Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies: a planning vacuum? - Communities and Local Government Committee Contents


Written evidence from Kent County Council (ARSS 149)

SUMMARY

1.  Kent County Council (KCC) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry and would like to highlight the following priority areas. We would be very happy to expand on any aspect either in writing or as oral evidence.

Kent County Council strongly welcomes the Coalition's Government's decision to abolish the Regional Spatial Strategies and return decision making powers on housing and planning matters to locally elected authorities. The decision provides a significant opportunity for the devolution of funding and function and underpins the delivery of sustainable and prosperous communities.

There is a strong and continuing need for strategic planning below the level of regions. The new planning system needs to put in place a policy solution that addresses those issues that are wider than local but are vital for strong and prosperous communities. In this period of financial austerity, any solution must incorporate the positives and wealth of experience that already exists. It must capitalise on that knowledge and expertise for the wider good, building on the statutory roles of individual local councils.

There needs to be clarity within the planning system that will give confidence for private investment and for the construction sector. It is not a time for a reversion to old style structure plans, but a solution is needed that allows for proper planning and investment decisions on matters that cross local authority boundaries and are wider than neighbourhood level. Many of the key challenges facing the country—housing, economic recovery, protection of the environment and habitats, climate change, energy, mineral supply and waste management cannot be addressed solely at the local level.

County Councils, working together with District and Unitary authorities as the statutory local housing and planning authorities, are well placed with their long established history of delivering and facilitating strategic development to play a key role in future strategic planning. Kent County Council firmly believes that effective strategic planning can be achieved with counties offering a sensible geographic basis for that work, drawing upon the commercial expertise offered by Local Enterprise Partnerships, the local input of the family of local government in their areas and pragmatic dialogue with neighbouring authorities.

As the strategic planning framework seeks to achieve a balance between competing priorities, it is important that it remains under clear democratic control. We therefore believe that while LEPs should be proactively consulted and engaged in the preparation of strategic plans, policy decisions must ultimately rest with democratic representatives.

County-level spatial frameworks or infrastructure plans building upon the District Local Development Frameworks (LDF) are the most appropriate means for co-ordinating planning, infrastructure and economic development and conservation policies. Flexibility is also required locally to allow for and encourage partnerships between neighbouring counties. The A21 Reference Group of MPs, Council Leaders, public agencies and business along the length of the A21 from Sevenoaks to Hastings working together for shared priorities is an excellent example of this approach.

We believe further clarity is required regarding the incentivising of house-building and the effectiveness in delivering objectives, particular in 2-tier authorities.

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

2.  Kent County Council is the largest shire County Council and has a proven track record as an innovative provider of public services. As a consistently top-performing authority it has placed service users at the heart of service delivery, empowered communities and improved the efficiency of its services. It strongly supports localism, the empowerment of service users and residents and the devolution of services to the lowest possible level at which a function can be undertaken and at which 'practical' decisions can be made.

3.  KCC has been at the forefront of strategic delivery for many years. It has extensive experience of leadership and partnership working, particularly on cross boundary issues that are critical to sustainable communities. It has been a key player in partnerships with other local authorities, the voluntary sector and the economic community.

4.  As a strategic authority, we continue to plan for the future. In 2009, with partners, we published our Kent Regeneration Framework, recognising that regeneration is not simply economic growth—vital though this is—but about transformation in education and skills, a cultural renaissance in the county and an efficient transport system that supports the economy, residents and business growth. It is also about improved housing conditions, particularly for the most vulnerable, young and old.

5.  Our "Twenty-first Century Kent—Unlocking Kent's Potential" programme will deliver this agenda, including integrated strategies for transport, infrastructure, housing, environment, digital and business. Earlier this year, it was launched with a joint vision produced by international architect and urban designer Sir Terry Farrell and KCC Leader Paul Carter, with a "Twenty-first Century Kent" portrait of success for the county, making clear our ambitions to connect the county through high speed rail, road and public transport; to revive our coastal towns and tackle economic disparities; and to realise Kent's unique geographical advantage to make it the natural home of new industries in a Twenty-first Century Garden of England.

6.  Kent County Council is also forging new relationships with its partners. In 2007 it signed the Kent Commitment between the Leaders of KCC and the 12 Districts to kick-start new ways of working together and to save public money. Our Kent Recommitment, to be published later this year, aims to create a "Kent Senate" of democratically-elected leaders to act as a Kent-wide body to co-ordinate and agree shared priorities and progress.

7.  We have pushed strongly and consistently for devolution from national and regional government and from Government quangos and agencies as described in "Bold Steps for Radical Reform" published in January 2010.

8.  The County Council strongly welcomes the Coalition's Government's decision to abolish the Regional Spatial Strategies and return decision making powers on housing and planning matters to locally elected planning authorities. Kent's Leader has been at the heart of this process, having held or holding amongst other key roles, the chairmanship of South East England Councils and the South East England Regional Assembly.

APPROPRIATE CO -OPERATION ON CROSS-BOUNDARY ISSUES

Need for Strategic Planning

9.  Strategic planning is necessary to set out priorities and provide guidance for those issues that are wider than neighbourhood boundaries. In the absence of better spatial planning mechanisms, the RSS played an important role in strategic planning and planning decisions, providing a bridge between national and local policy considerations. It provided a tool for the resolution of difficult over-arching decisions that are fundamental to societies needs. Strategic Planning is essential to ensure that investment in major infrastructure meets community need and is provided in a cost effective manner. It is also necessary to ensure a consistent approach to environmental protection, climate change and other cross-boundary issues.

10.  KCC welcomes the abolition of the housing targets, but the RSS also aimed to provide the strategic policy context for a wide range of development considerations and a foundation for a sustainable and prosperous economy. These included a policy context for greenbelt and countryside protection, biodiversity, built and historic environment, transport/infrastructure, sustainability, climate change, economic development and regeneration, tourism, education and skills, along with considerations for mineral and waste management development. Democratic leadership and guidance on these issues, at an appropriate level, is fundamental to the national economy.

11.  A number of these matters are embedded in local development frameworks, but this could be better addressed in the case of the cross boundary issues, particularly the issues of mineral and waste management, use of natural resources and infrastructure provision. Many economic drivers do not conform to administrative boundaries. For example travel to work areas, markets for goods and services and migration all cross local and regional borders. Minerals are not locally sourced and need to be worked where they are found.

12.  Inevitably, local plans are often unable to fully address many of the strategic and cross border issues. The loss of wider strategic policies, combined with the potential of conflicting local policies in some adjoining District and Borough Council areas results in confusion and parochialism as far as larger strategic developments are concerned. It also causes general weakening of wider environmental and countryside protection which the regional plans (and before that the county structure plans) provided. Reliance solely upon guidance in PPS documents and streamlined national policy is too broad brush and fails to provide an appropriate level of policy detail for site specific matters.

THE WAY FORWARD

13.  County Councils have extensive experience of working together with Unitary and District colleagues to deliver and facilitate strategic planning. KCC firmly believes that coordination by historic Counties working closely with District and Unitary Councils should once again become a principal function of strategic planning, mirrored in urban areas by City regions. County-level spatial frameworks or infrastructure plans building upon the District Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) are the most appropriate means for co-ordinating planning, infrastructure and economic development and conservation policies. Importantly, they offer re-alignment with well established and publicly understood localities. Local Districts and Boroughs should rightly retain local direction and control of housing strategy and delivery through their LDFs, but work together and with counties on wider spatial and strategic issues including transport and community infrastructure, national/sub-regional investment projects, growth points, environment and the planning and provision of energy (including renewable), water and other resources.

14.  Decentralisation to sub/national city or county areas across the country would provide a clearly recognisable and coherent structure to devolve powers from regional government. Decisions would be taken within the local community wherever possible, rising through to district/borough, county or city or clusters of both, the more strategic or spatial the issue or decision became. This approach would give much greater clarity, connection and engagement between the tiers of local government in a sub-region. City and county regions with freedoms and responsibilities are well placed to balance spatial efficiency and effectiveness with community identity and democracy.

15.  A future strategic planning solution also needs to allow for partnerships between neighbouring Counties or between Districts across and within county boundaries. Such flexibility is needed to ensure that action is well grounded locally. This approach would remove the constraints of artificial boundaries, whilst providing a stable geographical base on which local partners can work together.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HOUSE BUILDING INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR INCENTIVISATION

16.  Whilst there was considerable opposition to regionally imposed targets, it is important not to lose sight of the interrelation with infrastructure and the role housing plays in bolstering local economies in terms of attracting and retaining population, increasing labour supply, supporting local businesses and providing construction jobs. The maintenance of a good supply of housing is essential in order to stop the scarcity of homes, making them artificially expensive and unaffordable to large sections of society. While essentially a local democratic decision, any new solution will need to ensure that the Local Development Plan documents will not be found wanting in relation to PPS3 requirements and housing need and supply. This is the crucial issue for successful working and living communities and requires close co-operation between the tiers of government.

17.  It is also worth remembering that the provision of homes is not just reliant on house-building. There is a key role for retrofitting and improving the existing housing stock.

18.  Housing growth must be properly planned and geographically targeted, to enable the necessary community infrastructure to be in place. Matching new homes with new jobs is a key strategic function along with the timely delivery of infrastructure to support the development. Any new planning system must address this. The provision of good quality affordable housing remains a key issue for Kent, however centrally prescribed housing numbers are not the best way to secure this objective. Local planning and housing authorities should be able to determine their own housing numbers, based on local need and ambitions for growth. However, in this world of diminishing resources and with the need to ensure that infrastructure is adequately provided, there is merit in considering locally-determined housing growth numbers as a part of a wider housing ambition for the County. Our Kent Housing Strategy, being developed by all Kent Leaders, will begin to match housing growth with infrastructure need.

19.  We are seeking further clarity about the proposed New Homes Bonus and potential tariff arrangements which will incentivise local authorities to give planning consent and support the construction of new homes in return for future extra funding to spend on other local priorities. The details about this proposal are currently very unclear.

20.  Clarity is also sought about the Community Right to Build. KCC is strongly supportive of local communities being more greatly involved in decision-making, but this should be done within the planning process, rather than separate from it. While accepting the need for democratic flexibility, bypassing the planning system to provide housing in rural areas could be fraught with difficulty, given the many complicated factors such as design quality, landscape protection, heritage and biodiversity concerns and amenity considerations that are normally carefully weighed-up within the planning process. Similarly, promoting housing developments without appropriate legal agreements for infrastructure contributions and tenure stipulations for local needs etc may undermine the equitable approach being adopted for other housing development.

21.  The UK planning system seeks to protect the interests of minorities as well as the wider common good and is founded on the principle of impartial judgement. Some concern is therefore raised about determining planning proposals for new housing by ballot which would undermine the established democratic process where planning proposals are assessed on a rational, impartial and accountable basis, with crucial regard to material planning considerations, probity protocols to remove self interest considerations and an appeal/challenge mechanism to meet European laws and basic human right provisions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH

22.  It is clearly important that strategic planning supports sustainable economic growth, for example by maintaining an understanding of the opportunities and challenges facing the economy, ensuring an appropriate supply of employment land and planning for the infrastructure needed to support economic development.

23.  The creation of new Local Enterprise Partnerships present an opportunity to support this by creating partnerships of businesses and local authorities over viable economic areas to identify and drive forward economic priorities. With partners, Kent County Council is progressing an ambitious Kent and Greater Essex Local Enterprise Partnership, which will seek the ability to galvanise resources in support of the delivery of the Thames Gateway, the counties' Growth Areas and priority locations for regeneration.

24.  We believe that Local Enterprise Partnerships should have a key role in informing the development of infrastructure plans or county spatial strategies by bringing commercial expertise into the heart of the planning framework and by articulating the infrastructure priorities to support economic growth. It is also important that neighbouring LEPs and local authorities maintain dialogue, recognising that economic flows and impacts inevitably cross boundaries.

25.  However, as the strategic planning framework seeks to achieve a balance between competing priorities, it is important that it remains under clear democratic control. We therefore believe that whilst LEPs should be proactively consulted and engaged in the preparation of strategic plans, policy decisions must ultimately rest with democratic representatives.

DATA AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

26.  It is vital that planning decisions are made in the context of up to date and sound evidence. There is also a need for accurate and consistent data to aid monitoring and reporting on a range of issues—ie mineral and waste management, housing and economic development. It is of note that much of the evidence on which the RSS was predicated remains valid and provides a sound basis for future decision making.

27.  In the case of mineral and waste management, the Regional Aggregate Parties (RAWPS) which are a partnership of County Council authorities with responsibility for Mineral Planning, as well as representatives from the minerals industry have been very effective and essential in monitoring and reporting work on aggregate matters. They provide a cost effective solution to the issue of apportionment necessary to meet the requirements of Mineral Planning Statement 1 (MPS1). Similarly an effective Regional Technical Advisory Body (RTAB) exists for waste management matters and provides a tool to aid national aspirations for landfill diversion and recycling targets.

28.  The new planning framework should ensure that the role of these Technical Working Groups is recognised and their functions are retained. They have a proven track record of partnership working on an important strategic policy area that crosses District and County boundaries. A duty to ensure co-operation with the Groups and to have regard to its work in planning decisions should be a statutory requirement.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

29.  There is a strong and continuing need for strategic planning below the level of regions. The new planning system needs to effectively put in place a policy solution that address those issues that are wider than local but are vital for strong and prosperous communities.

30.  Any solution must incorporate the positives and wealth of experience that already exists in arrangements which bridge national and local policy delivery. It must capitalise on that knowledge and expertise for the wider good. County Councils, working together with District and Unitary authorities, are well placed with their long established history of delivering and facilitating strategic development and infrastructure and their statutory role on a wide range of strategic matters to play a key role in future strategic planning.

31.  Kent County Council firmly believes that effective strategic planning can be achieved with counties offering a sensible geographic basis for that work, drawing upon the commercial expertise offered by Local Enterprise Partnerships, the local input of the family of local government in their areas and pragmatic dialogue with neighbouring authorities.

September 2010

REFERENCES

1.  Kent Regeneration Framework Shortcut to: https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/community-and-living/Regeneration/Regeneration%20framework%20November%202009.pdf

2.  Twenty-first Century Kent—Unlocking Kent's Potential Shortcut to:
https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/community-and-living/Regeneration/21stcentkentnew-3.pdf

3.  Bold Steps for Radical Reform - the Big Opportunity for Local Government and Big Savings for the Public Purse Shortcut to: https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/priorities-policies-plans/bold-steps-for-radical-reform.pdf



 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 31 March 2011