Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Abolition of R egional S patial S trategies

Summary of Key Points

· Local people and district councillors considered they had little or no influence on the housing numbers and housing requirements w hich they felt were imposed on them by the Regional Spatial Strategy. This was reflected during the consultation period for the Core Strategy Preferred Option published earlier this year. There was very strong opposition to the larger urban extensions proposed from existing communities. The urban extensions were deemed necessary in order to meet the housing targets that had been provided by the RSS.

· The Council is supportive of the RSS being replaced by a more localised system but simply abolishing the RSS has resulted in a number of issues for the Council. These include: a local policy gap, how to determine the long-term housing requirement, an infrastructure policy gap and issues over what now constitutes a five year housing supply.

· T he Council considers there is a requirement for some strategic planning. One of the principle benefits from the policies within the East Midlands Regional Plan (1) ha s been that it has initiated the working together of local planning authorities. Planning at a more strategic level is necessary to set out priorities for investment and to tackle issues which go beyond neighbourhood and district boundaries – ensuring sustainable and demand led growth.

· Cross boundary working is likely to continue but a duty to co-operate does not mean that it will result in aligned plans.

· If a bottom up approach to housing is to be adopted through localism, it has to be accepted that it may not achieve the housing figures identified by the research undertaken by the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit.

· The revocation of the RSS has left a gap at a local level in terms of longer-term housing requirements.

· From the Council’s experience, large scale development is usually controversial and it is unlikely that any reasonable level of incentives can persuade people to accept housing development when the reality is that it will change the local landscape which they value. Under the new proposals, Local Authorities may be put in an invidious position of trying to balance the much needed revenue from incentives against the concerns of local communities.

· There are difficulties in getting local people involve d in matters of strategic planning. From the responses received to the Council’s consultations it was clear that, despite all the consultation undertaken by the Council, local people were unaware of the housing requirements for the District or simply ignored it on the grounds it was unlikely to directly impact upon them.

· The current system of LDF is too complicated and takes too long and it needs to be simplified. Change is required but this can be achieved through changes to regulations and simpler policy guidance to make the system more effective and easier to understand for Members, Officers and the community .

· One of the key aspects raised by local people in relation to housing proposals was the inadequacy of the local infrastructure to take more housing developments. New housing needs to be accompanied by the appropriate infrastructure, particularly if local people are going to support further development. Clarity on this link is vital in order to overcome opposition and make development truly sustainable.

1. Ashfield District Council

1.1 Ashfield District is located on the western side of Nottinghamshire. The Council serves an estimated population of 11 6 , 450 (mid-2008 ONS). The majority of this population together with associated housing, jobs and services are concentrated within the three main towns of Sutton in Ashfield, Hucknall and Kirkby in Ashfield together with three large villages in the substantial rural area mainly to the west of the M1 motorway.

1.2 As a local planning authorit y, the Council is under a statutory obligation to prepare local development documents u nder Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and is required to control development under Part III of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

2. Response

Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS)

2.1. There is little doubt that the RSS was remote from local people. The Council’s experience in undertaking consultations on the Core Strategy was that t he majority of people in the district were unaware of the East Midlands Regional Plan (the RSS) (1) a nd its implications. L ocal authorities also became less relevant in planning terms as the housing numbers and their distribution were determined at a regional level. The Council’s Core Strategy (2) was substantially shaped by the East Midlands Regional P lan which not only identified the specific housing numbers but also their broad location. Policies within the RSS required new houses to be located in and around the urban areas of Mansfield-Ashfield and Hucknall (emanating from a policy of urban concentration) . From the responses on the Core Strategy consultation and the comments of D istrict C ouncillors , it is clear that both local people and Members consid e red they had little or no influence on the housing numbers and housing requirements were imposed on the m by the RSS .

2.2. T he Council would give broad support to the RSS being replaced by a more local ised system which allows for meaningful consultation and for decisions to be made at a local level. However, simply abolishing the RSS has resulted in a number of issues for the Council which include:

· A l ocal policy g ap - Section 54A of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 requires that applications for planning permission should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan consisted of two elements:

a) The East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS), &

b) The Local Plan or where adopted the Local Development Framework.

In accordance with Government guidance, a number of policies in the Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002 were not saved on the basis that they were repeated in the Joint Structure Plan, which in turn was replaced with policies with the RSS. The abolition of the RSS has resulted in not just the housing numbers being removed but also all the other policies within the Plan. Effectively part of the development plan no longer exists. Consequently, the Council is reliant on the saved policies in the Ashfield Local Plan Review(3), which expires in 2011 and national planning policy statements/guidance. This includes for example flooding, where the Council no longer has any local flooding policies.

· Issues around the determination of long-term housing requirements. How are these to be determined and who provides the technical expertise for population/household projections?

· An i nfrastructure policy g ap - It has left a policy gap in relation to making major investment decisions in infrastructure.

· Uncertainty on the five y ear h ousing s upply – Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3) (4) identifies that the Council should have a five year housing supply and there is a presumption in favour of granting permission where there is less than a 5 year housing supply ( PPS 3 p aragraph 71) . The letter from the Chief Plann er at the Department for Communities and Local Government dated 6 th July 2010 (5) stresses that authorities should have a five year land supply of deliverable sites. What the letter fails to do is identify what the 5 year housing supply is to be based now the housing figures in the RSS have been revoked? This has created uncertainty and confusion for local planning authorities, agents, house builders and the local community. It also increases the likelihood of appeals against planning determinations until such time as there is some clarity on this issue.

Localism

2.3. Planning has always reflected the need to incorporate and balance international, national, regional, sub-regional and local issues. However, i n recent years there has been an increasing prescriptive approach from national planning statement s and regional planning. For example, Planning Policy Statement 4 (6) emphasis economic issues over social or environmental aspects. It also states in paragraph 3 that "It is only necessary for the development plan to reformulate development management policies in this PPS 4 if there are specific factors justifying variation of these policies. " It is felt that " Place shaping " needs to be undertaken at a local level rather than being prescribed at national and regional levels. , Therefore, the Council is supportive of a local approach to planning where planning reflects the aspirations of local communities .

2.4. Nevertheless, the Council also recognises that there are distinct dangers if there is a total absence of any level of strategic planning. One of the principle benefit s from the policies within the East Midlands Regional Plan is the working together of local planning authorities. This has been seen both in developing an evidence base and in an aligned Core Strategy for the Greater Nottingham area. However, since the Coalition’s announcements on the revocation of the RSS , the aligned Core Strategy across Greater Nottingham has been put on hold. P lanning at a more strategic level is necessary to set out priorities for investment and to tackle issues which go beyond neighbourhood and district boundaries. This can include issues such as the local economy, transport, flooding, water resources and the protection and enhancement of the environment. Therefore, localism has to be seen in the context of where it is necessary to plan for some issues at a larger scale , recognising that meeting the needs of the wider community may have an impact on a more localised neighbourhood. This is recognised in the governments LEP proposals so there appears to be a policy discord in this respect.

2.5. To date local council’s in Nottinghamshire have worked together and this is likely to continue into the future as there as costs saving through providing a shared evidence base. However, w ithout a duty to co-operate there is a danger that the benefits of cross boundary working may be lost in the localism agenda. Nevertheless, a duty to co-operate does not mean that it is necessary to produced aligned plans. If the re is a significant need for housing development in Greater Nottingham, this may require substantial areas of green belt land around Nottingham to be release d and for neighbouring authorities in Greater Nottingham to work together. W ithout some form of policy obligation, as was set out in the EMRP , it is much more questionable whether there will be an aligned Core Strategy for Greater Nottingham, for u nderstandably, local councillors are concerned with their immediate area .

2.6. The taking forward of a localism agenda is likely to require a number of actions including:

a) The Council in terms of both C ouncillors and O fficers in engaging with the local community in quickly producing a long term plan for the place shaping of the District.

b) Planning, and H ousing O fficers to provide an up to date evidence base of local housing needs.

c) Councillors to accept that there is a requirement for them to be properly trained on planning and development to support localism.

d) For Councils, developers and local communities to work together particularly on master plans and area action plans.

Future Housing Requirements

2.7. The revo cation of the RSS has left a gap in terms of housing requirements. The " Open Source Planning "G reen P aper suggests that regional targets and regional plans should be replaced with local targets based on assessments of housing need. However, with the revoca tion of the RSS no interim arrangements have been put in place and no guidance has been provided in relation to undertaking a ‘local’ study of housing requirements. Under these circumstances, th e Council has determined to put the housing requirements on hold until the y are clarified by central government . This has resulted in a further delay to producing a L ocal D evelopment F ramework which relates to much more tha n just housing issues .

2.8. Local housing assessment s are necessary but it is important that there is some degree of uniformity across councils in the techniques and methodology applied to identifying local housing needs. However, in our opinion it has to be accepted that if a bottom up approach to housing is to be adopted through localism, it is unlikely to achieve the level of housing building that research undertaken by the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (7) has identified.

2.9. A more localised approach is likely to i ncrease community buy in and may bring forward community –led development on a small scale. However, will this be the case if a significant housing requirement is identified ? From the Council’s experience , large scale development is usually controversial . Proposals for large housing sites generate opposition from people who already have homes in the immediate vicinity of the proposals and are looking to protect the local environment in which they live from change. I t is unlikely that any reasonable level of incentive s will persu a de people to accept the housing development required when the reality is that it will change the local landscape they value. What is often not heard from in our consultations is the silent element of the community for wh om affordable housing is required or who are priced out of the housing market by the relationship between local incomes and house prices. Affordability remains a key element of delivering sustainable and targetted housing growth to support socio-economic change.

2.10. There is a need for a local evidence base of housing requirements together with infrastructure requirements which provides a base for formulating the LDF. The question that arises is how to take forward planning decisions reflectin g the evidence base which may be opposed by local people in a specific n ei ghb ourhood ?

2.11. Localism will put far more responsibility on local councillors and proper support and training is required . In these circumstances, local councils need to mak e difficult choices in the context of being fully informed by an evidence base and the interests of local people. Further, local councillors need to be able to participate in local decisions and engage with the community at both pre and post application stages. This means that issues relating to probity need to be considered and clearly set out as part of any future guidance.

2.12. In essence, t he housing requirement comes back to the traditional planning dilemma of balancing economic, social and environmental issues against the need for a democratic process that enables communities to influence how their local area develops.

Community engagement

2.13. There are difficulties in getting local people involve d in planning. The Council took a number of steps to increase awareness in the District of the housing requirements ( 11,2 00 dwellings for the period 2006 to 2026). This included: a leaflet being distributed to every household in the District to highlight the issues surrounding the LDF and, in particular, the need for 11,200 houses in the District. Extensive additional consultation was also undertaken. Nevertheless, it was not until strategic sites were allocated in the Core Strategy Preferred Options document that local people became significantly involved in the consultation, opposing the proposed sites close to their homes.

2.14. Currently, community empowerment in Ashfield has focused on tackling key local objectives , e.g. community safety, environmental improvement and front-line service delivery. However, spatial planning, is vital to place shaping and people need to be engaged so that they feel they have a real stake in changes to where they live a nd work. In this context, t he current system relating to the LDF is too complicated and confusing for local people and needs to be simplified and reformed as opposed to being abolished per se . Local communities and organisations have contributed towards the Council’s Core Strategy and this work needs to be carried forward. Reform is required but this can be achieved through simpler changes to regulations and policy guidance to make the system more effective , streamlined and easier to understand.

Infrastructure

2.15. A key aspect for any housing development is the associated infrastructure. From the consultations undertaken by the Council one of the key aspects raised by local people was the inadequacy of the local infrastructure to ta ke more housing developments . Whether this was true or not, clearly n ew housing needs to be accompanied by the appropriate infrastructure , particularly if local people are going to support further development . This has a number of implications:

a) The infrastructure delivery plan needs to be retained if changes are made to the LDF

b) There is a need for some strategic planning across district boundaries at a sub regional level across district boundaries.

c) How are improvements to the infrastructure to be financed given that:

· low values in districts such as Ashfield limit opportunities for securing developer contributions to infrastructure , and

· t he public expenditure cuts will result in limited opportunities to undertake regeneration schemes ?

d) Limited public investment in such areas as t ransport infrastructure programmes will impact on the local communities’ perception in relation to new housing and infrastructure requirements.

e) How will the proposed Local Enterprise Partnerships act as conduits for infrastructure investment into the district?

f) How does the government’s proposal for new schools fit into the localism agenda and infrastructure planning?

It is stressed that i t is important that the duty to co-operate does not simply relate to councils but on public bodies and on the utility companies such as Severn Trent Water if spatial planning is to be taken forward.

(1) East Midlands Regional Plan 2009 . Department of Communities and Local Government.

www.gos.gov.uk/497296/docs/229865/East_Midlands_Regional_Plan2.pdf

(2) The Core Strategy The Preferred Option. March 2010. Ashfield District Council.

www.ashfield-dc.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=10873001&

(3) Ashfield Local Plan Review. November 2002. Ashfield District Council

www.ashfield-dc.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=5071143&

(4) Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing. June 2010. Department of Communities and Local Government.

www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/planningpolicystatement3.pdf

(5) Letter to Chief Planning Officers: Revocation of Regional Strategies. 6th July 2010. Chief Planner, Department for Communities and Local Government.

www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1631904.pdf

(6) Planning Policy Statement4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Development. December 2009. Department of Communities and Local Government.

www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/planningpolicystatement4.pdf

(7) More homes for more people: advice to Ministers on housing levels to be considered in regional plans. July 2009. National Housing and Planning Advice Unit.

www.communities.gov.uk/documents/507390/pdf/1299593.pdf

September 2010