Memorandum submitted by the Royal Town
Planning Institute
1. INTRODUCTION
The Royal Town Planning Institute is the leading
professional body for spatial planners in the United Kingdom.
It is a charity with the purpose to develop the art and science
of town planning for the benefit of the public as a whole. It
has over 21,000 members who serve in government, local government
and as advisors in the private sector.
This document provides evidence and responds
to questions raised by the Parliamentary Business and Enterprise
Committee, examining proposed changes to the role of Regional
Development Agencies, including their proposed assumption of Regional
Planning Body powers. The RTPI welcomes the chance to contribute
to this important inquiry. Truly integrated spatial planning is
an opportunity to be grasped and the RTPI therefore broadly supports
the creation of integrated regional strategies which will bring
regional economic, social and environmental planning together.
However, we have a number of concerns as to how this objective
will be achieved in practice, including the need for a much broader
agenda and skill-base for and accountability of Regional Development
Agencies.
The response has been formed by drawing on a
policy position prepared to underpin the RTPI response to the
Sub National Review consultation in June 2008,[219]
together with additional internal consultations with the RTPI
Policy and Practice Committee, which has a working party established
to consider the relationship between planning policy and economic
development.
The RTPI would be happy to present its conclusions
in oral evidence and to answer questions to assist the Committee.
This document may be published or disseminated without further
reference to the RTPI.
2. RESPONSES
TO QUESTIONS
3. QUESTION 1
The need for a level of economic development /
business / regeneration policy delivery between central and local
government
The RTPI supports integrated regional and sub-regional
spatial planning. There is a definite need for integrated and
co-ordinated policy at a regional level. However, in seeking to
integrate the policies and activities of a wide range of potential
partners across a region, as well as between central and local
government, there is likely to be a practical limit to the activities
that can sensibly be integrated. The level of integration needs
to take into account factors such as the cost and effort required
in order to determine whether or not there are real benefits to
be had.
The Sub National Review provides evidence of
the challenges inherent in trying to integrate complex policy
delivery. The Sub National Review, for example, discusses the
principle of subsidiarity, ie ensuring that decisions are made
at the correct spatial level. There is inevitably a tension between
strategic decisions and parochialism, between technical and political
decisions and between national, regional and local structures.
The government and Regional Development Agencies believe there
is a role at a regional level to find a way through these issues
and that Regional Development Agencies are well placed to deliver
this role. The RTPI strongly supports the principle that there
are questions of policy direction that cannot be decided at an
England level that are of overarching significance, which makes
them very difficult to resolve at a sub-regional level or below.
Whether or not Regional Development Agencies assume a regional
planning body role there is an unavoidable need for that role
to be discharged.
Taking integration and alignment forward towards
better coordination entails making better linkages and synergies
between national, regional, sub-regional and local policies and
programmes, including the programmes and budgets of agencies primarily
engaged in delivery at each level. It does not involve all partners
at all geographical scales submitting their entire strategy and
operations to a single means of co-ordination and control.
As a result, significant efforts will be necessary
to ensure that government policies and programmes sufficiently
take into account their relationships with the regional, sub-regional
and local settings and delegate delivery where possible. Similarly,
significant efforts will be needed to create and maintain the
regional, sub-regional and local partnerships necessary to ensure
that delivery agencies see benefit in agreement with other stakeholders
about the alignment of key elements of the programmes and budgets
with priorities that they are strong partners in setting but can
no longer uniquely set, without reference to others.
To the extent that these relationships need
to be legislatively reinforced, the RTPI considers that the French
Communaut
Urbain is a model that should be examined.
The RTPI supports proposals for sub-regional
partnerships to promote economic development and identifies Multi
Area Agreements as a potentially powerful tool to achieve such
ends. It is hoped that Regional Development Agencies will provide
a level of economic development, business and regeneration policy
delivery between central and local government, that is integrated
with spatial planning, environmental and social policies, which
will result in effective communication between policy and delivery
partners.
Any government seeking to reform regional planning
should be conscious that it has already been restructured once
in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It will be restructured
for a second time in 2009 via the Sub National Review and the
Community Empowerment Bill. There is a risk of being further restructured
in 2010-12 if communities and stakeholders are not satisfied with
the 2009 settlement.
4. QUESTIONS
2 AND 3
The effectiveness of Regional Development Agencies
and their role in adding value and Regional Development Agency
expertise;
The Sub National Review confirmed that the planning,
transport and housing responsibilities of Regional Assemblies
are to be transferred to the Regional Development Agencies, who
will be responsible for preparing a Single Regional Strategy combining
the Regional Spatial Strategy and the Regional Economic Strategy.
This presents an opportunity for Regional Development Agencies
to fulfill their original potential as engines of economic and
social development and environmental conservation and improvement
across all departments of national and local government, all sectors
of the business community and all the interests of local communities.
Strategically, the RTPI has focused its efforts
on engaging with Regional Assemblies, which provided the regional
planning body function and for this reason we would not immediately
offer expertise on the matter of the effectiveness of Regional
Development Agencies and their role in adding value. Of great
interest to us, therefore, is the proposition that Regional Development
Agencies will add economic value and that their proposed role
as regional planning bodies will require the addition of social
and environmental value in terms of a forward spatial framework
for their work. It is therefore critical that value adding must
be assessed in terms of economic, social and environmental value.
There appear at present to be disparities between
Regional Development Agency expertise from region to region. The
focus of Regional Development Agencies has understandably been
upon economic issues, but as the transition of regional planning
function from Regional Assemblies to Regional Development Agencies
takes place, it is imperative that the skills and knowledge gained
from the preparation, delivery and monitoring of the Regiona Spatial
Strategy process is retained and expanded.
In general (and we return to this later) the
RTPI believes that as presently structured and resourced the Regional
Development Agencies are wholly incapable of taking on the work
of preparing a single Regional Strategy. They need major change
at both Board and Official level in order to carry out this task
effectively, both culturally and technically. The fact that the
Single Regional Strategy will involve important decisions on matters
such as transport policy, waste management, minerals, renewable
energy, and gypsies and travellers, is often overlooked and Regional
Development Agencies have not in the past needed to trouble themselves
with many of these matters. In some cases the existing Regional
Spatial Strategies do not adequately deal with some of these issues
either, but it is important that on these—as well as on
more generic policies relating to climate change, environmental
protection and social issues—the Regional Development Agencies
are able to develop appropriate policies. This is not a minor
change in their roles; it is a fundamental one.
Many of the current chief executives and chairmen
of the 9 Regional Development Agencies come from a financial or
economic background. There is a need for fundamental change if
Regional Development Agencies are to take on the role envisaged
for the in the Sub National Review as Regional Development Agencies
will form a crucial part of the development plan process. It is
therefore essential that the skill base and change occurs to incorporate
a wider spectrum of expertise from board level right down each
organisation.
It has been suggested that a member or members
of Regional Development Agency boards should be given specific
responsibility for sustainability issues, the place-making agenda
and environmental issues and that it would be helpful if the holders
of these portfolios were identified and the existence of such
roles were widely known. Similarly, in relation to the staff body
of Regional Development Agencies, the expertise in regional plan
preparation and community engagement that is currently resident
in Regional Assemblies needs to be drawn into the Regional Development
Agencies as regional planning bodies.
Perhaps the formation of Regional Development
Agency topic groups for skills development would allow for the
identification of skills gaps through the transfer or sharing
of skills from region to region, as well as securing more cost-effective
input from specialist interests where this were needed to help
with skill development.
5. QUESTION 4
The extent of, and need for, their overseas activities;
One of the many roles of a Regional Development
Agency is to examine what drives economic growth across their
region in order to identify opportunities for future economic
growth. This is achieved by encouraging public and private investment
locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. In order
to accomplish this, many of the nine Regional Development Agencies
have set up international offices in locations which vary from
America to China.
Some commentators appear to view overseas representation
of Regional Development Agencies as a waste of public money. However
if Regional Development Agencies are to be effective place competitors
for global inward investment, they must communicate with international
audiences. If they are not able to do so effectively, they could
become engines of economic churn, redistributing economic activity
from one English region to another, rather than delivering opportunities
for growth based on inward investment.
Overseas investors often bring with them skills,
technologies, ideas and processes, generating innovation and new
jobs. Many of the largest companies operating in the UK are foreign-owned,
so winning increasing levels of expansion against stiff international
competition, that, particularly in the current economic climate,
is imperative for regional economies.
6. QUESTION 5
The consequences of expanding Regional Development
Agency remit to include new functions, as proposed by the Sub
National Review, including the delivery of EU funding
The RTPI broadly welcomes the expansion of the
Regional Development Agency remit to include planning functions
which provides a platform for spatial planning with the opportunities
for greater integration and alignment that this brings. There
is a need for much better integration between spatial planning
and economic development policies and programmes at the regional,
sub-regional and local levels. The RTPI welcomes the opportunity
to develop the principle of subsidiarity in regional plan-making,
with policies, activities, delivery and budgets delegated from
the regional to the sub-regional and local levels where reasonably
feasible.
The proposed reform, whilst responding strongly
to the need for greater flexibility and timeliness in response
to economic change, has not engaged well with the need to deliver
and to be seen to deliver regional strategies that integrate social,
economic and environmental considerations. The RTPI stands strongly
for integrated and integrating planning. Such planning clearly
does take strong account of economic considerations, but should
not do so at unconsidered expense to society or the environment.
Development must be sustainable in social and environmental terms
in addition to economic terms, if we are to develop a balanced
economy that delivers social justice, access to education and
skills and better housing and health outcomes for all and sustaining
biodiversity, whilst also mitigating and adapting to major environmental
changes such as climate change. Whilst the RTPI is clear that
the government is conscious of this need for integration, the
language of the Sub National Review needs to embrace this more
fully, to provide many diverse stakeholders with the confidence
that truly integrated strategies and outcomes will be delivered.
The RTPI is concerned that there are only a
limited number of planners with significant experience of plan
making at the regional level; as a result the new regional planning
arrangements will require some change in the culture and skill
sets of regional planners. The same can be said for those currently
working within Regional Development Agencies who are likely to
have a background in financial and economic issues.
There must also be a strong focus on the delivery
of measurable outcomes that improve the economy, social life and
the environment for people in the region.
7. QUESTION 6
The accountability of Regional Development Agencies
The RTPI considers that it is politically necessary
for the government to seek means of demonstrating that the Regional
Development Agencies as regional planning bodies will have additional
local accountability, to ensure as broadly-based support as can
be achieved for the preparation of Single Regional Strategies
by Regional Development Agencies. It is also necessary to safeguard
the fragile practice of effective regional planning from a further
round of substantial reform, consequent on emerging stakeholder
perceptions that Regional Development Agencies as currently constituted
are insufficiently locally accountable.
The proposed reform has superficially removed
a strong element of local accountability. The abolition of Regional
Assemblies as regional planning bodies can be read as a lack of
commitment to engage democratically elected local government in
the expression of a forward vision for the region of which it
is a part. The proposed appointment of Regional Development Agenciesas
their successors in a context where these will still be expressly
"business led" bodies reinforces this concern.
The RTPI is concerned that the accountability
to Parliament of Regional Development Agencies will be focussed
exclusively through the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise
and Regulatory Reform and these considerations also underpin the
proposed RTPI changes outlined above. Under the Sub National Review
proposals, the Regional Development Agencies will perform substantial
and weighty tasks in partnership with local government and in
respect of planning functions that currently are accountable to
Parliament through the Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government.
It is important that the chosen accountability
structure is not over-complicated. However, it is also important
that in respect of such matters for which s/he is to be held accountable,
the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform is either required to reach agreement with the Secretary
of State for Communities and Local Government, is required to
be advised by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government or has a means of seeking briefings and support from
civil servants within Communities and Local Government, with relevant
expertise. The RTPI strongly supports the retention and reinforcement
of a public examination at which local parties are able to engage.
It is for these reasons that the RTPI proposes:
— A change to the Regional Development
Agency business led model, to the extent of drawing local government
leaders, community leaders and environmental interests ? and others
with expertise in Regional Planning? into the Regional Development
Agency board structure;
— A strong role for local government
leaders in making policy, but supported by a new regional planning
convention, drawing in local elected members and expert officers
to ensure that leaders have the best support when developing regional
strategies;
— A stronger accountability to Parliament
through regional Ministers and regional committees;
— The retention and further development
of the examination process for regional strategies to entail the
examination of evidence, issues and options at the outset in addition
to the preferred strategy at a later stage;
— The development of the principle
of subsidiarity through partnerships, with sub-regional and local
authorities and partnerships doing what they can, in ways that
are more clearly locally accountable, as far as possible without
complicating our public life by a further tier of authorities
as such;
— An emphasis on the role of Local
and Multi Area Agreements (LAAs and MAAs) in partnerships for
delivery.
There are many who still perceive that Regional
Development Agencies, as successor bodies to Regional Assemblies,
represent a loss of local accountability. This in turn translates
into a significant risk to regional planning per se if, for example,
a change of government should lead to a political commitment to
the abolition or curtailment of powers of Regional Development
Agencies.
The proposed regional leaders' forum will also
provide a means of local accountability for elements of Regional
Development Agency activity. However, it would seem unlikely that
such a forum would provide a place at which individual local stakeholders
could be engaged or heard. Further, in a purely business-led Regional
Development Agency model, the leaders represented on the forum
would also lack a means of direct representation on the Regional
Development Agency board. There would be a distinct risk that
the Regional Development Agency could fail to command the confidence
of regional leaders, because it was not perceived by them to be
sufficiently accountable to them or bound to consider their views.
The RTPI considers that there is a strong argument that leaders
should act as a form of Electoral College, to place their representatives
on the Regional Development Agency board. Regional leaders are
also extremely busy people with very broad agendas to serve and
it is for this reason that the RTPI has also suggested the establishment
of a "standing regional planning convention" to bring
elected members and key officers concerned with local strategy
making together to assist the leaders' forum and the Regional
Development Agency as a whole.
Under the present proposals the RTPI has great
reservations about the ability of the Forum of Leaders to agree
to, and sign off, the Single Regional Strategy after the Panel
has reported. In most cases it will be very difficult to reach
a consensus on the proposals, especially in regions in the southern
half of England, and the Secretary of State will need to be involved.
This two stage process will in fact lengthen the post Inquiry
process (which is already far too long)—and this cannot
have been the intention of the proposals.
8. QUESTION 7
How Regional Development Agency performance has
been measured in the past and will be measured in future
Regional Development Agency performance has
in the past mainly been measured quantitively, in terms of budgets,
human resources and their costs and the valuation of projects
and their outcomes. There have been very few qualitative measures.
The RTPI believes that if sustainable social, environmental and
economic quality is to be provided, maintained and improved, qualitative
performance measures are also imperative.
The RTPI has recently undertaken joint research
with the Department of Communities and Local Government, which
has examined means of developing qualitative outcome measures
for spatial planning[220].
This work could also be of considerable relevance at a regional
level.
9. CONCLUSIONS
The RTPI has on balance supported the primary
policy thrust of the Sub National Review, which has been to ensure
that the plan making process at the regional tier is integrated,
responsive to rapidly changing social, economic and environmental
considerations, timely and flexible whilst providing clear regional
direction on issues that could be settled effectively at a regional
spatial scale.
It is for these reasons that the RTPI has not
objected in principle to the proposed regional planning body role
for Regional Development Agencies. However, as has been made clear
above, the RTPI is critically concerned that Regional Development
Agencies intending the regional planning body role:
— Must have a strong parliamentary
accountability.
— Must refer to strategic direction
from the Secretary of State for Business Enterprise, Regulation
and Reform and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government.
— Must engage sub regional and local
elected leaders, members and communities far more clearly than
their current business led constitution would suggest is possible.
— Must absorb new skills necessary
to discharge the obligations of a regional planning body.
— Must undergo a cultural shift from
being an organisation in broad dedicated to achieving economic
objectives to being an organisation dedicated to the integrated
delivery of sustainable economic, social and environmental benefits.
19 September 2008
219 Royal Town Planning Institute response to "Prosperous
Places: Taking forward the Review of Sub National Economic Development
and Regeneration" June 2008. Back
220
Measuring the Outcomes of Spatial Planning in England, July
2008, Centre for Urban Policy Studies, University of Manchester
Department of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield. Back
| 
