Written evidence from Leicestershire County
Council (ARSS 95)
SUMMARY
Further clarity from Government is required to establish
the balance of priority between community wishes and housing needs
in local planning documents and decisions if consistency is to
be achieved. There is a danger that current uncertainty will lead
to decisions on appeal that will neither deliver community wishes
nor provide a sustainable pattern of development that meets needs.
The proposed New Homes Bonus Scheme could potentially
provide an important means to stimulate and increase house build
rates. However, the Committee should examine whether fiscal measures
of this type would on their own be sufficient to increase overall
housing delivery, and whether the resulting distribution of development
would be likely to meet the nation's demographic and economic
needs in a sustainable manner.
The Committee may wish to consider how delivery of
international, national and sub-regional policy objectives can
be ensured under the new system, and what measures could be reasonably
put in place to mitigate any adverse outcomes. It is logical to
look at many issues, including housing and employment land provision,
natural and renewable resources and environmental matters on a
wider than district council basis, as these are issues which do
not respect local administrative boundaries.
Neither mineral nor waste development is popular
with communities and it has always been difficult for them to
accept such development. If communities are to accept mineral
development in their localities, for the benefit of wider society,
as with housing, consideration should be given to incentivisation.
Better use of the aggregates levy should also be considered, apportioning
the incentive to the scale of the mineral development for any
particular area. Incentivising waste development should also be
considered.
The proposed LEP for Leicester and Leicestershire
reflects the natural economic geography of the sub-region as reflected
in travel to work patterns and housing market areas. There is
a strong case for planning for housebuilding (and for associated
infrastructure) to be co-ordinated at this level. This is also
a spatial level at which there has been a history of local authority
collaboration on strategic planning issues, although there remains
significant scope to further extend such collaboration particularly
around the development of shared planning services to secure cost
efficiencies.
EVIDENCE
1. The implications of
the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of
housing development
(a) As of 31 March 2009, there were outstanding
planning permissions for 23,000 new dwellings in Leicester and
Leicestershire, equivalent to 5.7 years supply against the (now
abolished) Regional Plan target. There is therefore no evidence
to suggest that housing delivery in Leicester and Leicestershire
is currently constrained by a lack of land. Instead it appears
to be constrained by a lack of mortgage finance and adverse market
conditions caused by wider economic uncertainty. The removal of
regional housing targets will therefore have little impact on
housing delivery in the short term. However, this situation could
change rapidly once economic growth recovers, for the following
reasons:
(b) There is a lack of clarity about the Government
Policy—is it bottom up based on community wishes, top down
based on housing needs assessments or a mixture of the two? Some
further clarity is required to establish the balance of priority
between community wishes and housing needs in planning decisions
if consistency is to be achieved.
(c) If the emphasis is on bottom up community
wishes, a lack of capacity in district councils will be a constraint
on the system working properly. A place based budgeting approach
is required to ensure that there are sufficient resources (to
assist and support communities to establish their views). Leicestershire
County Council would be willing to hold and manage such a budget
to support local people and parish councils in expressing what
they want.
(d) If housing needs assessments are required
they need to be undertaken for real housing market areas. In Leicestershire,
district council boundaries do not coincide at all with the real
housing market area. Government needs to recognise a role for
upper tier authorities, such as Leicester and Leicestershire,
to work together to undertake assessments. These assessments will
need to identify the housing needs of administratively "under
bounded" cities and towns. The new system needs to be able
to provide information to communities such as those close to urban
areas about wider needs as well as those of the immediate community.
(e) There is a danger that current uncertainty
will lead to decisions on appeal that will neither be linked with
community wishes nor provide a pattern of development that meets
sustainability requirements. This is especially true if the five
year supply rule remains in force leading inspectors to override
community wishes and strategy because of short term supply needs.
2. The likely effectiveness
of the Government's plan to incentivise local communities to accept
new housing development. The nature and level of the incentives
which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term
supply of housing. The Committee understands that the Government
intends to announce further details of its plans for incentives
"shortly", and would welcome comments on the adequacy
and appropriateness of those incentives when the details are available
(a) At the time of writing, few details are known
about the Government's "New Homes Bonus" and consultation
on formal proposals is not expected until the autumn of 2010.
However, under the current Revenue Support Grant (RSG) system,
local authorities with rapidly growing populations are effectively
penalised twice. Firstly, factors such as the council tax base
and relative need indicators have a much greater impact on the
RSG funding formula than population growth. Secondly, there is
often a time lag between the impact of real population increases
on the ground, and the additional population being recognised
in the official figures underpinning funding formula.
(b) As a result, some councils are forever "emptying
the bins of some people for free", and it is difficult for
existing residents to see any benefits to them of living in a
growing community. It would appear that under the new proposals,
receipts may only start when houses are occupied, which may be
several years after planning permission is granted. This may be
no better than the existing system.
(c) It is therefore entirely appropriate for
the Government to examine how the relationship between council
tax and Revenue Support Grant operates, and to see if the system
can be used to support population growth, rather than to penalise
it. The County Council intends to work with the Government to
help it develop its approach to incentivising house building and
delivering the localist approach.
(d) The proposed incentive could potentially
provide an important means to stimulate and increase house build
rates. However, the Committee should examine whether fiscal measures
of this type would on their own be sufficient to increase overall
housing delivery, and whether the resulting distribution of development
would be likely to meet the nation's demographic and economic
needs in a sustainable manner. It could actually result in the
least unpopular sites being developed, leading to new housing
being located in unsustainable locations with negative and costly
impacts on the environment, transport infrastructure and economic
vitality.
(e) In considering the details of the proposed
New Homes Bonus when published, the Committee should also consider
the following issues:
(i) The scale of additional resources available
(as yet unknown) as compared to the total RSG (£3.1 billion
for 2010-11) and the investment in local infrastructure that the
planning system delivers through Section 106 Agreements (estimated
at £4.9 billion in 2007-08);
(ii) To be effective in supporting delivery of
a localist approach, such a scheme would have to address itself
carefully to secure the support of residents for increasing build
rates. It would need to be of a sufficient scale to deliver community
expectations and secure their support for schemes. Current schemes,
such as the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF) grants
in areas around minerals workings are insufficiently funded;
(iii) The timing of this match funding benefit
will be critical to deliver on community expectations at an early
stage in the development process;
(iv) The impact on those authorities which are
unable to grow significantly because of landscape designations
(such as National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty),
planning designations (such as greenbelt and green wedges) or
environmental constraints (such as flood risk);
(v) The possibility that linking the grant of
planning permission directly to the receipt of additional Government
funding may lead to the perception in the eyes of local communities
that the probity of the planning system could be compromised.
For example, planning committee members may seem to be unwilling
to approve schemes when the benefits may not arise within their
period of administration and committee members' decisions may
also be compromised because of financial incentives; and
(vi) Consideration should be given to extending
the scheme to incentivise the location of other development, for
example wind farms, waste facilities and mineral extraction that
will benefit the community as a whole, but could be unwelcome
to residents in the immediate vicinity.
3. The arrangements which
should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between
local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional
spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural
environment, renewable energy, etc)
(a) There are a large number of policy areas
where coordinated action between local authorities and other partners
is required to ensure international obligations (such as EU landfill
diversion and renewable energy targets) or national policy priorities
(such as biodiversity habitat recreation and management targets,
the adequate supply of construction minerals) can be delivered.
In the past regional groupings have provided the main mechanisms
through which this co-operation is managed, underpinned by RSS
policies. Regional bodies have also facilitated collective activity
on major strategic "cross border" issues such as the
enhancement of the Midland Main Line and proposals for High Speed
Rail. Although not mentioned in the Select Committee's question
such co-operation is also required in relation to housing and
employment land provision which were also previously covered in
RSSs. In respect of these issues local authorities will need to
co-operate to ensure that the sub-regional economic development
priorities agreed through Local Enterprise Partnerships are supported
by planning policy and decisions. This could involve planning
strategy being agreed at a spatial level which matches the geography
of the LEP and which could take the form of a joint local authority
committee or sub-committee of the LEP made up of local authority
members.
(b) In the absence of regional structures and
policies, it will be up to local authorities themselves to ensure
this cooperation continues through successor arrangements, underpinned
by a statutory duty to co-operate. However, the Government will
remain responsible for the collective national outcome of local
authority actions.
(c) As a result, the Committee may wish to consider
how such delivery of international, national and sub-regional
policy objectives can be ensured under the new system, and what
measures could be reasonably put in place to mitigate any adverse
outcomes. It is logical to look at natural and renewable resources
and environmental matters on a wider than district council basis,
as many assets, eg the Charnwood Forest in Leicestershire and
minerals, do not respect local administrative boundaries.
(d) On minerals, the Open Source Planning Green
Paper makes reference to "national environmental standards"
as providing guidance to minerals planning authorities (MPAs),
on making a fair and sustainable provision, but it is not at all
clear what these would relate to and how they would influence
levels of provision. Their name does not give the impression of
them being informed by any idea of the overall quantity of minerals
supply needed to support planned levels of development and future
energy supply.
(e) Clarity is sought on the following points:
(i) The proposal to reserve controls over nationally
strategic deposits of minerals at the centre.
(ii) What constitutes nationally strategic deposits.
(iii) On what basis the Secretary of State will
determine their release.
(iv) What contribution to an adequate and steady
supply of minerals the United Kingdom needs will be provided by
imports from Europe and elsewhere including from marine resources.
(f) With regard to indigenous minerals in particular,
the concept of net self-sufficiency at a MPA level (of requiring
MPAs to provide enough minerals locally to meet locally-generated
needs) is not applicable, since minerals can only be worked where
they are to be found and some MPAs will have extensive reserves,
while others have little or none. For example, Leicestershire
is the largest producer of crushed rock in England, the majority
of which is used in the south and east of England and the west
midlands, where such mineral reserves are not available.
(g) The Government has tacitly recognised the
need to plan for mineral extraction at a strategic level in certain
areas, in its instruction to South East local authorities to work
to the apportionment figures for the region, published by the
Secretary of State in March 2010; elsewhere there have been no
such instructions.
(h) It is worth noting that both MPAs and waste
planning authorities (WPAs) operate at the upper tier level of
local government (ie counties in two tier areas, unitaries elsewhere).
Organisationally they deliver these important "infrastructure"
developments that supports economic activity through being able
to take a strategic view, provide the relevant expertise and link
closely with other functions (eg Waste Disposal Authorities, Environment
Agency) whilst still enabling local decision making. In the absence
of a formal regional planning framework, the cooperation of these
authorities should continue to ensure a strategic approach but
not necessarily in the regional configurations as previously known.
(i) Waste is a resource from which the best benefit
needs to be reaped for business efficiency and the community.
The linkages between these types of facilities, housing growth,
other economic and infrastructure activity needs to have a strategic
overview if the benefits of delivering facilities are to be realised.
In the absence of a formal regional context upper tier authorities
need to ensure continued collaboration (for example, in relation
to the development of LEPs)
(j) Whilst the principle of net self-sufficiency
(of each WPA providing treatment/disposal capacity equal to the
amount of waste the community generates) is correct, the reality
is that by no means every authority will be able to provide enough
of the right kinds of provision in the right places. A strategic
overview of provision will be essential. Joint working could take
various forms building on existing arrangements.
(k) For example, Aggregates Working Parties (AWPs)
have been in operation since the 1970s and Technical Advisory
Bodies on waste (TABs) since the late 1990s as advisory technical
bodies with no executive powers, policy making responsibilities
or political representation. They reported to regional decision-making
bodies. In Wales for example the two AWPs with a wide stakeholder
base are both policy making bodies suggesting that the Welsh model
could be rolled out into England.
(l) For minerals, given their nature, scale,
markets, investment requirements and direct link to economic prosperity,
it is essential that a strategic and inter-regional perspective
is continued and a version of AWPs would give that perspective
to local decision makers who will need to balance the tension
between local community wishes and wider needs and benefits.
(m) Waste is different from minerals and is more
footloose. Nevertheless, given EU obligations, the range of technologies
involved, interrelationship of regulatory and fiscal controls,
links to development growth and infrastructure provision, managing
waste as a resource would benefit from strategic advice particularly
on data and strategic facilities for certain waste types. A version
of TABs would help local decision makers in a similar way to AWPs.
(n) Neither mineral nor waste development is
popular with communities and it has always been difficult for
them to accept such development. If communities are to accept
mineral development in their localities, for the benefit of wider
society, as with housing, consideration should be given to incentivisation.
Better use of the aggregates levy should also be considered, apportioning
the incentive to the scale of the mineral development for any
particular area. Incentivising waste development should also be
considered.
(o) Regional energy and renewable energy strategies
have been essential in setting the context for planning decisions
on, in particular, renewable energy development proposals in the
absence of any sub regional or local context. It is worth considering
whether upper tier authorities should take on planning for energy
(particularly renewable energy) given its role in other strategic
resource and infrastructure planning (ie waste, minerals, transport,
etc) especially if carried out in a collaborative way as for other
areas already mentioned and linked to LEPs.
4. The adequacy of proposals
already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty
to co-operate. The suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships
may fulfill a planning function
(a) The proposed LEP for Leicester and Leicestershire
reflects the natural economic geography of the sub-region as reflected
in travel to work patterns and housing market areas. As referred
to above there is a strong case for planning for housebuilding
(and employment land) to be co-ordinated at this level. This is
also a spatial level at which there has been a history of local
authority collaboration on strategic planning issues, although
there remains significant scope to further extend such collaboration
particularly around the development of shared planning services
to secure cost efficiencies.
(b) The proposed LEP will provide strategic
leadership across a range of economic development and associated
activities including strategic planning support for the local
planning and delivery of growth. The LEP will also act as a strategic
commissioning body to better co-ordinate delivery and provide
a greater return on public sector investment, including for housing,
employment land and infrastructure. These roles could be underpinned
and bolstered by a statutory duty on key agencies to co-operate.
5. How the data and research
collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders'
Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what
arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating
of that research and collection of further research on matters
crossing local authority boundaries
(a) The County Council is aware that East Midlands
Councils (EMC) has deposited an archive of material covering the
last 15 years of regional planning in the East Midlands with Nottingham
Trent University (NTU), and is producing a DVD containing the
NTU archive for each local authority in the region. Arrangements
are being made for evidence that is still relevant to plan-making
to remain publicly available via the internet. The old Regional
Assembly web-site has been archived in its entirety with the British
Library (http://www.webarchive.org.uk/ukwa/target/49741949/)
and it is proposed to do the same with the Regional Strategy and
EMC web-sites in due course. This approach to making available
relevant data and research is supported.
(b) EMC is working with agencies and local authorities
to ensure that the Ptolemy Land Use Transport Integrated Model
(http://www.ptolemy-model.org/)
and the Waste Capacity Model remain available to local authorities.
EMC is also working with local authorities to ensure that the
considerable public investment in local and region-wide land use
monitoring systems made over the last five years is not lost and
can be adapted to serve new sub-regional geographies.
(c) In addition, EMC is making use of "transitional
grant" from CLG to support local planning authorities in
the East Midlands by:
(i) facilitating a "Planning for Localism"
seminar for all local authorities in the East Midlands (to be
held on 1 October 2010);
(ii) working with the Improvement and Efficiency
Partnership to develop a "low cost" continuing professional
development (CPD) network for local authority planners and elected
Members; and
(iii) making use of resources from DECC to provide
local planning authorities with a consistent core evidence base
on opportunities for renewable energy and heat mapping.
September 2010
| 
