Written evidence submitted by 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
¾ 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.
¾ 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.
¾ 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.
¾ 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?
¾ 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?
¾ 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):
¾ It provides
an important structure and framework for decision making according
to a logical and pre-determined set of national, strategic and
local policies;
¾ It provides
a mechanism for the planning and co-ordination of infrastructure
and the delivery of development, services and facilities which
require strategic planning;
¾ 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);
¾ 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;
¾ 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
¾ 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:
¾ How
the "Neighbourhood Plan" system will work and who will
decide the strategy?
¾ Who
specifically will operate and implement it and how will it be
paid for?
¾ Who
will be accountable for expenditure and any legal commitments?
¾ What
will be the formal status of a Neighbourhood Plan - will it be
part of the Development Plan and will it be properly tested?
¾ 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".
¾ Who
will ensure that decisions fit in with the wider policy picture
and that any proposals and policies are co-ordinated across boundaries?
¾ How
will it feed into the Local Development Framework - will there
need to be a complete set of Neighbourhood Plans to deliver an
LDF?
¾ 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:
¾ Who
will take responsibility for decision making?
¾ If it
is Parish Councils or groups of ward councillors who will be accountable?
¾ Who
specifically will take formal responsibility for making decisions?
¾ 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?
¾ How
will planning consents be issued, how will progress monitored,
planning agreements negotiated and conditions discharged?
¾ How
will the proposed Presumption in favour of sustainable development
apply?
¾ 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)?
¾ What
powers will the communities have over the "Community Right
to Build"?
¾ 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; and
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
| 
