planning authority; and
— decisions where the local planning
authority has given planning approval out of line with the Local
Development Framework.
35. The credibility of the Government's
policy to increase community engagement will be undermined if
it does not enable a right of appeal in these circumstances. Absence
of a community right of appeal will give the signal that developers'
interests are paramount over and above those of local communities.
Paragraph 6.37—Improving Local Authority
Practice
36. More delegation to officers of planning
application decisions has its attractions if the driving force
behind the new planning system is to be speed. Delegation is a
fundamental undermining of the principle of community involvement.
At present it is not always clear in public notices about planning
applications as to whether it is delegated to officers or a matter
for the Planning Committee. Nor is it necessarily made clear that
an objection to an application results in it being referred to
Committee. Given the time it often takes for the community to
get to know about an application, it can sometimes be too late
to lodge objections. Usually it is the small applications which
will be subject to officer delegation. While each application
may seem insignificant in itself, it is often the accumulation
of small decisions in a street or a neighbourhood which cause
community concern. The idea of local action plans will not cover
every street or neighbourhood, so there will be no broadly acceptable
community view on how the officers should exercise their judgement.
Setting a target for delegation is artificial, in that it cannot
then take account of fluctuations in the number of planning applications,
especially those requiring Statements of Community Involvement.
Delegation should exclude planning applications by the local authority
(see comments in paragraph 34 above).
Sean Creighton, Policy
Development Officer, bassac
18 March 2002
| 
