Examination of Witnesses (Questions 118-119)
MR RYND
SMITH, MR
TONY MULHALL
AND MR
DAVID BROCK
18 MAY 2009
Q118 Chair: Can we do the same as last
time, starting at this side? If you would just say who you are
and which organisation you are representing, please.
Mr Brock: Certainly. My name is
David Brock. I am a partner at Mills & Reeve, solicitors,
and I am the head of our planning and environmental law team and
I am here in my capacity as the Chairman of the Law Society's
Planning and Environmental Law Committee.
Mr Smith: My name is Rynd Smith.
I am Director of Policy at the Royal Town Planning Institute and
obviously representing that Institute here today.
Mr Mulhall: My name is Tony Mulhall.
I am Associate Director in the Planning and Development Professional
Group of the RICS.
Q119 Chair: Okay. We are going to
run through the same questions we have had already and the same
rule goes: if you agree with what has been said, just say so and
do not feel the need to repeat it. The first issue is about the
case for the removal of the need test. Do you accept the case
for the removal of the need test and if not do you have any evidence
that there will be undesirable effects?
Mr Mulhall: Can I put this in
a broader context, the context of sustainable development, which
is development which is economically, environmentally and socially
sustainable. That has been an obligation for many years and I
think what we are finding now is a move to a more explicit definition
of the components of that, but fundamentally the decisions which
are taken at the end of all of the process are based on these
broad understandings of what is economically, socially and environmentally
sustainable. There is quite a deal of weighting of those three
factors and it is not quite clear whether Government has indicated
how these factors should be weighted. When you look at the changes
which have been made to PPS6, or the proposals for changes, you
sense there is an insertion of economic and competition-type factors
into the document. It is not sure whether that is a rebalancing
in favour of economic factors to give them priority or whether
it is a balancing to ensure that environmental and social factors
do not take priority. I think this is an issue which really has
not been fully resolved. Our view would be that broadly speaking
the issues of sustainability will finally determine these. We
also have the view that in different stages of the economic cycle
you might end up with different conclusions. For instance, right
now someone might argue that what is really required is more employment
and low-cost food, in which case the local authority might favour
a property solution which has a low overhead on the edge of town.
By comparison, in a booming climate that might not be such an
issue. So I am in a sense moving away from these very precise
impact definitions that are around which will be very carefully
calculated, but that is the analysis part. When it comes to synthesising
the problem and coming to an eventual conclusion, it may be around
these broadly based parameters where either technical planners
end up making a recommendation or the planning committees make
these recommendations.
| 
