3 Implications of the abolition of
regional spatial strategies
Revocation of RSSs
14. On 27 May 2010, just over two weeks after the
Government assumed office, the Secretary of State outlined the
Government's intention to abolish RSSs in a letter to local planning
authorities:
I am writing to you today to highlight our commitment
in the coalition agreements where we very clearly set out our
intention to rapidly abolish Regional Strategies and return decision
making powers on housing and planning to local councils. Consequently,
decisions on housing supply (including the provision of Travellers'
sites) will rest with Local Planning Authorities without the framework
of regional numbers and plans [...] I expect Local Planning Authorities
and the Planning Inspectorate to have regard to this letter as
a material planning consideration in any decisions they are currently
taking.[21]
Subsequently, on 6 July 2010, the Secretary of State
announced the revocation of Regional Strategies with immediate
effect in a written Ministerial statement to the House, explaining
the mechanism by which this would be achieved:
The abolition of Regional Strategies will require
legislation in the Localism Bill which we are introducing this
session. However, given the clear coalition commitment, it is
important to avoid a period of uncertainty over planning policy,
until the legislation is enacted. So I am revoking Regional Strategies
today in order to give clarity to builders, developers and planners.
Regional Strategies are being revoked under s79(6)
of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act
2009 and will thus no longer form part of the development plan
for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Act 2004.[22]
The Chief Planner at DCLG, Steve Quartermain, issued
guidance on the issues arising from the announcement, covering
the period between revocation and abolition.[23]
15. However, on 10 November 2010, the High Court
reinstated all RSSs in a judgement arising from a challenge to
a planning appeal decision brought by Cala Homes. The court found
that the powers under which the Secretary of State had purported
to revoke all RSSs were in fact insufficient to achieve that aim.
The Court also found that the revocation of an RSS was unlawful
without an environmental assessment under Regulation 9 of the
Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004.
The Secretary of State decided not to appeal to the Court of Appeal,
but instead reiterated his earlier guidance that planning authorities
should take the proposed abolition of RSSs into account as a material
consideration when reaching planning decisions, and should consider
what weight to afford to an RSS in that context.
16. The Secretary of State, giving evidence to us
following the ruling, said of the High Court decision:
A sensible, prudent authority will take into consideration
the fact that in a matter of days a Bill will be produced—we
have produced the draft clauses of that Bill—and in a matter
of time these spatial strategies will be removed. Therefore, while
it [the continued existence of RSSs] is a factor it is not necessarily
a decisive one.[24]
17. The Secretary of State's restated guidance prompted
Cala Homes to issue a second claim, seeking a declaration from
the Court that the Government's stated intention to abolish RSSs
is not a material consideration when reaching planning decisions.
On 29 November 2010 the Court placed a temporary block on the
Government's claim that its plans to abolish RSSs should be regarded
as a material consideration in planning decisions, but this was
lifted on 7 February 2011, and, as it stands, planners can take
into account the Government's intention to abolish RSSs.
18. The Localism Bill was published on 21 December
2010. Clause 89 states:
(1) The following provisions are repealed—
(a) Sections 82(1) and 83 of the Local Democracy,
Economic, Development and Construction Act 2009 (effect of regional
strategies), and
(b) the remaining provisions of Part 5 of that
Act (regional strategy)
[…]
(3) The regional strategies under Part 5 of that
Act are revoked.
Subsection 1 of clause 89 would have the effect of
putting into statute the abolition of RSSs and subsection 3 effects
the revocation of current RSSs, which puts into statute what the
Secretary of State attempted to do in his letter of 29 July 2010.
19. The
High Court ruling against the attempted revocation of regional
spatial strategies means that there is time to think through appropriate
transitional arrangements before RSSs are abolished. We recommend
that the Government adopt a more evidence-based and consultative
approach to policy making in the future, especially in an area
such as planning, where pragmatism and consensus are valuable
assets in securing active rather than reluctant consent to new
approaches to local involvement in decisions affecting people's
everyday lives.
A planning vacuum
20. The Secretary of State had wanted "to avoid
a period of uncertainty over planning policy" by revoking
RSSs with immediate effect. However, the botched revocation has
resulted in that very thing, a period of uncertainty, leaving
a large gap in many areas of planning policy. Whatever the views
of the merits of RSSs, those giving evidence to us overwhelmingly
stressed the importance of the Government putting in place interim
measures to ensure that alternative planning arrangements are
discussed and developed. Boyer Planning, an environmental planning
and development consultancy, for example, wrote that "uncertainty
is now endemic in the system", which is "serving to
undermine the rational framework to spatial planning that exists
at the heart of the town and country system".[25]
West Coast Energy, echoing the concerns of many in the private
sector, noted the uncertainty caused by the vacuum and argued
that "it is of the utmost importance that delays are minimised
and crucially intermediate plans or guidance relating to specific
issues such as renewable energy proposals are formulated and are
given full government backing".[26]
21. The Town and Country Planning Association's evidence
explains that, under the 2004 Planning Act, RSSs and local development
frameworks (LDFs) complemented each other, but the removal of
RSSs has meant the removal of the strategic context of planning,
and removed the mechanism that produced detailed research and
data collection on such issues as housing and energy, which underpinned
LDFs. Without such strategic context and detailed research, adopted
LDFs "are now subject to potential challenge and those in
preparation will require urgent review […] It is unsurprising,
therefore, that both legally and pragmatically the letter of 27
May 2010 created uncertainty for those preparing and implementing
LDFs".[27]
22. Roy Donson, from Barratt Development, reiterated
these consequences of removing RSSs—the top tier of planning
arrangement—without securing any transitional arrangements:
Every time the system has been changed in the past
there has been a fairly smooth flow in the planning process from
the old to the new system. If we go back to the 2004 Act, we had
saved policies that were the transitional arrangements, if you
like. The difference now is that we have taken away the top tier—whether
that is right or wrong, that has happened—and the transitional
arrangements are not sufficiently clear and are not sufficient
of themselves. All the other pieces of this particular jigsaw
are not there yet, but we know they are coming, so we end up with
a period of uncertainty.[28]
23. One particular example of the missing jigsaw
pieces is the means by which the planning of water and drainage
networks is carried out. Thames Water warns of the consequences
of this gap in the planning policy between national and local
levels that has been created by the abolition of RSSs, which will
not be filled in the short to medium term. It makes the crucial
point that such a gap is exacerbated because some local authorities
do not even have reference to water and drainage infrastructure
in their Local Development Frameworks because they were already
covered in the RSS. It notes that "the need for strategic
investment in water resources is no longer recognised at either
regional or local level".[29]
24. Despite DCLG's current guidance that states that
local authorities should continue work on their LDFs, in practice
some local authorities are slowing down or stopping work on them
altogether. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation writes that this lack
of work on LDFs is probably inevitable "with no transitional
arrangements and uncertainty about how incentives will work"
and recommends that "[DCLG] must seek to ensure a more orderly
transition—the guidance so far is insufficient".
[30] The RTPI lists
examples of where local authorities have slowed down planning
activity, including those in South and West Oxfordshire, Surrey
Heath, Vale of Whitehorse, Bristol, Castlepoint, Bury St. Edmunds,
South Wiltshire, Forest Heath, Cotswold and South Northants.[31]
John Acres, from Catesby Property Group, told us of a feeling
of inertia among the public and private planning sectors and complained
that "the past three months have been almost a question of
treading water to see what happens next".[32]
25. The revocation of RSSs left gaps in other planning
policy areas. We received evidence commenting on, among other
issues, Gypsy and Traveller site provision, heritage and culture,
and energy infrastructure. Brenda Pollack told us about the strategic
environmental assessment in RSSs, and that now,
[...] at local level, you don't get that strategic
overview of how things are panning out in impacts on water and
waste [...] authorities are required to do some environmental
assessments, but not at that strategic level.[33]
26. When questioned about what happens between now
and the coming into effect of the Localism Bill, the Secretary
of State did not accept that there was uncertainty, citing the
New Homes Bonus:
We are moving from one system to another; we are
moving from the Regional Spatial Strategies with housing numbers
to one in which local authorities are encouraged to move towards
building houses on the basis of incentives. Our principal concern
as we move to the new system, which is now beginning to be well
developed in the sense that local authorities are responding in
granting planning permissions, is that under the new system local
authorities have the prime responsibility for ensuring a decent
supply of housing.[34]
In his answer, the Secretary of State highlights
the Government's view of RSSs: that they were the imposition of
top-down targets with those targets primarily focussed on housing.
He made no reference to other issues that currently are not being
addressed by either the Government or by local planning authorities.
As Dr Alister Scott, Reader in Spatial Planning at Birmingham
City University, suggests, "the proverbial planning baby
has been thrown out with [the] regional bathwater."[35]
27. Regional spatial strategies are still a material
consideration and remain in law as part of each local authority's
development plan. The legislation to abolish them will take time,
and then further time will be needed until there are effective
plans and policies in place. As it stands, there is uncertainty
among decision makers—developers, landowners, house builders,
non-government organisations, local authorities, and everyone
interested in land use issues—all of whom are waiting to
see what happens. The risk is that there will be a hiatus in development
activity until the dust settles and investors have a clearer idea
of schemes that are likely to gain approval. Our evidence supports
the general view that there is already delay in bringing forward
development proposals and delay in the preparation of local authorities'
plans. This uncertainty must not continue.
The peremptory abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies has created
a hiatus in the planning framework, which risks producing a damaging
inertia. We recommend that the Government issue guidance, as soon
as possible, compliant with the existing law, to assist local
authorities and others on how to address the important strategic
planning issues covered by RSSs and how to continue work on Local
Development Frameworks. When the law changes, there will be a
need for formal transitional arrangements, and the Localism Bill
should clarify those arrangements to explain how the current planning
system will be enabled to continue to guide development after
the Localism Bill becomes law until the new arrangements are up
and running.
21 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1768631.pdf Back
22
HC Deb, 6 July, cols 4-5WS. Back
23
Ibid. Back
24
Q 260 Back
25
ARSS 74, Boyer Planning Ltd, summary Back
26
ARSS 121, West Coast Energy, para 5.7 Back
27
Ev 91 Back
28
Q 198 Back
29
ARSS 143, Thames Water, para 8 Back
30
ARSS 32, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, p3 Back
31
Ev 86 Back
32
Q 169 Back
33
Q 165 Back
34
Q 269 Back
35
ARSS 147, Dr Alister James Scott, para 2 Back
| 
