Written evidence from Dr Alister James
Scott (ARSS 147)
INTRODUCTION
Dr Alister Scott is a spatial planner with significant
expertise in governance and public involvement particularly relating
to the operation and impact of the planning system. He has widely
published in academic and policy press and is an active researcher
on behalf of Scottish, Welsh and English governments, agencies
and local government clients. He has chaired Cardigan Bay Forum
and been a board member of Scottish Natural Heritage dealing with
planning and landscape concerns.
In my submission I am able to draw upon experience
in the devolved countries and New Zealand.
Key Points about the abolition of Regional Spatial
Strategies (RSS)
1. The abandoning of the RSS with immediate effect
represents a fundamental change to the planning system in England
and appears to have been done without taking stock of the lessons
learnt from their operation. It is important that policy decisions
are based on "good" and "sound" evidence.
Statements in Open Source planning (2010) Green Paper represent
political arguments rather than any substantive analysis of the
need to abolish the regional tier of planning. There might be
compelling reasons why RSS was not appropriate and there is an
urgent need to learn the lessons from that process to inform something
different. But surely that involves consultation. Here the planners
might have a valuable role to play as trained professionals separate
from their political representatives. In my view the planner and
the planning profession has become a political football without
a full understanding of the role and remit and value of the planning
system. Here the RTPI and TCPA have been remarkably silent but,
in my view, there is a lot of ignorance about the planning system
as an agent of social, economic and environment change; more often
than not it is widely perceived and cited incorrectly that planning
inhibits development.
2. Regional planning represents one tier of
a two way spatial planning system. Spatial planning is more than
New Labour rhetoric and represents a professional and strategic
approach to land and resource management emanating from the European
down to the neighbourhood level and horizontally across the various
policy sectors (agriculture, economic development, environment,
housing, transport etc). Within the vertical hierarchy are various
policy imperatives that cross local scale boundaries. For example
climate change (COP 15; Kyoto), water catchment management (water
framework directive) and nature conservation (Natura 2000, Marine
Framework Directive) and landscape designations (European Landscape
Convention) cut across local authority boundaries and require
formal structures to co-operate at "regional" level.
Indeed, many of the key planning issues raised by the recession
demand a regional scale of collaboration but perhaps based on
a more flexible approach. I fear that the proverbial planning
baby has been thrown out with regional bathwater and that I see
the simple deletion of the "region" from current thinking.
However much of European funding is based on regional identity
and structures and there is a clear risk of disjuncture here which
will prevent much needed monies to support regeneration and development
activities.
3. One of the key lessons from the RSS episode
was the need for staff to prepare adequate and sound SEA (Strategic
Environmental Assessments). Many were held up or rejected due
to simple procedural failures such as the need to consider alternatives
in a preferred option. These requirements are enshrined in European
Law and are therefore subject to legal challenge by anyone. The
idea that neighbourhood plans can be drawn up and inform development
plans is a very useful idea and raises issues of the status of
parish plans and community strategies. But it is clear that whether
it is a RSS or neighbourhood plan influencing core strategies
they will need to follow SEA procedures or be subject to legal
challenge resulting in their deferral or rejection. The capacity
of neighbourhoods to do all this is questionable as is the logic
in the extra burden falling on local authorities with reduced
numbers of policy planners.
4. The localism agenda however is an important
part of the spatial planning hierarchy and arguably has not been
given the attention it needs. However the danger of local politics
and the power of influence can easily distort planning in the
wider societal interest which is what I understand planning to
be about. Therefore we need to have a top down and bottom up approach
that meets somewhere and a conversation that produces legitimacy
but also excellent planning products. I fear that we have become
so wrapped up in the rhetoric of consultation, involvement that
we lose sight of the purpose of planning in producing excellent
outputs and policies. Such changes as proposed require significant
capacity building, which requires investment in staff to bring
this about. It is clear that there is no new money and therefore
raises key questions of who will do this work. I suspect when
it fails planners will again be seen as the fall guys.
5. Support and sound information is a pre-requisite
for effective participation. When we are considering future development
options communities need to be able to understand the implications
of various development options and therefore a whole new set of
planning posts need to support this requirement. We would not
let communities conduct brain surgery on ministers but equally
I think there is a perception that planning is something that
the public can easily do. As a university lecturer I spend a lot
of my time training planners to be effective and skilled people.
This can't be simply derogated to the community.
6. The local enterprise partnerships are, as
yet, unknown beasts. My understanding is that many of them will
be incorporated within existing local authority strategic partnerships.
My contention is that in order to plan effectively for climate
change and for the future we need to adopt more meaningful regional
partnerships and boundaries and rather than the current trend
to create new structures. The current river basin management groups
within water catchments under the Water Framework Directive afford
a potential model for wider spatial planning as they represent
real and logical natural boundaries which shape many contemporary
planning responses. This is a cost efficient way to redraw the
map of planning in the UK, facilitating joined up planning to
feed from European level to neighbourhood and allowing for horizontal
integration across the key sectors of conservation, transport,
economic development and housing.
7. It is interesting to me that a lot of the
planning debates focus on housing numbers when they only represent
one aspect of the jigsaw. Few people embrace the proper spatial
planning approach which is about building sustainable communities
and allowing a range of developments within areas. It is also
important to realise that there is no such thing as community.
There are, however, communities and public(s). Consequently you
will never get a universal view or consensus. Planning decisions
result in winners and losers in many cases but should be located
within a process that is fair and equitable and in the societal
interest. Recognising this and dealing with multiple public(s)
is a key first step but unfortunately the push to localism will
only exacerbate these tensions.
8. This leads on to my final point. There is
no national spatial plan within which any planning takes place
in England. What kind of society do we want and what and where
are the key places for our national infrastructure and developments?
Rather than a cut and paste of existing policy the Government
should portray a spatial picture of England within which strategic
planning at the different levels can take place working towards
that spatial vision. Otherwise we will see ad hoc planning and
powerp lays which pit communities against each other. A lot of
my research has shown increasing public disaffection with planning
simply because they appear powerless to influence it. The abolition
of the regional spatial strategies and a switch to localism will
not prevent this happening, particularly in light of reduced professional
planning resources to enable it.
September 2010
| 
