Conclusions and recommendations
Views of regional spatial strategies
1. The
Government must ensure that the beneficial and positive aspects
of RSSs, in particular for integrating infrastructure, economic
development, housing, data collection and environment protection,
are not swept away, but are retained in any new planning framework.
(Paragraph 13)
Implications of the abolition of regional spatial
strategies
2. 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. (Paragraph 19)
3. 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.
(Paragraph 27)
Strategic planning
4.
We recommend that the Government include effective strategic planning
arrangements in the Localism Bill, and that it work with all sectors
to devise and promulgate an agreed approach to larger-than-local
planning across a number of authorities. The Government needs
to ensure a biting obligation on local authorities to have regard
to the evidence and to meet identified needs. This obligation
should be specified in national policy and in particular, the
tests of soundness for local development frameworks. In each case,
national policy should highlight the objective, the data sources
or assessment mechanisms used to identify the need, and the mechanism
for ensuring that each local planning authority makes an appropriate
contribution to meeting the need identified (reflecting different
environmental constraints, policy objectives or other practical
considerations). The Planning Inspectorate should implement these
requirements to ensure a consistent basis for assessing plans
brought forward at the local level.
(Paragraph 43)
Controversial strategic issues
5. The
supply of aggregate minerals and planning for waste will, for
the time being, remain within local planning authorities. These
are matters that reside well with upper tier authorities, although
there should also be guidance to them from the strategic level.
We are concerned that the confusion that arose in evidence over
whether the function might move to the Planning Inspectorate (as
successor to the Infrastructure Planning Commission) shows again
the unduly hasty approach to reform of RSSs. A body of skill and
experience has built up over the years, in partnership forums,
to shape planning for both aggregate minerals and waste planning.
We urge the Government to retain these arrangements, which have
shown themselves to be advantageous, cheap and a means of keeping
the anxiety over these difficult planning issues to a minimum.
(Paragraph 48)
6. We support the
continuation of the CLG Gypsy and Traveller Forum, but see the
need for urgent guidance to local authorities to support them
in their new role following the abolition of planning for Gypsies
and Travellers at the regional level.
(Paragraph 57)
7. We recommend that
the Government ensure that a new strategic framework is developed
to incorporate the environmental aspects of planning; that framework
should be included in the Localism Bill. National targets on environmental
issues such as renewable energy will need to be distributed to
each local authority preparing a local development framework,
following a period of consultation and engagement with interested
parties.
(Paragraph 60)
Local authorities' 'duty to co-operate'
8. We
look forward to the Government bringing forward amendments to
the Localism Bill which will provide a framework for local authorities
to work within, outlining what actions local authorities should
take in their duty to cooperate, how they measure success or failure,
how parties may insist on the delivery of what has been agreed,
and default options if there is inadequate cooperation. (Paragraph
72)
Local Enterprise Partnerships
9. We
support the concept of local partnership arrangements to which
local enterprise partnerships are giving effect. Nevertheless,
we are pleased that the Government has not advocated giving planning
powers to LEPs. LEPs are not under any compulsion to consider
environmental or social issues or to consider the multitude of
interests that concern planning. Their primary purpose is 'enterprise',
which as an advocacy function cannot sit comfortably with statutory
democratic regulation. Local authorities and others need to work
with LEPs, and to have regard to them in preparing their local
development frameworks and when deciding planning applications;
for their part, LEPs should demonstrate a responsibility for achieving
sustainable development. However, LEPs are not a suitable vehicle
for strategic planning. (Paragraph 81)
10. We recommend,
in line with our earlier recommendations about the framework for
'larger-than-local' planning, that the Government ensure that
a robust mechanism is in place to assess, and ensure that each
local authority plays its part in meeting, wider housing need.
(Paragraph 101)
Housing targets
11. We
welcome the Government's recognition of the need for more homes.
We especially welcome its intention of ensuring that more homes
are built in total than were built immediately before the recession,
and of building 150,000 affordable homes over the next four years
(although this is not an exceptional number by historic standards).
However, we question whether either of these aspirations will
be achievable under the Government's current proposals for the
planning system. With the figures for new house building contained
in local authorities' plans already estimated to have reduced
by 200,000 following the announcement of the abolition of RSSs,
we conclude that the Government may well be faced with a stark
choice in deciding whether to compromise either on its intention
to build more homes than the previous Government, or on its desire
to promote localism in decisions of this kind. No evidence was
produced to support the Government's view that local authorities
will achieve comparable rates of house building to those in the
past, let alone an increase. If the evidence of success fails
to materialise very quickly, the Government is going to have to
review its selection of levers of influence. We recommend that
the Government report back to the House in two years' time on
the extent to which the measures it is taking are achieving the
aim of increasing the rates of building of both affordable and
market homes.
(Paragraph 102)
New Homes Bonus
12. We
recommend that the Government ensure that the New Homes Bonus
scheme keeps the local development plan at its heart, where planning
decisions are based on sound evidence and judged against criteria
which include issues of sustainability. It should do so by explicitly
linking the Bonus to homes provided for in the local plan following
robust assessments of housing need. We agree that it should be
paid only when those homes are actually built. (Paragraph 132)
13. We recommend that
the Government redesign the New Homes Bonus so that it better
rewards the meeting of demonstrable need for affordable housing.
(Paragraph 133)
Evidence and monitoring
14.
We recommend that the Government bring forward proposals which
will ensure that robust and consistent evidence to support local
development plans is produced and regularly updated in the most
effective and efficient manner. It is not acceptable for Ministers
to abdicate their responsibilities in this regard by leaving all
the responsibility with under-resourced and under-skilled local
planning authorities.
(Paragraph 143)
| 
