7 Conclusion
144. Regional Spatial Strategies have provoked strong
reactions in people. Some see them as hierarchical, bureaucratic
and time-consuming, the imposition of unnecessary and unwanted
targets from central Government. Others see them as a necessary
level of planning, dealing with larger than local issues such
as waste disposal, mineral working, energy projects and controversial
accommodation.
145. We are concerned not only at the speed at which
the Government has sought to abolish RSSs, but also at the apparent
lack of understanding by the Government of what RSSs provide and
what should replace them. The DCLG has not explained how infrastructure,
economic development, housing and environment protection be retained
at a strategic level nor has it explained how the current planning
system will move to the new system, after the Localism Bill comes
into effect, without any transitional arrangements in place. Nor
has it explained how local authorities will collect data and evidence,
data and evidence that necessarily underpin local planning decisions.
Nor has it described convincingly how local authorities will be
persuaded to work with other local authorities and the newly-formed
Local Enterprise Partnerships, when planning issues affect larger
than the local area. There are concerns that it may be left to
the courts to intervene when local authorities are reluctant,
or indeed hostile, to working with other local authorities. The
Government has offered no explanation of how the duty to co-operate
will be measured or enforced. It has given no guidance as to how
accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers will be provided, nor
how renewable energy and planning for climate change will be considered.
Ministers have said that the gold standard upon which they are
to be judged will be the building of more homes, but much of the
evidence suggests that the New Homes Bonus may well be ineffective
in increasing house building at all, let alone the building of
the right homes in the right places.
146. All these gaps in the DCLG's evidence base and
arguments illustrate the lack of clarity in how the new planning
system will be co-ordinated and how it will work in practice.
Evidence shows that there is already delay in the preparation
of local authorities' development plans, and delay in bringing
forward development proposals, as everyone waits to see what happens.
As a consequence, there is a hiatus in planning, delaying much-needed
economic recovery. The Government needs to act quickly to fill
the vacuum, and create a planning system which has a chance of
producing the necessary growth and development that this country
needs.
|
