Localism

Memorandum from the Planning & Development Association (LOCO 109)

The Planning & Development Association (PDA) is an organisation representing the interests and views of private sector developers, house-builders and consultants throughout the UK. The Association has been in existence for over 20 years and meets on a regular basis to enable its members to share experience, pool ideas and benefit from expertise of experienced practitioners who are involved at the sharp end of the development process. In addition to performing an important social and networking function, the PDA offers advice on the management, operation and delivery of development through the planning system. Most of our members are fully qualified planners who are practicing in senior management roles.

Summary

· Planning is an essential tool which provides a framework for expenditure, a structure for investment, a mechanism for judging the merits of alternative strategies, vital guidance for landowners, developers and individuals on future planning policies. It also provides a forum for consultation and engagement between developers, local authorities and local communities. Without planning developers won’t have the confidence to invest and local people won’t have the certainty to know what to expect in their communities.

· The Coalition Government’s new ‘Localism’ approach is a philosophy not a policy. The practical implications of fundamentally changing the planning system to a ‘bottom up’ process rather than a broadly ‘top down’ hierarchical system therefore need to be properly thought through before the Bill is drafted and proper transitional arrangements should have been put in place before the system of Regional Strategies was abolished,

· There are essentially two strands to the planning system: forward planning including national guidance, strategic planning (at various levels) and local planning (including what are currently Local Development Frameworks) and development management (what is traditionally termed development control) determining individual planning applications, together with the appeals system and enforcement. A new system would need to carefully consider the impact on both strands.

· In forward planning, Ministers have indicated that the new system will be underpinned by a patchwork of Neighbourhood Plans. It needs to be made clear, who will produce these? How they will be funded? Who will make critical decisions? Whether they will be a formal part of the ‘development plan’? What scrutiny will be applied to plans? How they will feed into the Local Development Framework and who will undertake the necessary work to ensure that local needs are fully met and the patchwork jigsaw fits together?

· In development management, it is indicated that the decision making process will follow the principles within the ‘Open Source Planning’ Green Paper, issued before the election. This suggests that decisions will be made subject to ‘Local Plans’, failing which there will be a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. Community Right to Build will apply in rural areas, albeit subject to a veto from local people. Once again, it needs to be clear who will make critical decisions on planning applications? Who will be accountable for those decisions? What funding and support will be provided to Parishes and neighbourhoods? How will the presumption in favour actually work? Who will organise any referenda and how will they work? What controls will there be over conflicts of interest at local level?

· To resolve these concerns there will need to be clear guidance about ‘Who does what’ in planning, including a new set of powers and responsibilities, a new financial framework for neighbourhoods and parishes, better officer support and training for parish councillors and neighbourhood representatives, clear opportunities for consultation and involvement for both landowners, developers and local people, simple policy statements (at every level) and proper scrutiny to ensure that there is accountability, responsibility and trust. The Open Source Green Paper needs to be subject to full consultation if it to provide a basis for policy.

Introduction

The Government has been swift to introduce changes to the planning system to reflect the ambitions of the new Coalition partners. These changes have followed the ideals heralded in the Conservation Party’s Discussion Paper on ‘Open Source Planning’ issued by the Party in February 2010, the Conservative Manifesto issued in April 2010 and the Joint Coalition Agreement reached in May 2010 – after the outcome of the General Election. ‘Localism’ and the so-called ‘Big Society’ have been strong themes within all those documents and have also featured at the recent Conservative Party Conference.

But ‘Localism’ (and the ‘Big Society’) is not a policy – it is a philosophy. It therefore needs to be clearly explained and expressed and translated into a workable policy framework to enable it to be used by the developers, local authorities and communities who are the essential ‘clients’ or consumers of the planning system. It is not sufficient to simply leave it to local communities to work out the system for themselves.

Planning is an essential tool of Government (at every level).

· It provides an important structure and framework for decision making according to a logical and pre-determined set of national, strategic and local policies,

· It provides a mechanism for the planning and co-ordination of infrastructure and the delivery of development, services and facilities which require strategic planning,

· it provides a legal basis for landowners and developers to exercise their rights to develop land and to promote their ideas and ambitions for development in the future (and for communities and individuals to support or indeed challenge that right),

· it evaluates the merits of plans and proposals according to policy and technical criteria and judges and measures the costs and benefits to society against the background of viability constraints and the need to achieve economic prosperity,

· it provides an essential medium and forum for communities, local authorities and developers to debate, discuss and explore the options for growth and change in the future and to decide what is best for a community – at whatever level, and

· it addresses, as far as possible, the wider impact of proposals in terms of environmental criteria, the achievement of sustainable development objectives and the threat of climate change.

Essentially without a proper planning system, it would have to be re-invented.

The Current Planning System

Without doubt, over the past decades the planning process has become overly lengthy, time-consuming and bureaucratic and has proved to be a tiresome ‘drag’ on progress and investment. Paradoxically, planning has become an impediment to solving many of the problems in society – such as the delivery of homes, the creation of jobs and the provision of infrastructure - an issue which is emphasised in the Conservative Party’s ‘Open Source Planning’ Discussion document.

This is a concern which the PDA has highlighted over many years, albeit seemingly it has become steadily worse. The lengthy process of agreeing strategic housing targets under the pre-existing hierarchical process, undoubtedly created tensions between the Regional and Local levels, but ultimately the combination of top-down with bottom-up assessments provided some confidence for the development industry and certainty for local communities. It also ensured that the planning system was properly integrated and that the whole locally represented the sum of the individual parts.

In our view the system was not broken, but it was (and still is) creaking under the strain of unnecessary red tape, controls and restrictions which have beset the private sector for decades. The duplication of plans and strategies was time-wasting and the tests of ‘soundness’ were never fully grasped. Moreover, whether through policy pressure, lack of public resources or the absence of training, both planners and politicians lost touch with the concept of ‘viability’, so that against a background where land values suddenly plummeted - following gradual and consistent rises over the previous decade - local authorities now have wholly unrealistic expectations about the level of planning gain (for example subsidised affordable housing) which can be sought from new development.

Localism: The New Approach – some key principles

The Government has indicated that it wishes to see a change in approach so that in future the planning system works from the ‘bottom up’ rather than from the ‘top down’. It has been made clear that this means devolving decisions to local communities – not just at the current District level, but to a neighbourhood level – that is, presumably to either wards or parishes. This is, essentially, an extension of the Prime Minister’s concept of the ‘Big Society’ where individuals, or groups of people working together, take a more positive and responsible ‘hands-on’ role in addressing their needs, solving their problems and determining their future.

The Planning Minister, Bob Neill has indicated that in future planning will emerge from ‘neighbourhoods’ whereby decisions will be approved by a referendum of local people and endorsed by a ‘Neighbourhood Development Order’. Whilst there is already scope within the system for Neighbourhoods and Parishes to devise their own plans on an informal basis, the new emphasis on securing formal Neighbourhood Plans represents a fundamental change in approach which will require a complete transformation to the present decision making process in planning. It will necessitate skilful policy drafting, careful management and close co-operation between councils, developers and local communities to ensure that the new system works efficiently and that there is clear accountability for decision making, control over resources and a broad consistency of policy approach. Presumably it will also require some form of funding to deliver Neighbourhoods Plans unless local communities are to be expected to deliver plans on a voluntary basis.

Whatever the system, if developers are to have the confidence to invest, there must be clarity of policy approach, to provide a degree of certainty to landowners, developers and business – as well as to local communities themselves.

There will also need to be careful planning to ensure a smooth transition between the existing system and the new system, so that the change can be achieved without undermining the delivery of development in the meantime, which could otherwise frustrate the needs of ordinary citizens and stifle the economy. (The lack of transitional arrangements to accompany the revocation of Regional Strategies has created confusion in the planning profession and a severe loss of confidence within the development industry which has undoubtedly undermined investment – and this should clearly not be repeated).

If decisions are to be devolved to neighbourhoods – whether Parishes in rural areas or wards within urban areas – there must be transparent democratic arrangements, proper management structures and clear decision processes. Currently Parish councillors tend to be elected not on party tickets but on individual reputation. They are often co-opted rather than voted and their functions are implemented by part-time and ‘semi-professional’ Parish Clerks. Similarly Wards in urban areas tend to be treated simply as administrative areas for voting (rather than functional entities for administration or the delivery of most services). Their boundaries may indeed be unrecognisable in relation to functioning urban communities. These will need to become more accountable if they are to be more autonomous.

Finally, above all, the Government will need to consider very carefully what policy and legal framework will underlie the new ‘Localism’ philosophy and what will be the practical implications of the new approach in terms of strategy, co-ordination and delivery.

What ‘Localism means in practice

1. If decisions about forward planning strategy are to be made locally, this will mean considering:-

· How the ‘Neighbourhood Plan’ system will work and who will decide the strategy?

· Who specifically will operate and implement it and how will it be paid for?

· Who will be accountable for expenditure and any legal commitments?

· What will be the formal status of a Neighbourhood Plan - will it be part of the Development Plan and will it be properly tested?

· If it is part of the Development Plan, will it be subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment or any other formal scrutiny to ensure its ‘soundness’.

· Who will ensure that decisions fit in with the wider policy picture and that any proposals and policies are co-ordinated across boundaries?

· How will it feed into the Local Development Framework – will there need to be a complete set of Neighbourhood Plans to deliver an LDF?

· Who will undertake any research and investigation into neighbourhood/parish requirements and ensure that overall needs are met?

2. Turning to the subject of Development Management, it is conceivable that decision making on planning applications may also be devolved to a lower tier of Government than the District (or Unitary) Council in order to place power more strongly amongst people in the local community. Since planning is essentially a quasi-judicial process this raises key concerns about legal powers, accountability, fairness and administrative control.

If this emerges from the Localism Bill, another set of considerations therefore arise:-

· Who will take responsibility for decision making?

· If it is Parish Councils or groups of ward councillors who will be accountable?

· Who specifically will take formal responsibility for making decisions?

· Will there be ‘officer’ support (beyond the traditional Parish Clerk) to give advice and guidance on legal, planning and technical issues, if so how will this be funded?

· How will planning consents be issued, how will progress monitored, planning agreements negotiated and conditions discharged?

· How will the proposed Presumption in favour of sustainable development apply?

· What controls will there be over conflicts of interest, (bearing in mind that Parish Councillors are more likely to have direct prejudicial interests, whether personally or through local contacts, friends and acquaintances)?

· What powers will the communities have over the ‘Community Right to Build’,

· Who will organise, manage and control the referenda which are an integral part of the CRB idea and how will they be paid for?

Underlying all this will be the need to ensure that ‘decision makers’ at Neighbourhood Level do genuinely represent the interests and are prepared to consider the needs of the local community and are not simply swayed by the pressures of people or groups within the community with protective personal interests.

So if decision making on the formulation of plans and/or on individual planning applications is to fundamentally change to conform to a concept of ‘localism’ – whether operating within an urban or a rural context – the powers and responsibilities of Parish Councils and Ward Councillors will need to be completely overhauled to give:-

1. a new set of powers to parish ward councillors,

2. a new set of rights and responsibilities to councillors,

3. clear guidelines and controls for councillors (so that they understand their scope and limitations). .

4. a new financial framework accompanied by budgeting and accounting procedures

5. a new form of administration and support at local level so that decision makers can be confident they are acting fairly and impartially,

6. training procedures for councillors and staff to ensure they are ‘up to the job’.

7. a clear consultation framework for ‘local’ planning, both for promoters of development and for residents to ensure that decisions genuinely represent the interests of the community,

8. arrangements for the ‘right to be heard’ for landowners and developers (as well as local people) instead of a ‘power of veto’ through a local referendum.

9. A move towards clearer policy statements at neighbourhood level so that local people know what they are voting for in electing their Parish Councillors,

10. Proper scrutiny to ensure that Councillors (individually) and the Council as a whole operates properly and fairly and adheres to their rights and responsibilities and reflects the needs and wishes of the local community.

All these changes will presumably need to emerge through the new ‘Localism and Decentralistion Bill’. Against the current background of financial restraint and budgetary controls this would appear supremely ambitious. However, as an organisation whose members are directly affected by and involved with the development process, the Planning & Development Association is anxious to be consulted on the emerging process.

The Way Ahead

The Government’s ‘Localism’ philosophy therefore has critical implications on the planning process and will undoubtedly result in a much more complex set of procedures which may be more difficult to oversee, more tricky to interpret (whether for developers, landowners or communities) and potentially more problematic to implement. Inevitably, each and every local community will take their own view and integrating these within a wider framework (or rather building them up to form a comprehensive jigsaw) will not be easy.

The problem of ‘Nimbyism’ has beset local decision making at District Level arising from the natural reluctance of people (and hence their politicians) to accept change. Yet Planning, as a process, is explicitly about assessing and gauging people’s needs, weighing up competing interests, preparing a development strategy to satisfy the community and inevitably making difficult decisions to address peoples’ legitimate development aspirations and to deliver progress. This raises critical issues about ‘Who decides’?

As Planning get closer to local people, the issues can become more transparent, but the tensions and conflicts can become more tangible. The merits of an ‘objective’ planning system are, in theory, that decisions are made impartially on the basis of pre-determined policies supported by relevant material considerations. It would be a retrograde step if the planning system, in trying to reach a more ‘local’ level meant that decisions became more personal and ‘subjective’ with the danger that coercion and worse still corruption, became endemic in the system. This would reduce rather than restore the public’s confidence in the planning system and make the process of planning and the management and delivery of change immensely more difficult.

Finally, it is fundamentally important that there is adequate and proper consultation with relevant interest groups who will need to operate within the new ‘localised’ system before the new Localism Bill takes shape. It will not be sufficient to pass through enabling legislation which fails to explore the detail. The Planning & Development Association therefore welcomes the opportunity to give evidence to the Select Committee, but also to play a positive part in assisting the Government in trying to design a new planning structure.

October 2010