Memorandum by the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds (PGP 68)
Planning Green Paper Planning: delivering
a fundamental change
INTRODUCTION
The Govemment's proposals in the Planning Green
Paper represent the most radical shake up of planning in England
for fifty years. Many organizations, the RSPB included, agree
that the system needs to change. We agree with some of the analysis
in the Paper, for instance, that planning has sometimes been slow,
lacked certainty, and resulted in out of date plans. Some aspects
of the system need attention.
However, planning has also served us well as a nation
over the last fifty years, including helping to protect important
assets such as our countryside and wildlife habitats. It is essential
that whatever new planning system is created it addresses existing
weaknesses and it is capable of delivering improved planning for
the next fifty years. We must not cast away the economic, social
and environmental benefits that planning has brought us by rushing
through reforms before their implications have been fully assessed.
The Green Paper and its proposals have concentrated
the debate about the current state of, and the future for, planning.
The Government is to be commended for initiating this important
debate. The RSPB has submitted detailed evidence to the Department
of Transport, Local Government and the Regions on the Green Paper,
the proposals for determining Major Infrastructure Projects and
the proposals for reform of Planning Obligations. The main points
of those submissions are summarised below for the benefit of the
Committee.
1. PLANNING,
GREEN PAPER—PLANNING:
DELIVERING A
FUNDAMENTAL- CHANGE
General
The Government must ensure that it gives itself time
to fully consider the substance of the representations that it
has received. The Green Paper includes fundamental proposals for
reform, the implications of which must be carefully considered
before legislative reform is pursued.
Sustainable development
We need a debate about what planning is for. The
achievement of sustainable development should be the principal
objective for the whole planning system and for all development
proposals—sustainable development is not an "add on".
A principal objective to further sustainable
development should be included in a new Town and Country Planning
Act. We are therefore pleased that the Planning Minister, Lord
Falconer of Thoroton has announced his intention to "put
sustainability at the heart of the planning system". Speaking
at the launch of the RSPB's pamphlet Living Spaces—a vision
for the future of planning, Lord Falconer said, "the Planning
Green Paper has been criticised—and I think fairly—for
not emphasising sustainability sufficiently... So I intend in
our planning legislation to set out a statutory purpose for planning".
He went on to confirm his intention that the purpose would clearly
reflect the objective of planning to promote sustainable development.
We look forward to the debate about the detailed wording of the
purpose.
The new planning instruments
A. National Level
National planning guidance is a valuable tool
for setting out national policy priorities and imperative for
subsequent stages of planning
There should be no arbitrary limit placed on the
length of PPGs, they should be as short, or as long and prescribe
as much detail, as is required to clearly set out national policy
An England Spatial Planning Strategy is required
to provide the necessary spatial coherence to aspects of national
policy
Planning decisions should be taken at the appropriate
level—it is unfair to subject local planning authorities
to intense local political pressures when the principles of the
decision are strategic.
Important policy, procedural and legal issues
must not be relegated to mere advice, they must be contained in
the main policy guidance
Shorter national policy guidance supported by good
practice guides, etc. may be less helpful to developers than a
comprehensive, but longer "one stop shop"
Planning Policy Guidance on Nature Conservation (PPG9)
must be reviewed immediately
We welcome the proposals to produce National Policy
Statements, provided they are clear and unambiguous, and that
they tackle important issues such as need, alternatives and to
a degree location (for instance broad regional location). Such
guidance must be subject to rigorous, open scrutiny and examination.
We initially favour detailed consideration of the National Policy
Statement through some form of inquiry, followed by a detailed
inquiry on a detailed scheme.
We are not convinced about the merits of the proposed
Parliamentary process for dealing with major infrastructure project
decisions "in principle". The Government must seriously
re-consider these proposals (see 2 below).
B. Regional Level
We welcome the emphasis in the Green Paper on
strengthening planning at the regional level and the proposal
to give the new Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) statutory status
We believe that strengthened Regional Sustainable
Development Frameworks, together with the RSS, should provide
the longer-term framework and guiding principles for other regional
strategies
It is essential that strategic planning include
opportunities for effective public participation and scrutiny
and overcome the democratic deficit of the proposed model
New arrangements must over-come the problem
that currently many members of regional bodies retain a "local"
perspective and mandate which can make it difficult for them to
reach a regional strategic view or make difficult regional choices
Rethinking and reforming boundaries must be
part of the new planning settlement, no matter how difficult this
may be politically. Without it, process and structural reforms
will not completely solve the problems they are meant to address
Regional and sub-regional planning strategies should
be subject to sustainability appraisals and/or Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA)
We believe that all interested parties should have
a right to appear at the Public Examination of RSS, this should
not be by invitation as at present
All regional planning bodies should have the resources
and information necessary to enable them to adequately perform
their statutory role
C. Sub-regional level
The proposed new plan arrangements leave a big
gap between the regional strategic tier and the "local"
plan tier of the local Development Framework. This risks re-enforcing
the top down, predict and provide effect. We believe that comprehensive
sub-regional planning is therefore required
Sub-regional planning will need to be more open,
participative and informed than some past efforts
D. County Level
The RSPB is not wedded to the retention of Structure
Plans, but we believe there are shortcomings in the current proposals.
We are not convinced that a strong case has been made for removing
a democratically accountable tier of strategic planning
Strategic planning is essential to ensure higher-level
land use priorities are reflected in lower tier decision-making
If county level strategic planning is abolished,
then we believe something similar will be required to replace
it—we favour comprehensive sub-regional planning tested
through a Public Examination open to all interests
We do not believe a plan tier is removed by the Green
Paper proposals and the "divorce" of strategic planning
from closely associated minerals and waste planning at the county
level is likely to prevent integrated land use planning
Strategic planning expertise, and specialist expertise
in ecology, archaeology, etc., must not be lost due to the planning
reforms
F. Local Level
Options for improving efficiency in the existing
local planning processes have not been fully explored. We doubt
whether a complete overhaul of the local plan system is warranted
and question whether this will meet the Government's stated objectives
The LDF approach creates uncertainty and could return
us to the much criticised 1980s when most policy principles were
decided by development control
We doubt the abandonment of a comprehensive map base
for plans will provide greater certainty and help communities
engage in local planning. Some areas are in need of more concentrated
planning than others, but we believe that this could be achieved
within a system that retains a comprehensive map base
The frequent reviews in the new "plan"
system could result in short-term planning which runs counter
to the Government's sustainable development objectives
We welcome the continued commitment to sustainability
appraisal consistent with the SEA Directive. This should also
apply to Action Plans if these are pursued
The detailed relationship between Community Strategies
and LDFs is unclear. Community strategies are in their infancy
and their effectiveness remains unproven
The public should have a statutory right to make
representations on local plans and have them heard at a public
hearing before an independent Inspector
E. Development control
We welcome many of the development control proposals
in the green paper, for instance the emphasis on pre application
discussions, the need to provide reasons for approval, etc.
We are concerned at the proposals to reduce statutory
consultees—to address problems of delay in consultation
delivery by removing the statutory status of some consultees seems
draconian. This proposal should not be pursued. In particular,
we consider that English Nature must remain a key statutory consultee
and receive the necessary resources to perform their statutory
function
We are not convinced that business planning zones
will encourage quality, resource efficient development and we
believe they could, in some cases, result in adverse environmental
impacts
We do not support local permitted development rights
as they risk giving rise to adverse environmental impacts, and
adding to uncertainty for developers
2. MAJOR
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
(MIPS)
We share the Government's objectives to reduce
unnecessary time taken in inquiries and to safeguard public consultation
and involvement. We welcome the proposed National Policy Statements
(NPSs) and the proposals for improving public inquiries. However,
we believe the proposed Parliamentary process is problematic because
of its effect on public participation and the ability for Parliament
to consider projects in sufficient detail. We are not convinced
that the combination of major infrastructure proposals will meet
either of the Government's objectives of reducing delays and safeguarding
public consultation and involvement. The following is a summary
of our views on these proposals:-
Coherent national framework for decisions on MIPs,
for instance a national spatial policy framework—we
need a coherent national framework to provide the strategic context
for integrated decisions about major infrastructure projects (for
example, consideration of impacts on a regional road network resulting
from port proposals) and to help foster more even development
across regions
National Policy Statements (NPSs)—we
welcome the proposal to prepare National Policy Statements for
issues such as ports and aviation. This is a positive development
in the treatment of major infrastructure projects. These NPSs
must be clear and unambiguous, and tackle important issues such
as need, alternatives and broad location (for instance, broad
regional location). They should cover issues of principle but
not precise location, ie identify specific sites. They must be
subject to rigorous, open scrutiny and we believe this requires
a form of examination open to all (akin to an improved, more accessible
form of Public Examination of Regional Planning Guidance), rather
than consultation modelled on Planning Policy Guidance where there
is no opportunity to develop themes around a table and no opportunity
to challenge others' assertions. We believe there is a case for
an independent body with significant status to hear these representations,
for example an independent policy commission.
Parliamentary process—we
are not convinced by the Government's proposals for a Parliamentary
process for decisions "in principle" on "the principle
of, the need for and location of a project" (paragraph 19)
and we do not support them. The proposed process would require
a step change in quality and resources if it were even to begin
to address the key issues effectively. We believe the current
proposals are unlikely to save significant time, and they will
place substantial additional burdens on Parliament, and reduce
effective public participation. We believe they would also reduce
the quality and detail of consideration of proposals since vital
information relating to specific sites could be unavailable. Moreover,
we are not convinced that matters of principle and detail can
be easily differentiated.
Detailed Public Inquiries—whatever
the system for determining the principle of major projects, the
local public inquiry will deal with detailed on site issues, including
issues of environmental capacity. Any local inquiry Inspector
must have the power to refer a major project back up the decision-making
"ladder", to Parliament and the Secretary of State,
if the inquiry raises issues relating to the overall acceptability
of the project.
Improving the current system—we
welcome many of the proposals to improve public inquiry procedure.
We believe inquiries should:-
— aim to secure high quality public
participation in a less adversarial way;
— take an approach based on hearings and
fact-finding discussion, with Inspectors taking a more inquisitorial
role;
— make greater use of round-table discussions
to help resolve issues;
— ensure full access to background information
(eg research work) for all interested parties;
— set and enforce strict deadlines for
submission of evidence and information;
— adhere to prearranged timetables, with
penalties for abuse by participants;
— eliminate, as far as possible, time-wasting
practices such as reading out proofs of evidence (written evidence
should hold equal weight to oral);
— make greater use of pre-inquiry discussions—ie
focus on the real contested issues;
— use planning advocacy services to their
full potential to encourage, inform and coordinate input from
the public;
— hold sessions at different times (including
evenings and weekends) to increase access and openness; and
— consider funding NGOs and other public
interest groups to enable them to participate on equal terms with
other parties.
We believe that the most effective way of dealing
with major projects could be by a combination of a national spatial
policy framework, the proposed National Policy Statements and
improved practice and procedure in public inquiries.
3. Planning Obligations
Sustainable development should be at the heart
of the planning system. Planning obligations have a role in achieving
sustainable development, however the Government's proposals can
be read to imply they have a primary role—this should not
be the case. Sustainable development is not an "add on"
for planning obligations to deliver. We should expect all developments
to be sustainable.
We think planning obligations are important to offset/mitigate
adverse environmental (and other) impacts, and to promote positive
planning benefits—the latter should be their primary contribution.
We believe positive benefits that planning obligations should
deliver include habitat creation. The following is a summary of
our views on the proposals:
— sustainable development should be an
aim for the planning system as a whole. A sustainable development
duty should be enshrined into any new planning act.
— We believe that planning obligations
should not solely be relied upon to deliver sustainable development,
as this implies it is little more than an "add on".
Planning obligations should not be the only way to achieve sustainable
development.
— We think planning obligations should
have two main purposes—to address the impacts of proposals
(including environmental impacts) and to provide positive planning
benefits, the two must be clearly differentiated.
— Careful consideration is needed when
defining the scope and role for planning obligations. In the first
instance, as a point in principle, adverse environmental impacts
of all developments should be avoided. Any adverse impacts that
cannot be avoided should be mitigated, including through planning
obligations. As a last resort, damage that cannot he mitigated
should be compensated, again through planning obligations. There
is a clear distinction between mitigation and compensation, and
genuine enhancement. Enhancement should not be confused with mitigation
and compensation, it is about providing new benefits through positive
planning.
— All impacts, including environmental
impacts, should be covered by planning obligations. In the current
system this is not always the case. Often infrastructure is provided
but mitigation of environmental impacts is not.
— We wholeheartedly support the Government's
recommendation that planning obligations should provide positive
planning. However, we think the system risks being monopolised
by the provision of affordable housing and that benefits will
not be available for other important positive planning purposes.
Provision of affordable housing is a very important objective
but planning is too blunt an instrument to provide it effectively.
Affordable housing should be delivered through other funding streams,
including central government funding, and not be provided through
the planning system alone.
— The environment and biodiversity should
benefit from the new system. At present, the focus on biodiversity
is very weak compared to other purposes. This should be rectified.
The positive benefits that obligations should deliver should include
habitat creation.
— Planning obligations are a regressive
system ie the greatest gains can be secured in areas where they
are perhaps needed least, the areas with greatest development
pressure. Planning obligations are least likely to be secured
in depressed regions where obligations could be most beneficial.
The Government needs to address this problem in developing the
new system.
— We support proposals for improved transparency,
monitoring and accounting proposed for the new system. We have
called for these for some time.
— The Government has created confusion
by failing to clearly state what the different purposes for tariffs
and the negotiated element should be.
— The present system can be complex and
sometimes lacks clear guidance. Government needs to consult on
and produce clear guidance on how the system can be more user-friendly
and efficiently operated.
RSPB
April 2002
| 
