Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Memorandum from the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) (ARSS 99)

Introduction

1. The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) is the largest professional institute for planners in Europe, with over 23,000 members who serve in the public service and as advisors in the private sector. It is a charity with the purpose to develop the art and science of town planning for the benefit of the public as a whole. As well as promoting spatial planning, RTPI develops and shapes policy affecting the built environment, works to raise professional standards and supports members through continuous education, training and development.

2. The RTPI has noted the terms of reference of the Inquiry and the topics in which the Committee is particularly interested. In this evidence we deal with all the specific questions posed by the Select Committee following an initial statement on the RTPI’s overall view on the revocation and proposed abolition of RSSs.

The RTPI’s position

3. The RTPI welcomes the fact that the CLG Select Committee has chosen to hold an Inquiry into the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs). The RTPI has already undertaken significant work and thinking on this issue and this evidence reflects that work and reflects the views of RTPI members through discussions at our Executive Board and a call for member comments through our website

4. The RTPI clearly sees the abolition of RSSs within the context of the Coalition Government’s ‘localism’ agenda. Whilst we find aspects of this overall agenda challenging we feel that the essence of a properly considered and implemented localist approach to be a key component of effective and inclusive planning and spatial investment system and we have already been working with the Government to discuss and inform the issues that this approach raises and to suggest ways in which its implementation may be improved.

5. Within this overall stance, the RTPI is very concerned about the policy vacuum that has been created by the revocation and promised abolition of RSSs and the institutional support structures, such as Regional Development Agencies and Regional Partnership and Leaders Boards. This is exacerbated but the DCLG’s stated antipathy to issuing any guidance on strategic planning.

6. We wish to make to absolutely clear, however, that we are not calling for the status quo pre the Election as we have already expressed a concern in our 2010 Manifesto for Planning [1] that:

We need plans above the local level to deliver development and infrastructure that crosses administrative boundaries, but there is a lack of faith in the current system of regional planning. ....

7. The RTPI recognises that the Government is putting into place a range of structures and initiatives to enable a degree of strategic planning at this level and we will be working with the Government and with local authorities and other interested parties to help to inform, evaluate and support or challenge these proposals as they emerge.

T he implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development

8. There have already been a number of reactions to the revocation of RSSs and their proposed abolition. It appears from work undertaken by the National Housing Federation that some 100,000 homes have been taken out of the planning process as a result of the removal of housing targets. The figure includes: 9,600 cut by Bristol City Council, 3,000 cut by Exeter, 10,750 by North Somerset, and 9,200 by North Hertfordshire and Stevenage. [1]

9. This study follows on from earlier indications that removal of housing targets followed by the revocation of RSSs had led to a slowing down in overall planning activity. T he following situation applied to LDF progress in June 2010 :

· South Oxfordshire : abandoned work on its core planning strategy

· West Oxfordshire : abandoned work on its core planning strategy

· Surrey Heat h : abandoned work on its core planning strategy

· Vale of Whitehorse: abandoned work on its core planning strategy

· Bristol : housing part of public examination of core strategy delayed

· Castlepoint: housing part of public examination of core strategy delayed

· Bury St Edmunds: public examination of core strategy delayed to re-consult

· South Wiltshire: public examination of core strategy delayed to re-consult

· Forest Heath: suspended work on local development documents

· Cotswold: cut annual housing target from 345 to 300

· South Northants: deferring all applications submitted on basis of unidentified five-year land supply [2] .

10. It needs to be noted that, as with the discussion on the New Homes Bonus, below, the position is not universal across England. Indeed, it can be seen from the examples given above that the slowing down of planning activity and of major housing schemes is concentrated in the South West and wider South East. In other areas, it may well be that the opposite position is found, with those local authorities that see the benefits of housing growth and which felt constrained by an RSS which allowed for less growth than they would have wished for.

11. Amongst other things, there is a current legal challenge to the revocation of RSSs [3] on the basis that the revocation goes against the overall purpose in the rest of the Act and that the environmental and other impacts of this have not been assessed.

12. Additionally, on 29th July 2010, a grouping of some thirty organisations from a range of sectors including housing, transport, infrastructure, the environment and the economy wrote to the Secretary of State expressing their desire to work with the Government to try to ensure that the revocation and abolition and the systems that were put in their place did not hamper the ability of Government to achieve its own key objectives in the fields represented by this grouping. This initiative was co-ordinated by the RTPI.

The likely effectiveness of the Government's plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development

13. It is relevant to note at the outset that the Minister for Decentralisation has stated in a speech to the Local Government Association [1] on 6th July:

Those housing incentives are the other side of the ending of the regional spatial strategies. Ideally, I would have liked to announce them together.

14. As at the date of the preparation of this evidence, the Government have not spelt out any details of the incentive scheme beyond that contained in the Conservative Party Housing Green Paper [2] - Strong Foundations. This stated that:

we will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built.

15. In fact, the latest letter sent to local authorities in August [3] went into less detail about the scheme than previously announced. Instead it promised to publish a formal consultation after the outcome of the Spending Review. Despite this, it is worth examining this proposal in a little more detail to see whether it really does provide the incentive to match the choice.

16. The average Band D council tax set by local authorities in England for 2010-11 is £1,439 [4] . Taking this band as an example, local authorities will gain £8643 over the six years of the scheme for market homes and £9318 (125 per cent) for affordable homes. Opinion seems to be divided as to whether such amounts will be sufficient to sway electorates who previously resisted housing development.

17. It needs to be borne in mind that the funding for this will come initially from savings from the abandoned Housing and Planning Delivery Grant and, thereafter, from top-slicing a proportion of annual increases in formula grant for councils. This will not, therefore, be new money for communities but will be a re-distribution of grant. Strong Foundations states that:

This policy is a cost-neutral reallocation of existing government funding, ....

18. First, it should be noted that the resistance to development which this incentive is designed to overcome is not universal in all parts of England. Some areas will welcome such development as supporting the vitality of communities and providing much needed accommodation.

19. In other areas, however, some communities and local authorities may well feel that, for example, the gain from a small infill development of, say, seven market and three affordable homes (£88,455) does not compensate for real or perceived loss of amenity – but they may feel that the gain from a scheme ten times that size is worth serious consideration.

20. However, one of the major hurdles could be the overall cost of the scheme. For example, in 2008, 150,580 new market homes were built and 32,100 affordable homes [5] . This was an historically low figure but even this would cost more than the £146 million allocated to the Housing and Planning Delivery Grant in the current financial year. It may be, therefore, that the New homes Bonus may have to be capped – thus proving even less of an incentive.

21. An important consideration for effective and transparent planning decision making is whether the existence of the New Homes Bonus is a material consideration in making that decision. If a development is deemed unacceptable in planning terms, for example through its impact on the local environment, then should the planning process ‘balance’ this with the knowledge that the development will bring in extra resources for communities. This does appear to be a potential dangerous path to follow in a system that has been wrongly accused in the past of ‘selling’ planning permissions through the process of making Section 106 agreements.

22. The second form of incentive is that of obtaining approval to build some housing without the need for planning permission. The proposed Government scheme for this is the Community Right to Build [6] . Once again, the scheme is not fully explained by the Government as yet but appears to schemes of around ten homes and where the great majority (80 or 90 per cent of the local electorate in a referendum) of the local community vote for it.

23. The RTPI believes that local plans, developed by elected members in partnership with local people and businesses are the most democratic way to deliver the aspirations of local communities for housing provision. In the first three months of this year (2010), 71 per cent of minor housing applications (10 homes or less) were approved through the planning system and that 83 per cent of decisions were made within three months [7] .

The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies;

24. The RTPI believes that this issue has not been considered adequately by Government in the revocation of RSSs. There has been too much emphasis placed, by the Government and others, on the role of RSSs in setting housing numbers and not enough on the implications of their revocation and abolition on the other policy areas that they were designed to deal with.

25. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 11 on Regional Planning (now revoked and no longer available on the DCLG website) states that, in addition to the identification of the scale and distribution of provision for new housing, and RSS shall contain:

· priorities for the environment, such as countryside and biodiversity protection; and

· transport, infrastructure, economic development, agriculture, minerals extraction and

· waste treatment and disposal.

26. There is also the misguided perception that policies in the former RSSs were always imposed on local authorities and local communities. The RTPI has a number of examples of where local authorities themselves worked to have policies included in an RSS which would benefit their local areas. Such policies include examples on renewable energy, on sub-regional sport and recreation, on biodiversity and on regional parks.

27. The revocation and abolition of RSS has left these vital issues un-catered for at the regional level. Clearly some of the initiatives that the Government has already announced, including the establishment of LEPs and a duty to co-operate, covered below, will fill some gaps but the RTPI fears that these arrangements will lead to an ad hoc approach to environmental, economic and social policy. The RTPI feels that it is most useful at this stage to set out the criteria against which Government proposals should be judged rather than trying to design a new system in abstract. The RTPI believes that the following criteria must be addressed.

· Are areas or communities adversely affected if they are not covered by one or more of the new initiatives?

· Do structures and policy vehicles have statutory definition where this is required?

· Have the proposals made necessary linkages to the existing planning system and to proposals at both national and neighbourhood levels?

· Are new bodies and structures enabled and encouraged (and, if necessary, required) to adopt a spatial planning approach as part of their responsibilities?

· Are the suggested structures and policy vehicles enabled and encouraged (and, if necessary, required) to engage with and be influenced by local and other communities in exercising their functions?

· Given that the new system is community led, will the suggested structures and policy vehicles form a comprehensive, transparent and inter-related whole if all communities opt to adopt these proposals?

· Do the suggested structures and policy vehicles explicitly link planning with investment?

· Will relevant clauses of legislation give equal weight to the economic, environmental and social remit of spatial planning?

· Will the suggested structures & policy vehicles provide a framework of certainty within which development beneficial to local communities can take place?

· Will they serve to retain and develop the expertise, skills and information that exists to undertake this type of planning?

The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co-operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfill a planning function

28. In this section, the RTPI evidence comments on the adequacy of four current Government proposals; proposals at the national level, Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), the duty to co-operate and joint working.

National Planning

29. The Royal Town Planning Institute has long advocated – and campaigned for - some form of English national spatial framework. The RTPI, therefore, welcomes the Coalition’s thinking on this level of planning and is keen to work with the Government on developing all these initiatives.

30. However, we feel that there is currently uncertainly as to the nature of the National Planning Framework. Is it, as Open Source Planning states, a simple and consolidated bringing together of all national planning policies (PPSs and PPGs) or will it go further, as the Coalition Agreement states, set out national economic and environmental priorities? This implies that there would be sections on aspects which are not covered by existing DCLG guidance. In this case, what is its relationship with; the existing and proposed National Policy Statements, other Government policies and the National Infrastructure Plan?

31. Equally importantly, what will its relationship be with Government spending decisions, including the Regional Growth Fund, which will impact in different ways in different parts of the country? Additionally, will it act as a material consideration (in practice or in statute) for neighbourhood and local planning?

32. The RTPI believes that the current thinking and plans of the Coalition Government could provide the opportunity to achieve an integrated approach to planning and investment at national level which has not been previously achieved in England. However, there is the equal risk that the plethora of different plans, policies and proposals set out in this Briefing Note could lead to a fragmentation of policy making and to inefficient investment which would impact adversely on the abilities of the Government to achieve its own bold objectives.

Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs)

33. The RTPI has submitted general evidence to the BIS Select Committee’s inquiry into LEPs. Specifically on planning, however, the RTPI very much welcomes the encouragement to those putting forward outline proposals to include some form of planning function in those proposals. Now that the proposals have been submitted, we trust that one of the assessment criteria for them – criteria which have not been published – will be how they propose undertaking this function.

34. We cannot see how LEPs can fulfil their main stated function without a clear understanding of the role of spatial planning in achieving economic renewal and development.

35. However, the RTPI looks in vain for any encouragement for those proposing LEPs to demonstrate how they will work within an existing planning and investment system or relate to the Government other proposals and, importantly, how they will add value to that system.

36. The vacuum left by the revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) and intended abolition of them and of the Regional Development Agencies, Regional Partnership and Leaders’ Boards and Government Offices for the Regions has not been filled by Local Enterprise Partnerships and it is disingenuous for Government to suggest that LEPs in some way ‘replace’ RDAs.

37. It may be desirable in some places for LEP plans to have a statutory basis in forming a joint LDF core strategy leaving individual Local Planning Authorities to produce neighbourhood or Area Action Plans. Additionally, overall, it would be prudent for the statutory basis for LEPs to include their purpose.

38. Finally, but importantly, if the LEPs are to become involved in the development of a long-term vision, then there is a need to ensure that the community have an opportunity to comment on and shape the future of planning policy within their areas.

A Duty to Co-operate

39. There is already a limited duty co-operate in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. This refers only to the preparation of Local Area Agreements (LAAs).

40. The RTPI will be looking to the wording of a similar duty embodied in the Decentralisation and Localism Bill with the following questions:

· Will this duty apply at all local authorities, or to all statutory bodies or will it only be applied to Local Economic Partnerships?

· Will it apply to all activities including local development planning, local infrastructure planning, sub-national working and the preparation of the national planning framework?

· Is co-operation defined? In effect, the duty in the 2007 Act was discharged by taking part in the process of drawing together an LAA whatever the outcome was;

· Will, therefore, failure to co-operate be defined?

· Will there be any sanctions specified for failure to co-operate and which may be responsible for encouraging, monitoring and taking action on co-operation?

Joint working

41. There are already numerous examples of joint working in spatial planning including the preparation of joint Local Development Framework core strategies; Sub-regional working and sub-regional strategies and the RTPI would be pleased to provide details of examples of these should the Committee feel that this would be useful. This is very much to be encouraged and the RTPI accepts that it has a role in working with others, notably the Local Government Group and the Planning Officers Society to provide guidance and examples of effective practice and will be looking to Government to endorse this activity.

42. The RTPI will be evaluating the Bill to see whether it strengthens the opportunities for voluntary joint working already embodied in the 2004 Act – or whether it introduces a degree of coercion into the process.

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.

43. The RTPI considers that the retention and development of the evidence base that informs strategic planning is vital. We note that the letter sent to Chief Planning Officers on 6th July announcing the revocation of RSSs stated that:

the planning data and research that they [Leaders’ Boards] currently hold will still be available to local authorities … whilst they put in place their own alternative arrangements for the collection and analysis of evidence.

44. This implied that regional level data and evidence may not be held in the longer term and, certainly, that it will not be updated and developed. This is unacceptable and will seriously compromise the abilities of sub-regional groupings and LEPs to have an informed wider view of the dynamics of the area and the overall context within which they are making policy.

45. There are already regional based ‘Observatories’ and it would seem sensible to make best use of the expertise that they represent in tackling this issue.

46. The RTPI would be pleased to add to and elucidate any of the points made in this evidence, either in writing or in oral evidence to the Select Committee.

September 2010