Further memorandum by the Department for
Transport, Local Government and the Regions (PGP 06A)
PLANNING GREEN PAPER
SUMMARY OF
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
1. This Memorandum fulfils the commitment
given by the Department of Transport, Local Government and the
Regions to provide the Committee with a summary of responses to
the Planning Green Paper. A list of respondents will be placed
in the Library. Because of the large number involved, copies of
the responses will be made available for public inspection in
the Department's library in due course.
CONSULTATION EXERCISE
2. The Planning Green Paper was published on
12 December 2001. The official closing date for receipt of consultation
was 18 March 2002. A series of daughter documents were also published:
Major Infrastructure Projects which proposes new parliamentary
procedures for processing major infrastructure Projects; "Reforming
Planning Obligations"; "Compulsory Purchase and Compensation",
and "Use Classes Order" the consultation on possible
changes to the Use Classes Order and Temporary Uses Provisions.
3. The Department sought to engage as wide a
constituency as possible in the consultation process, When the
Green Paper was published copies were sent direct to MPs and to
local authorities (in view of their direct involvement in the
planning system), For all other interested bodies, copies were
sent to national offices so that they could make their members
aware of the consultation exercise.
4. The Department also tried to make the Green
Paper and its proposals as widely known as possible to all those
with an interest in the planning system. This was done through
the initial `press launch' to which all national media and specialist
publications were invited, and during the consultation period
Ministers and officials attended over thirty events throughout
England aimed at explaining the proposals in the Green Paper.
Furthermore a series of press notices were issued during the consultation
period.
5. The Green Paper was made freely available.
Over 13,900 copies were distributed.
6. In order to better facilitate responses to
the Green paper a questionnaire was provided as part of the Green
Paper package. In line with Government policy on electronic communication
the Department also tried to make the consultation process as
simple as possible for those with access to the internet by enabling
respondents to complete a questionnaire on the Department's website.
The website received 38,769 "hits".
7. There were 15,489 responses to the Green Paper
consultation.
Overall response
8. In general the responses were supportive
of the need for reform and the broad aims behind the Government's
proposals.
9. The RSPB "agree that the System
needs change" and that "the Government is to be commended
for initiating this important debate". The CPRE "accepts
that there is room for considerable improvement in the existing
planning system", and find "significant elements of
the Green paper proposals to welcome." The National Trust
"welcomes the debate triggered by the publication of the
Planning Green Paper" and "recognises that the land
use planning system needs reform." ROOM (the National Council
for Housing and Planning) are "encouraged that many of [their]
aspirations for reform are reflected in|the broad proposals contained
in the Green Paper."
10. The Wildlife and Countryside Link "recognise
the need for change in parts of the planning system". The
Countryside Agency "broadly welcomed the Green Paper proposals."
English Nature "supports the need for reform. The planning
system needs to respond better to the community and deliver the
outcomes it requires. We welcome means of speeding up the system
and making it more customer-focussed and inclusive, less arcane
and adversarial." The Environment Agency "very much
agree with Lord Falconer|that the fundamental purpose of town
and country planning is to deliver sustainable development"
and believe that "reform should focus on remedying overblown,
bureaucratic and slow aspects of the system."
11. The British Chambers of Commerce argue
that "the UK's planning system is failing" and that
"the Government has correctly identified many of the problems
of the current system". The CBI believe that "there
are many very welcome proposals". The British Property Federaton
"[b]elieve that there are many positive recommendations in
the . . . Green Paper that will support the objective of a more
certain, consistent and generally more effective planning system".
The British Retail Consortium "welcomes the Green paper as
a positive contribution towards reform of the planning system
to improve its speed, certainty and consistency."
12. The Royal Town Planning Institute "welcomes
publication of the Green Paper" and "the widespread
debate that has followed" which demonstrates "overwhelming
support for an improved planning system." The Town and Country
Planning Association "welcomes the analysis offered by the
Green Paper of a planning system which has become too slow, socially
exclusive and in need of reform." The Planning Officers Society
"fully endorses" the Government's objectives for reform.
The Society "is pleased that, the Government has recognised
that a major review of the planning system is necessary."
13. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors
(RICS) "endorse the assessment of the problems associated
with the current system, including the current level of complexity
and the lack of speed and predictability."
14. The County Councils Network "supports
the need for fundamental reform of the planning system."
The Regional Development Agencies "believe that it is necessary
to modernise the planning system so that it promotes economic
growth and regional prosperity and balances social, environmental
and sustainable development objectives in a more efficient, effective,
consistent, integrated and transparent way." They "wholeheartedly
endorse the analysis of what is wrong with the current system
and the principles of the approach to reform set out in the Green
Paper".
Analysis
15. This analysis covers responses to the Planning
Green Paper only. Of the processed responses, respondents can
be analysed as follows:
| Business | (6 per cent)
|
| Environmental/Community groups | (21 per cent)
|
| Public | (63 per cent)
|
| Local authority | (7 per cent)
|
| Local councillor | (9 per cent)
|
| Other | (9 per cent)
|
| Not stated | (5 per cent)
|
(NB: some respondents have been classified as belonging to more
than one group).
16. Analysis of the numbers of responses shows that a large
majority were from individual members of the public and environmental
and community groups. This was in part the result of a number
of campaigns reflecting particular views. The Department does
not think it appropriate to weight responses from one stakeholder
group against another. On the other hand, the Cabinet Office "Code
of Practice on Written Consultation" advises that analysis
of responses is not simply a matter of counting votes. The House
of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee[1]
has also drawn attention to the risks of single issue groups monopolising
debate.
17. The Green Paper "tick-box" questionnaire enabled
consultees to provide a simple "yes/no" response to
specific questions. The format adopted however did not allow respondents
to give qualified answers to indicate where, for example, they
might support the principle but have concerns about the detail.
As Smith and Williamson make clear in their final report to the
department this has resulted in inconsistencies between responses
using the questionnaire and views expressed in the more detailed
responses. To convey the complexity of responses therefore they
have been analysed according to the breakdown in Paragraph 15
above. The consultants report is appended to this memorandum.
18. A breakdown of the type of response is set out below:
| "tick-box" questionnaire responses
| 8,981 |
| Detailed replies (ie non standard) | 2,793
|
| Campaigns: |
| "Planning Disaster" letters | 3,546
|
| "Eastern Daily Press" responses |
99 |
| "Chapter 7" responses | 51
|
| "Fiona Emslie" letters | 19
|
19. There were a number of identifiable campaigns. In the
largest, the CPRE urged their members to respond to the consultation
using a template (www.cpre.org.uk). 10,417 responses that used
the tick box questionnaire, or that it was possible to code onto
the form were data processed. 2,947 (28 per cent) of the responses
data processed matched the CPRE "template" document
exactly. It should be noted that this 2,947 may include some respondents
who by chance matched their response exactly to the CPRE model,
It probably also excludes some respondents who were prompted by
the CPRE but who varied their response slightly from the CPRE
model response. The results have been analysed including the CPRE
campaign.
20. The Green Paper also prompted letter writing campaigns
including one by a coalition of the CPRE, Friends of the Earth.
Restore UK and Transport 2000, Newspaper advertisements were taken
out on 4 March, urging the public to write to the Prime Minister,
at 10 Downing Street, and giving a sample letter. 3,546 of these
letters were received. A campaign by the Eastern Daily Press triggered
a letter writing campaign by Norfolk residents. 99 standard responses
were received. While a campaign by "Chapter 7 and The Land
is Ours" resulted in 51 standard responses. 19 identical
letters addressed to the Department were also received.
21. Not all respondents replied to each question. The consultants
contracted by the Department to perform the analysis examined
a random sample of forms to analyse the comments relating to questions
1-5, 7 & 8. We show percentages where at least 5 per cent
of people commenting on the question indicated a similar answer.
An analysis of the responses to each of the questions 1-5, 7 &
8 follows.
22. The responses to the questionnaire indicated the following
views.
QUESTION 1
We propose to replace local plans and Unitary Development Plans
with a Local Development Framework (paragraphs 4.8-4.32). Do you
agree?
Breakdown of tick-box responses
Local authorities were more clearly supportive of this proposal
than other respondents. Of the 602 local authority respondents
and 605 business respondents to this question 44 per cent and
29 per cent indicated clear agreement with the proposal. Of the
2,080 respondents who identified themselves as representing environmental
or community groups only 9 per cent indicated clear support for
the proposal, while only four per cent of the 6,399 of those who
identified themselves as interested members of the public did
so.
A majority of respondents indicated "no" in response
to this proposal but 38 per cent of those expressed concern to
ensure that the reform of local planning would not be at the expense
of the existing opportunities for public consultation and involvement
at the local level, rather than outright opposition. 14 per cent
of respondents argued that the existing system of local plans
worked already and should be kept. Seven per cent of respondents
were concerned that the proposals in the Green Paper did not contain
enough detail and were not prescriptive enough. 10 per cent of
respondents objected on the basis that they felt that the proposals
represented a diminishing of their right to object or appeal.
Detailed responses
The RTPI "supports the proposal to make the LDF a statutory
element of the plan-led system," but argue that "there
is a need to clarify more precisely the nature and content of
LDFs." The Law Society agree believing that "it is unclear
how LDFs would work in practice". English Nature "welcome
the role of the Local Development Framework as a spatial strategy
to deliver the economic, social and environmental objectives of
the Community Strategy and the Regional Spatial Strategy."
The Regional Development Agencies "welcome the simplification
of the planning hierarchy as|it will enable a more responsive
and up to date planning system to be put in place". They
also "welcome the principle of local development frameworks".
The RICS "supports the replacement of structure plans, local
plans and unitary development plans with Local Development Frameworks."
RICS do however express concern that the "LDF could simply
lead to greater complexity if it was applied to|the large number
of local authorities ... serious consideration should be given
to producing LDFs|across existing local authority boundaries."
The CPRE "does not support the Green Paper proposals for
LDFs in their current form, but|would welcome the opportunity
to contribute further|as to how [LDFs], Action Plans might look
and function in practice."
QUESTION 2
We propose that Local Development Frameworks should include
community-based action plans (paragraphs 4.13-4.15).Do you agree?
Breakdown of tick-box responses
Local authorities and business were more clearly supportive
of this proposal than others, Of the 574 local authorities who
answered this question 62 per cent were supportive, while 27 per
cent of local councillors agreed. 30 per cent of business respondents
indicated clear agreement with the proposal, Of the 2,021 respondents
who identified themselves as representing environmental or community
groups 19 per cent gave a clear yes to the proposal. Only 10 per
cent of the 6,271 of those who identified themselves as interested
members of the public did.
Strong support for improved public participation was reflected
in many of the responses but overall a majority of respondents
indicated opposition: 28 per cent because they were concerned
to ensure that the wider community and public would be involved
in the preparation of community based action plans; 18 per cent
of respondents recognise that the local plan framework requires
reform, but believed that such frameworks should be map-based.
A further 23 per cent of respondents expressed concern as to how
the proposals would protect the wider countryside.
Detailed responses
RICS believe that "action plans are likely to be an
effective way of delivering LDFs on the ground," and that,
"action plans will form the meat and bones of the new framework."
The Civic Trust echoed this view, supporting the proposal but
arguing that "LDFs would lack any bite or the required clarity
if specific locations for protection and development were not
identified in action plans". CPRE "are pleased to see
the emphasis in the Green Paper on the importance of better detailed
local planning, for instance in the form of Action Plans."
The Environment Agency "supports the move to spatial planning
at the local level and the development of core policy and Action
Plans," ROOM "warmly welcomes the proposals for|Action
Plans|[t]he idea of Action Plans, and their role and purpose,
is strongly supported." The National Trust recognised the
opportunities presented by the proposals and in "welcom[ing]
the proposals for action plans", they stressed "the[ir]
scope|to provide a markedly appealing process for community involvement,"
The RSPB however "are not persuaded that the LDF approach
and the abandonment of the comprehensive map base to plans will
provide greater certainty and help communities get involved in
local planning as suggested." Friends of the Earth also argue
that "[LDFs] should contain a proposals map that identifies
major development constraints and sets out all significant new
land use allocations."
QUESTION 3
We are proposing new arrangements for community involvement
in preparation of the Local Development Framework and in significant
planning decisions (Paragraphs 4.21-4.24 and 5.52-5.58). Do you
agree?
Breakdown of tick-box responses
A majority of respondents agreed with this proposal. Of the
569 local authorities who answered this question 81 per cent were
supportive, while 81 per cent of the 569 business respondents
agreed. 82 per cent of the 869 local councillors agreed. 91 per
cent of the 2,038 respondents who identified themselves as representing
environmental or community groups, and 92 per cent of the 6,331
of those who identified themselves as interested members of the
public also agreed.
Despite this strong support for the strengthened opportunities
for public participation provided by this proposal 19 per cent
of respondents stressed that area maps would still be required,
and 17 per cent of respondents stressed that public access to
information and detail was still necessary. 11 per cent of respondents
argued that the proposals appeared to reduce the opportunities
for public input.
Detailed responses
RICS commented that "community participation is fundamental
to the planning system. Planning must be, and must be seen to
be, an inclusive process". English Nature "fully endorses
proposals which improve local community engagement", while
the Environment Agency "support the proposed role of community
strategies in establishing a local vision and objectives for LDFs".
The Law Society believe that "the proposal to incorporate
a Statement of Community Involvement in the [LDF] is commendable".
The National Retail Planning Forum welcome the proposals for "engaging
the wider community more effectively than in the past". This
view is echoed by: the British Retail Consortium who "welcome
the idea that community involvement should become more meaningful
and representative"; and the British Property Federation
which "recognises the value and importance of getting the
community's views and aspirations".
QUESTION 4
We are proposing to simplify the hierarchy of plans by strengthening
regional planning and abolishing county structure plans (paragraphs
4.36-4.51). Do you agree?
Breakdown of tick-box responses
Of the 580 local authorities who responded 31 per cent agreed
with the proposal, while 26 per cent of the 592 business respondents
indicated their clear agreement. Of the 2,074 respondents who
identified themselves as representing environmental or community
groups only 7 per cent felt able to indicate a clear yes to the
proposal, while only 4 per cent of the 6,427 of those who identified
themselves as interested members of the public felt able to do
so. 10 per cent of 883 local councillors agreed with the proposal.
A clear majority of respondents indicated "no"
in their response. Only 23 per cent of respondents argued for
the retention of county plans. 28 per cent of respondents expressed
concern at the remoteness of the regional level from local interests,
while 11 per cent argue in a similar vein that local decisions
should be taken locally. 10 per cent of respondents argued that
regional planning is a better basis for infrastructure and use
the examples of power stations, motorways and flood defences being
planned at the regional level.
Detailed responses
The WWF recognises that the current system is "not always
easy to understand from the outside and the fact that many plans
conflict with national or regional policy objectives and are in
need of revision is undesirable". Therefore the "Green
Papers desire to rationalise and demistify the system is to be
welcomed". The Planning Officers Society "welcome the
proposal that non-statutory regional planning guidance should
be replaced by a statutory regional spatial strategy". The
CPRE "welcome the proposal for regional planning. . .to gain
statutory status," and RICS "strongly supports the introduction
of statutory regional planning". The Environment Agency "welcomes
the proposed strengthening of the planning system at the regional
level" while ROOM believe "the proposed new statutory
[RSSs] offer considerable potential as a means of delivering more
effective strategic planning". The RTPI argue however that
``[I]t is important to appreciate that. . .the abolition of
structure plans. . .should not remove the county councils planning
role". The RSPB stress that "[t]here is considerable
strategic planning expertise currently available at county level",
and "it is essential that strategic planning expertise is
not lost due to planning reforms". English Nature agree stating
that "there must be a clear role for County Councils in providing
expert strategic planning. . .advice". Friends of the Earth
"does not support the move to abolish structure plans".
QUESTION 5
We propose to review national planning guidance to reduce its
volume and complexity (paragraphs 4.54-4.58). Do you agree?
Breakdown of tick-box responses
A clear majority of local authorities supported this proposal.
Of the 559 local authorities who responded 72 per cent agreed,
as did 38 per cent of the 862 local councillors. 44 per cent of
the 561 business respondents indicated their clear agreement.
Of the 1,998 respondents who identified themselves as representing
environmental or community groups 22 per cent agreed, while 15
per cent of the 6,253 of those who identified themselves as interested
members of the public felt able to do so.
The objective of producing clear and comprehensive guidance
was welcomed by 27 per cent of respondents, 10 per cent of respondents
agreed with the need for simplification and 17 per cent specifically
expressed a strong desire for clarity. However a majority of respondents
indicated "no" to this proposal. 12 per cent of respondents
stressed that brevity does not necessarily produce clarity and
10 per cent qualified their support for the proposal on the basis
that simplification did not dilute the substance or comprehensive
nature of the guidance. 5 per cent of respondents despite indicating
"no" in their response specifically mentioned PPG3 as
a good model for naflonal planning guidance.
Detailed responses
CPRE "accept that some of the existing PPGs would benefit
from revision, . . .to make them more concise (where appropriate),
clearer and better focused on implementation of policy objectives".
RICS "supports the government's plans to review the current
system of PPGs and MPGs", and "believes that PPGs should
be made more specific and focused wherever possible". The
RSPB "support the principle that national planning policy
guidance should concentrate on national policy issues", but
are concerned that "there should be no arbitrary limit placed
on the length of PPGs". Friends of the Earth are not "in
principle opposed to the effective and concise explanation of
policy [h]owever some issues such as nature conservation involve
considerable detail". The Environment Agency "supports
the drive for the simplification and reform of PPGs delivering
greater clarity between national policy and good practice".
The CBI "welcome the proposal to review national planning
guidance", and argue that, "a greater distinction between
policy and advice on process and best practice is a useful way
of clarifying PPGs". ROOM also welcomes the proposals. .
.to improve the system of national planning guidance".
QUESTION 6
Do you have any further comments on our proposals for reforming
plans?
Comments were not specifically analysed in relation to this
question in the time available. This more specific analysis is
ongoing.
QUESTION 7
We are proposing to speed up the planning system, and set new
targets for local authorities and central government for dealing
with applications and appeals (paragraphs 5.20-5.24, 6.9-6.18,
6.43-6.47). Do you agree?
Breakdown of tick-box responses
The majority of respondents agreed with this proposal. 84
per cent of the 564 business respondents agreed with this proposal,
as did 82 per cent of the 1,979 respondents who identified themselves
as representing environmental or community groups. 87 per cent
of the 6,274 respondents who identified themselves as interested
members of the public supported the proposal, 78 per cent of the
508 local authority respondents indicated their support as did
78 per cent of the 853 local councillors who responded. Support
for this proposal was qualified in 30 per cent of responses by
the desire to ensure that the public must have time to have their
say. 25 per cent of respondents were keen to stress that the quality
of the decision made should remain paramount, while 17 per cent
stressed the need to ensure that speed did not become the overriding
objective of the system and lead to corners being cut. 9 per cent
were keen to stress that qualitative measures were not lost and
to ensure that any new system provided for the protection of the
countryside.
Detailed responses
The "timescales proposed are welcomed by RICS",
who "also support the differentiation of timescales for dealing
with different types and scales of development".
QUESTION 8
We are proposing to impose new performance standards for statutory
consultees and allow them to charge fees for consultation, to
help improve their performance (paragraphs 5.29-5.35). Do you
agree?
Breakdown of tick-box responses
Of the 477 local authorities who responded 43 per cent agreed
with the proposal, as did 24 per cent of the 844 local councillors.
27 per cent of the 522 business respondents indicated their clear
agreement. Of the 1,927 respondents who identified themselves
as representing environmental or community groups 17 per cent
agreed, while 12 per cent of the 6,189 of those who identified
themselves as interested members of the public felt able to do
so.
Only 14 per cent of respondents argued that the number of
statutory consultees should not be reduced. This drawing together
of issues in one question has resulted in a majority of respondents
ticking the "no" box. 14 per cent did not oppose the
proposal in principle but argued for careful consideration before
the number was reduced. 5 per cent of respondents did not give
their full support to the proposal because they were unclear as
to whether local authorities would be given increased funds to
cover the charges. However local authorities themselves were again
more supportive of this proposal than other groups, 21 per cent
of respondents were concerned that the introduction of fees would
discourage applicants from seeking advice. 20 per cent of respondents
argued that parish councils in particular have important local
knowledge and must be allowed to have their say. 9 per cent argued
that the charges should fall on applicants, in particular major
developers.
Detailed responses
RICS believes that "speeding up statutory consultation
is crucial if tighter timetables are to be maintained. . .statutory
consultees are a significant cause of delay in the current system".
The CBI "supports the aim of reducing the number of statutory
consultees", and "welcomes the proposed time limits
and the suggestion that agencies will suffer financial penalties
for breaching these limits". The CLA also "supports
the principle of speeding up responses from consultees".
In common with many respondents the Civic Trust did not agree
with all elements of the proposals but recognise that "Statutory
agencies are a major source of delay in the process". They
"support the introduction of a statutory requirement to respond.
. .and financial penalties for poor performance". The National
Trust "is disappointed by the proposals". The proposal
to reduce the number of statutory consultees is "of considerable
concern" to CPRE. The RSPB however state quite simply that
any reduction in statutory consultees "should not be pursued".
The Environment Agency "supports the need to review the role
of statutory consultation within the planning system", while
the Environmental Law Association recommend "that there is
a full review of statutory consultees and the role they play in
the planning system".
QUESTION 9
The Green Paper contains a number of other proposals aimed
at making the planning system faster, simpler and more effective.
Do you agree with them?
A User-friendly checklist (paragraphs 5.7-5.8)
Breakdown of tick-box responses
The support for this proposal was reflected across all respondent
categories. Of the 535 local authorities who answered this question
96 per cent were supportive, while 97 per cent of the 535 business
respondents agreed. 98 per cent of the 865 local councillors agreed.
99 per cent of the 2,007 respondents who identified themselves
as representing environmental or community groups, and 99 per
cent of the 6,302 of those who identified themselves as interested
members of the public also agreed.
B Master planning larger developments (paragraphs 5.39-5.42)
Breakdown of tick-box responses
Again the support for this proposal was reflected across
all respondent categories. Of the 486 local authorities who answered
this question 86 per cent were supportive, while 88 per cent of
the 539 business respondents agreed. 89 per cent of the 843 local
councillors agreed. 95 per cent of the 1,973 respondents who identified
themselves as representing environmental or community groups,
and 96 per cent of the 6,240 of those who identified themselves
as interested members of the public also agreed.
C Business planning zones (paragraphs 5.36-5.38)
Breakdown of tick-box responses
Of the 513 local authorities who responded 35 per cent agreed
with the proposal, as did 23 per cent of the 826 local councillors.
31 per cent of the 553 business respondents indicated their clear
agreement. Of the 1,973 respondents who identified themselves
as representing environmental or community groups 10 per cent
agreed, while 9 per cent of the 6,129 of those who identified
themselves as interested members of the public felt able to do
so.
D Preventing twin tracking and repeated applications (box,
page 40)
Breakdown of tick-box responses
The support for this proposal was reflected across all respondent
categories. 99 per cent of the 2,006 respondents who identified
themselves as representing environmental or community groups,
and 98 per cent of the 6,327 of those who identified themselves
as interested members of the public also agreed. Of the 507 local
authorities who answered this question 93 per cent were supportive,
while 79 per cent of the 556 business respondents agreed. 97 per
cent of the 862 local councillors agreed.
E Limiting planning consents to 3 years (box, page 40)
Breakdown of tick-box responses
Support for this proposal was reflected across all respondent
categories. 97 per cent of the 1,998 respondents who identified
themselves as representing environmental or community groups,
and 98 per cent of the 6,312 of those who identified themselves
as interested members of the public also agreed. Of the 486 local
authorities who answered this question 88 per cent were supportive,
while 73 per cent of the 554 business respondents agreed. 92 per
cent of the 861 local councillors agreed.
F Increasing planning fees to help finance better local
authority performance (paragraphs 6.32-6.37)
Breakdown of tick-box responses
There was wide support for this proposal across all respondent
categories. 92 per cent of the 1,945 respondents who identified
themselves as representing environmental or community groups,
and 93 per cent of the 6,233 of those who identified themselves
as interested members of the public also agreed. Of the 456 local
authorities who answered this question 82 per cent were supportive,
while 80 per cent of the 515 business respondents agreed. 81 per
cent of the 854 local councillors agreed.
QUESTION 10
Do you have any further comments on our proposals for improving
the development control process?
Comments were not specifically analysed in relation to this
question in the time available. Thus more specific analysis is
ongoing.
1
www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/id199697/ldinfo/id16sctk/id16sctk.htm Back
| 
