Memorandum by the Campaign for the Protection
of Rural England (CPRE) (DRA 19)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)
welcomes this draft Bill as an opportunity to comment on a number
of key issues that we regard as fundamental to the long term effectiveness
of elected Regional Assemblies.
We welcome the Government's enthusiasm for stakeholder
input, which has already brought considerable benefit to regional
decision making to date. We also welcome the inclusion of "promotion
and protection of the environment" as one of the key
purposes of an elected Assembly. We have a number of concerns
about the draft Bill, however, key among which are the following:
— Sustainable development—we
believe that the draft Bill does little to ensure the promotion
and pursuit of sustainable development by elected Assemblies or
to question the continuing focus on economic development as the
primary mechanism for improving quality of life in the English
regions. The inclusion of general purposes for economic development,
social development and protection and promotion of the environment
is a step in the right direction but this separation of purposes
is, ultimately, inadequate. We believe strongly that there should
be a statutory duty on elected Assemblies to promote sustainable
development as their overarching purpose, with mechanisms in place
to ensure all decisions are screened for their sustainable development
implications.
— Environment—we believe
that the Bill should place a clear duty on elected Assemblies
to promote the prudent use of natural resources, which encompasses
the management of minerals, waste, water, land and energy. There
should be greater specificity on how elected Assemblies should
protect and enhance landscapes.
— Stakeholder representation—we
believe that the draft Bill should go to greater lengths to ensure
that stakeholder participation is meaningful and consistent. Such
participation should be supported financially and should allow
for both development and review of policy and strategy by stakeholders.
Decision making should be transparent and accountable. We see
no reason why such procedures should not be developed straight
away, rather than once an Assembly is elected. Procedures for
co-option should ensure that those with genuine expertise and
experience are given opportunities for input to strategy development
and scrutiny.
— Rural representation—we
believe that serious consideration should be given to increasing
the number of elected members and/or drawing constituency boundaries
that balance rural and urban areas of a region, to ensure that
rural interests are properly represented alongside urban interests.
INTRODUCTION
1. CPRE welcomes this opportunity to contribute
to the process of pre-legislative scrutiny of the Draft Regional
Assemblies Bill.
2. CPRE takes a close and active interest
in all Government proposals affecting the English countryside
and the wider environment. The possibility of the establishment
of elected Assemblies—potentially for every English region—is
therefore of great significance to us. We believe that our considerable
experience of, and close involvement with, English regional decision
making bodies since their inception qualifies us to comment with
authority on the proposals of the draft Bill and their implications
for the environment.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
3. CPRE is pleased that promotion and, particularly,
protection of the environment is explicit as one the key purposes
of an elected Assembly. However, we remain concerned at the over-emphasis
on improvement in economic performance as the key factor in improving
quality of life for people in their region. While we welcome the
sustainable development requirements of clause 44 (4), we wish
to see the promotion of sustainable development as the fundamental
purpose of elected Assemblies, akin to the statutory duty of the
National Assembly for Wales. Sustainable development—integrating
effectively economic, social and environmental objectives—is
key to respecting environmental limits and improving quality of
life for the benefit of local communities.
4. Consequently, we would like to see an
explicit requirement on elected Assemblies to use their regional
Sustainable Development Frameworks as the basis for all regional
strategy development. Towards this end, the Bill should insist
that Assemblies:
— have a duty to promote sustainable
development as their overarching purpose;
— adopt and promote sustainable development
objectives, linked to targets and indicators, to which all regional
strategies should conform and which are subject to external scrutiny
and monitoring;
— consider the sustainability of all
decisions taken. Sustainability appraisals and checklists should
be employed for all strategies (not just the RSS (clause 100 (3))
and an internal body established to scrutinise the work of the
Assembly in this context; and
— ensure that RDA actions conform and
are integrated with regional sustainability objectives.
ENVIRONMENT
5. CPRE believes that elected Assemblies
have an important role to play in protecting the tranquillity
and character of the countryside. The Policy Statement refers
to their role in relation to waste, biodiversity, flood prevention
and sustainable energy. While we welcome a regional strategy on
biodiversity (paragraph 73), the mechanisms for ensuring effective
landscape protection appear weak. The Policy Statement merely
refers to "supporting action" without setting
out what this might comprise. In the absence of such information,
it is difficult to ascertain whether elected Assemblies have the
necessary powers to safeguard protected landscapes and the wider
countryside. We also believe that the provision for Assemblies
to be consulted on issues relating to environment and conservation
should clarify their role in relation to protected areas. In particular,
whether the Assembly is being asked to be the guardian of the
duties to protect National Parks and AONBs under the Countryside
and Rights of Way Act, 2000.
6. CPRE also wishes to highlight that the
Policy Statement accompanying the draft Bill makes no reference
under environment to policy on minerals or water abstraction.
A key plank of the Government's sustainable development agenda
is the prudent use of natural resources. We believe this aspect
needs to be spelled out more clearly.
MEMBER REPRESENTATION
7. CPRE remains concerned at the relatively
small number of elected members proposed for the Assemblies (clause
3). This will result in extremely large constituency sizes in
some regions. We believe that this poses a great danger to rural
constituency interests, which are likely to be over-shadowed by
those of mainly urban constituencies. We propose that an elected
Assembly should have a greater number of seats, while ensuring
that boundaries are drawn adequately to represent rural areas,
or should at least be required to draw boundaries that result
in parity between rural and urban constituencies. This issue is
compounded by the proposal that most of the Assembly's functions
would be carried out by a small Executive (clauses 32-33) of between
two and six members, which we see as a danger to democratic accountability
more generally. Consequently, we propose that this or any other
arrangement for ultimate decision making is widened.
STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTATION
8. CPRE enjoys significant representation
in all regions, often working with partners through umbrella groups,
on various committees, fora and task groups, as well as on a number
of the current chambers themselves. Along with other voluntary
sector stakeholders, we have shown great commitment to ensuring
the success of the current regional chambers and have provided
invaluable independent expertise. While acknowledging that it
would be inappropriate for unelected partners to vote alongside
elected members, we cannot emphasise enough that effective stakeholder
engagement is widely considered, by the current regional chambers
and key regional stakeholders, such as RDAs and GOs, to be fundamental
to the effective operation of the chambers and the development
and scrutiny of their strategies. CPRE therefore welcomes the
draft Bill's requirement that Assemblies "make arrangements
to encourage and facilitate the participation [of voluntary
organisations] in the exercise of its functions" (clause
53). We would expect these arrangements to ensure transparency
and accountability of stakeholder engagement procedures. We also
believe it to be important that such arrangements include the
opportunity to influence decision making at all levels and allow
regional stakeholders, such as environmental representatives,
equal access to the Assembly with other bodies.
9. We believe that there should be a clearer
definition of the nature and extent of "participation".
Environmental NGOs in general, and CPRE in particular, have made
significant contributions to regional strategy development. Indeed,
CPRE staff and volunteers have often been the only members of
a chamber or sub-committee with requisite knowledge on, or expertise
of, key issues—most notably the land use planning system.
Consequently, participation should be meaningful, enabling environmental
partners to make a tangible difference to decision-making and
policy development processes from their inception, as far as is
democratically feasible. Consequently, participation should not
be restricted to consultative or advisory roles and should enable
continuous representation by stakeholder groups to ensure consistency
.
10. We would also encourage the Committee
to explore the need for inclusion of obligations upon Assemblies
to fund, or ensure that funds are available for, the work of stakeholder
representatives. This will ensure that voluntary groups are able
to realise their full participative potential in consultation
processes, which can be very resource intensive for smaller organisations.
One option might be the provision of services in kind. For example,
the South East of England Regional Assembly already has an Assembly
Partners' Support Unit and we would welcome the roll out of this
initiative to elected Assemblies.
11. We also welcome the ability of Review
and Monitoring Committees and their sub-committees to co-opt members
as appropriate and the potential for Assemblies to appoint special
advisors to act in specific areas. However, we would encourage
the Committee to push for guidance on this aspect from the Secretary
of State as soon as possible. We question whether the discretionary
nature of this co-option will actually lead to effective participation
by stakeholder representatives. We would welcome more explicit
requirements for co-option where Assembly members lack the specialist
knowledge to effectively input to specific strategy development
processes. We also wish to see mechanisms in the Bill for ensuring
that Assemblies do not restrict co-option to a regularly used,
narrow base but involve a range of appropriate stakeholders, all
of whom should have a requirement upon them to pursue the objectives
of the Assembly.
12. Consequently, CPRE looks forward to the
issuing of statutory guidance about Assemblies' duties on stakeholder
involvement. We hope that this will move away from the discretionary
approach implied at present to include explicit provision for
the appointment of particular stakeholders with relevant knowledge
or experience to act as policy advisers and for involving stakeholder
groups throughout the process of regional policy and strategy
development and review. Assemblies should be required to issue
clear terms of reference and lines of accountability for such
advisers, ensuring that stakeholders are clear about the reasons
for any appointments and by whom advisers have been appointed.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
13. CPRE welcomes the decision to make Regional
Development Agencies (RDAs) directly accountable to the elected
Assemblies (clause 83 referring to schedule 4 of the Regional
Development Agencies Act 1998). We hope that this will result
in consistent and effective scrutiny of all RDA objectives. We
would, however, like to see strong guidelines on how RDA board
members are selected and suggest that boards should be representative
of a wider spectrum of interests than they are at present. We
regard it as essential that explicit statement is made of the
need for an RDA's Regional Economic Strategy (RES) to fit within
the spatial planning framework established by the Regional Spatial
Strategy (RSS), which should be the primary strategy for the region,
setting the framework for environmental, social and economic decisions.
Too often at present the desire for short-term economic growth
is not tempered by other considerations, with the result that
RDA decisions are taken with little regard for other major regional
sustainable development initiatives. This means missed opportunities
for joined-up work and, among other environmental considerations,
unnecessary greenfield development, lack of support for urban
regeneration, promotion of development in the Green Belt and increased
road traffic.
14. Although mentioned in the accompanying
Policy Statement (paragraph 9), CPRE is concerned at the failure
of the draft Bill itself to address the issue of inter-regional
disparities and to highlight the need for Assemblies to operate
within, and co-operate to achieve, a coherent national policy
for sustainable regional development. The implicit encouragement
of competition between regions for inward investment, European
funding and public money will serve only to continue to attract
land hungry development to the economic "hotspots" and
away from areas in need of regeneration. We believe that the lack
of a clear inter-regional dimension is a significant weakness
of the draft Bill and call for a clear policy on the preferred
balance of spatial development across the country, including mechanisms
for resolving competition between regions for major development.
While the Government "considers it appropriate for the
agreement of targets" (Policy Statement, paragraph 83),
to form the basis of funding with elected Assemblies, to be set
administratively, we propose that such arrangements should be
set out in the Bill.
PLANNING
15. CPRE welcomes in principle the role
of elected Assemblies in preparing and approving the RSS (clauses
98 to 104), but remains concerned at the gap left by the disappearance
of a whole tier of planning, with the abolition of county Structure
Plans and Part 1 of Unitary Development Plans. Consequently, in
order to ensure that the planning expertise of county and unitary
authorities—current and future—is utilised effectively,
we would wish to see the Bill contain mechanisms for ensuring
that the Assembly has to do more than merely "consult"
(Clause 100 (4)) local planning authorities on RSS revisions.
It is essential that these authorities are actively engaged in
the preparation and revision of the RSS.
16. CPRE also wishes to see more effective
and comprehensive mechanisms for ensuring stakeholder and wider
community participation in the development of the RSS, a process
that we believe lacks adequate public accountability at present.
We would hope that the Bill will highlight the need to follow
any recommendations on consultation that may appear in Planning
Policy Statement 11, when it is issued in its final form.
17. CPRE would also wish for clarification
on whether the Secretary of State retains the power to intervene
in cases of conflict between the Assembly and a local planning
authority with regard to strategic planning applications (clause
105).
HOUSING
18. CPRE is concerned at the Policy Statement's
assertion that regional housing strategies would be addressed
"together with the regional spatial strategy"
(paragraph 53). This implies an equal status for the RSS and any
Regional Housing Strategy, whereas the latter should be integrated
and consistent with the former.
TRANSPORT
19. CPRE has been a strong advocate of the
role of the regional level in developing and implementing transport
policy. We believe it offers an opportunity to overcome the problems
caused by individual local authorities "racing to the bottom"
in terms of developing demand management measures like road user
charging, for fear of losing competitive advantage to neighbouring
authorities. The regional level also enables spatial planning
and transport planning to be integrated.
20. The Policy Statement makes reference
to the need for elected Assemblies to meet all additional costs
of rail proposals (paragraph 57). While CPRE supports the need
to control escalating costs, it is important that this is done
in a fair way which relates to rail and road infrastructure, and
that it does not lead to unsustainable solutions being advocated
on the basis of crude, short-term financial calculations.
21. The Government envisages elected Assemblies
advising it on Local Transport funding bids. CPRE is concerned
about the potential distortion of bids if elected Assemblies continued
to have a "big kit" attitude, favouring bids seeking
new infrastructure. We would also be concerned to avoid this process
skewing bids in favour of urban authorities because of the geographical
area from which most of the members of the Assembly might come.
This reinforces the need for a clear duty to be placed on Assemblies
to carry out effective rural proofing (see 24 and 25 below).
22. We also believe that an anomaly in the
Policy Statement should be addressed, which requires the Highways
Agency to consult Regional Assemblies when it has certain proposals
in a region (paragraph 56), but with no equivalent requirement
for Network Rail.
23. In relation to wider transport policy,
CPRE recommends that:
— the Bill places a duty on elected
Assemblies to promote spatial efficiency and examine the need
for integrated transport measures (as envisaged by the Transport
White Paper, A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone)
before assessing the case for individual road proposals;
— the requirement for controlling costs,
and the tests which apply to elected Assemblies in this regard,
should be equivalent for road and rail, and not lead to unsustainable
road options being given priority on financial grounds;
— in the light of the Government's
feasibility study into national road user charging, greater consideration
be given to how elected Assemblies can take a genuinely strategic
approach and promote demand management policies in their area;
and
— there should be a requirement for
Network Rail to consult elected Assemblies when developing rail
projects in their region, equivalent to that to be placed on the
Highways Agency.
RURAL POLICY
AND RURAL
PROOFING
24 CPRE welcomes the Government's intention
to set out in statutory guidance the mechanisms for ensuring elected
Assemblies "proof" regional strategies in the light
of their effects on rural areas and involve rural stakeholders
in their work. We believe that there is a need for elected Assemblies
to have a more significant role in the development and co-ordination
of regional rural policy and strategies. This is particularly
important given that elected Assemblies will have oversight of
the RDAs, which are likely to be responsible from 2007 for delivering
the economic and social elements of rural development programmes
(divorced from environmental elements), while Government Offices
will be responsible for "brokering and bringing forward
plans for regional and rural delivery" (Policy Statement,
paragraph 69). Careful consideration also needs to be given to
the relationship between elected Assemblies and the proposed Integrated
Agency (ibid, paragraph 74), which will have a role fundamental
to all environmental and much rural decision making at the regional
level. We would also like to see clarification on the role of
the existing Regional Rural Affairs Fora in relation to elected
Assemblies.
25. CPRE would also wish to see clarification
on the distinction that is made in the Policy Statement between
"rural" and "countryside" (ibid, paragraph
71). The perception that the former covers social and economic
issues and the latter environmental is worrying. We would expect
the Assemblies to act to ensure effective liaison between, and
scrutiny of, the parties mentioned above when developing funding
initiatives for rural areas.
|
