WRITTEN EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED BY
MARK FOX,
DIRECTOR, PEGASUS
PLANNING GROUP
(LOCO 20)
SUMMARY
¾ The
English planning system needs to be simplified and made more locally
accountable to replace the present overly complicated and centralised
system and procedures.
¾ The
introduction of "Localism" and the decentralisation
of public services will have major implications for spatial planning
in England. The proposed radical reform of the planning system
in the Coalition Government's Programme for Government must address
and resolve the concerns highlighted in this statement to ensure
an effective, accountable and sustainable new planning system
is established, without undue delay.
¾ The
transitional arrangements to guide the shift from the current
system to the new "Single Tier Localist" planning system,
envisaged by the Coalition Government, must be clear, particularly
in respect of the development proposals that are at an advanced
stage, formulated under the existing system and for the likely
extensive time period until the proposed new "Localism"
based system is fully operational and/or nationwide plan coverage
achieved.
¾ The
introduction of localism into the English planning system requires
close and careful consideration. The "Devil will be in the
detail" and there is a risk that the collective outputs from
the locally prepared planning documents will fall well short of
the scale and distribution of development required to stimulate
and sustain economic recovery and tackle the deep seated housing
crisis.
INTRODUCTION
Pegasus Planning Group is a nationwide town planning
consultancy representing a number of developers and landowners,
including the majority of national volume house builders. Pegasus
Planning Group regularly engages with local communities, development
stakeholders and local planning authorities on various development
proposals being progressed through the development plan and development
management processes.
This memorandum addresses the introduction of "Localism"
and the proposed decentralisation of public services from a spatial
planning perspective.
Pegasus acknowledge the Coalition Government's desire
to move away from a perceived centralist approach and to establish
a more locally determined and accountable planning system, which
lifts the "burden" of planning from local communities,
developers and stakeholders. However, inevitably with such a radical
reform of the planning system, the "Devil will be in the
detail." It is essential for a wide range of social, economic
and environmental reasons that an effective, sustainable, accountable,
fair and consistent new planning system is established without
undue delay.
Planning for the future is not a "Popularity"
contest and the "sum of the parts" arising from Localism
may fall well short of the scale of development needed to address
the current deep seated housing crisis and sustain economic recovery.
THE CONTEXT
FOR LOCALISM
AND DECENTRALISATION
OF PUBLIC
SERVICES
The policy shift towards greater "Localism"
and a decentralisation of public services is taking place in unprecedented
times. The Conservative Party highlighted the problems of "Broken
Britain" during its 2010 General Election campaign. Not only
is the Coalition Government having to steer the country towards
economic recovery; reduce the Budget Deficit and strive to achieve
a stable long term economic future, following the Credit Crunch
and financial crisis[10]
since 2008, but it must also address the severe housing crisis[11]
and wider issues such as Climate Change[12]
The shift will also be expected to occur during extensive uncertainties
in the public sector and a reduction in the local authority staff
available to engage in the public sector planning related activities
to roll out "localism" on the ground. There appears
to be a significant inconsistency between the expected additional
workload arising from the introduction of a new planning system;
the transition from the current system and the significant cuts
envisaged in public sector planning departments arising from the
Comprehensive Spending Review.
Furthermore, demographic factors such as the Ageing
population, high levels of inter regional migration in some regions
and social factors, such as high levels of divorce and separation,
will all impact on the appropriate level of growth to be planned
for, which should be taken into account by the reformed "Localist"
planning system and can not be ignored as such change occurs independent
of the planning process but its impacts are felt locally.
The realism of the supposition that all communities
across the country will actually engage in the proposed localism
agenda is highly questionable. Some communities will seek to take
full advantage of "Localism" opportunities, whereas
other less prosperous or less well organised communities may not
be sufficiently motivated, informed or simply not have the time
available to effectively engage in "Localism" as it
relates to spatial planning. Furthermore, there is a risk that
greater "Localism" may result in even more "Nimbyism"
and the discouragement of development.
RESOURCES
Given the cut backs at local planning authorities,
particularly in terms of staff, it is questionable whether sufficient
resources will be genuinely available to effectively introduce
the new Localist plans.
LOCALISM AND
MODERN SOCIETY
A fundamental question to be addressed by the new
"Localism" is how it is to be reconciled with a highly
mobile modern society and economy, in which on average, people
move home every seven years or so for a variety of reasons, and
where growth in specific sectors of the economy is associated
with internal migration and pressures on particular local housing
markets. How will "Localism" interpret and address the
needs of future generations, when these needs require understanding
and responding to economic and demographic changes over wide areas?
Is Localism intended to cover controlling occupancy of new homes
or business premises or even an existing property, eg by seeking
to control second homes, student housing or other Houses in Multiple
Occupation? Who will be responsible for any compensation liabilities?
LOCALISM AND
EVIDENCE BASE
REQUIREMENTS
A key component of the current LDF system is that
it is evidentially based. Whilst some may criticise the extent
to which local planning authorities have gathered evidence, instead
of advancing their plan making, for fear of having their plans
found "unsound" by the independent LDF Planning Inspectors,
it is nonetheless important that the new "Localism"
planning system is also evidentially based. PPS 3 Housing (June
2010) para 33 sets out the factors that should be taken into account
when determining the local level of housing provision, these will
need to be considered as part of the new system.[13]
The Government's latest household projections must be taken into
account. PPS12 Local Spatial Planning para 4.37 emphasises that
it is essential that plans are based on thorough evidence, proportionate
and relevant to the job being undertaken.[14]
COMPULSORY PURCHASE
ACT 2004 SECTION
38(6)
The current system operates in accordance with Section
38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 whereby
"where the development plan contains relevant policies, applications
for planning permission should be determined in line with the
plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise".
The Localism Bill or other legislation will need to clarify whether
S38(6) is to be retained, refined, replaced or abandoned.
A locally prepared development plan could fulfil
this role provided it has been subject to appropriate public participation;
it has been examined by an independent Inspector and is consistent
with the forthcoming National Planning Framework and/or other
extant national planning policy and guidance. Pegasus Planning
is concerned that some locally prepared plans may fall short of
this ideal but will still be afforded a planning status equivalent
to S38(6).
PRESUMPTION IN
FAVOUR OF
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The Open Source Planning document sets out the Conservative
Party's intention to introduce a "presumption in favour of
sustainable development". It is unclear how sustainable development
will be defined locally or whether it should be or if a national
definition will be imposed on local planning authorities, precluding
the establishment of local definitions. How will the Planning
Inspectorate arbitrate on this matter in appeals?
It is unclear how "Localism" sits with
sustainable development. The Open Source Planning document, page
11,[15]
states "We believe that the country needs to see a major
upswing in development and construction as soon as possible, and
we will enact policies to make it happen… in redesigning
the overall framework for planning, it is right and proper that
the system be underpinned by a predisposition in favour of sustainable
development". The document goes on to state "We will
counterbalance our introduction of genuine local planning control,
by making it a guiding principle of the planning system that there
is a presumption in favour of sustainable development". How
is this intended to work in the revised Development Management
and Appeal system, particularly in light of initiatives which
seek to side line conventional planning such as "Community
Right to Build"? The relationships to international obligations
regarding sustainability and other matters, need to be addressed
by the Coalition Government in any reforms of the Planning System.
LOCALISM AND
INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
Plan making in England must be undertaken in accordance
with various international obligations and directives, in particular
the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive[16]
and the Habitats Regulation Directive.[17]
It is unclear how meeting the aspirations of local communities
would be integrated with the legal requirements of plan making,
particularly if neighbourhood scale or referendum based approaches
are envisaged. The legal implications of the revised approach
must be thoroughly examined and resolved.
LOCALISM AND
SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL
The current plan making system is subject to Sustainability
Appraisal[18].
The Coalition Government need to clarify whether this will remain
part of the new system and who is responsible for the undertaking
such Sustainability Appraisals, if a neighbourhood approach is
followed.
LOCALISM AND
CLIMATE CHANGE
Broad Issues, such as climate change, that have overarching
implications need to be addressed through both national and local
policy initiatives. It is important that locally produced policy
is consistent with, and not contradictory to, any national planning
policy statement. It is unclear how conflicts between national
and local policies will be resolved in the potential absence of
"Binding" Inspector's Reports.
LOCALISM AND
THE HOUSING
MARKET
The planning system establishes the planning framework
to enable the housing market to operate effectively, in particular
the new housing sector. Fundamental to its continued operation
is the provision of sufficient new housing to meet need, allow
for market choice and competition. It is unclear how the "Localist"
planning system will ensure that an adequate and flexible supply
of housing will be secured in future. Given that the volume housing
building sector remains fragile, it is imperative that the introduction
of "Localism" in the English planning system does not
undermine housing building in England.
LOCALISM AND
HOUSING MARKET
AREAS
The revoked Regional Spatial Strategies incorporated
policy guidance, based on evidence, on the housing and other development
needs of particular Housing Market Areas.[19]
These were generally larger in extent than the "Localist"
plans and reflected the functional realities and influence of
particular housing markets. The new system will need to be clear
whether or not a Housing Market Area based approach will be adopted
in "Localism" and how any joint arrangements will be
enforced or encouraged.
The inter-relationships and interaction between local
authority areas are important as many local administrative boundaries
are historic or somewhat arbitrary. There is a risk that the Localism
approach will result in "isolationist" plans, where
cross boundary issues are ignored, with the "Sum of the Parts"
not amounting to a cogent, integrated and robust planning strategy
for particular areas. This problem is experienced at many larger
urban areas, such as Bristol and Swindon.
"LOCALISM"
AND THE
"STEP CHANGE"
IN HOUSING
DELIVERY
House building is currently at historically low levels
of provision,[20]
falling well below the level required to better meet defined housing
needs and demands and address long term housing affordability.[21]
The Coalition Government is committed to increasing the provision
of housing generally and affordable housing in particular. However,
the introduction of "Localism" in spatial planning will
inevitably take time and generate significant uncertainty during
interim transitional period. This uncertainty will undermine investor
confidence during the fragile economic recovery. Therefore, if
the "Step Change" in housing delivery[22]
is to be achieved then the Coalition Government needs to be clear
how this will occur, particularly in those areas where the local
planning authorities are reducing the level of development to
be planned for in response to the revocation of Regional Strategies
and progress on the Site Allocations Development Plan Documents
(DPD) is pitiful.
LOCALISM AND
BACKLOG OF
UNMET HOUSING
NEED
Many of the current problems in terms of housing
provision, can be traced back to previous under-performance against
in housing provision. Any "Backlog" of unmet housing
need is a key planning consideration. The new planning system
needs to clearly set out how the new style planning documents
are to address any backlog of unmet need and the period over which
the "backlog" should be made good.
LOCALISM AND
MULTI-AREA
AGREEMENTS
Many authorities have signed up to Multi Area Agreements
to expedite the delivery of housing. It is unclear what will happen
in circumstances where local opinion seeks the provision of less
homes that the level agreed in the Multi-Area Agreement.
LOCALISM AND
A RESPONSIVE PLANNING
SYSTEM
If a more flexible and responsive planning system
is sought then a realistic and robust plan making process and
timetable is required. Previous plan making of Local Plans and
Local Development Frameworks has been poor. Poorly performing
local planning authorities have not be adequately brought to account.
How will the reformed planning process ensure that plans are prepared
on time?
LOCALISM AND
DELAYS IN
THE PLAN
LED SYSTEM
Recent evidence on the reaction of local planning
authorities to the revocation of the regional strategies reveals
that half of Councils are proposing to revisit their housing targets
and employment policies in the wake of the eventual abolition
of regional strategies. However, the time taken to do this will
be considerable, with Councils delaying their re-working of the
housing figures as they are awaiting further guidance from the
Coalition Government on the approach to Localism[23]
and what it means for consultation and engagement with local communities.
Production of Core Strategies is slipping further and the spectre
of the Local Government Elections in May 2011, could result in
some Councils "treading water" on their plans until
after May.[24],
[25]
LOCALISM AND
REVOCATION OF
THE REGIONAL
STRATEGIES
The revocation of the Regional Strategies, particularly
in Southern England, will result in yet more delays in the strategic
planning of new development, despite the robust evidential base
for increasing provision.
SINGLE TIER
PLANNING SYSTEM
The revocation of the Regional Strategies[26]
and their eventual abolition through the Decentralisation and
Localism Bill will create a de facto single tier planning system
below the proposed National Planning Framework.[27]
The current system of RSSs and Local Development Frameworks was
not designed to operate as a "single tier" system. Therefore,
a radical reform of the planning policy and development management
system will be required that is accountable, strategic, cost effective,
efficient, easily understood, consistent and sustainable. It is
not clear whether the Localism Bill will fully address the extensive
review of the planning system necessary or merely seek to abolish
the regional strategies. If the reforms to the planning system
are to be addressed in a future session of Parliament through
further legislation then the Coalition Government needs to be
clear how the current system is expected to function effectively
during the interim transitional period to maintain the delivery
and forward supply of new development.
The legal framework of the new system must be clear
to ensure consistency in plan preparation and provide legal legitimacy
for the "Localist" plans.
LOCALISM AND
TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
It is essential that the transitional arrangements
are clearly set out. How will development schemes be determined
during the period until the locally derived plans have been prepared
and independently examined?
IS THE
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT
FRAMEWORK SYSTEM
STILL "FIT
FOR PURPOSE
It is questionable whether the current LDF system
is still "Fit for Purpose" in light of the proposed
abolition of the Regional Strategies and the new "Localism"
envisaged by the Coalition Government. The Regional Strategies
determined the scale and distribution of development. If the new
style "Localism" plans are to take such matters forward
in future, the Coalition Government needs to be clear on the scope
and nature of the plans required and where the responsibility
lies for their preparation. Given the financial cut backs at the
local planning authorities, there may be insufficient staff, resources
or the inclination to prepare the new plans in a timely manner.
Furthermore, if existing Local Development Framework documents
are to be amended then there will be further additional costs
to the local planning authorities.
LOCALISM AND
BINDING INSPECTOR'S
REPORTS
The future of "Binding" Inspector's Reports
should be thoroughly considered before a final decision is taken
whether or not to abandon this aspect of plan making. The underlying
reasons why binding inspector's reports were previously introduced
should be carefully considered. The previous system contained
a "Modifications" stage, post inquiry after the publication
of the Inspector's Report. This stage was often time consuming
and sometimes generated a need for a second Local Plan Inquiry.
The removal of this stage was intended to expedite overall plan
preparation. The speeding up of the planning process in England
is a long held objective. Furthermore, the binding reports give
greater certainty to the development industry that Inspector's
recommendations will be accepted. However, it is noted that some
authorities consider "Binding" reports undermine local
determinism.
If "Binding" Inspector's Report are not
continued in the new "Localism" system, then this will
inevitably result in delays in future plan preparation. Previous
experience indicates that some local authorities could seek to
produce several rounds of modifications, such as Tewkesbury Borough
Council which delayed the adoption of its Local Plan.
It should be noted that even within the present system
of "Binding" Inspector's Report, there is recent evidence
that a different approach is emerging which could stifle the delivery
of adopted LDF Core Strategies, which are critical to the success
of the "plan led" system. EIP Inspectors are flagging
up where a submitted document is likely to be unsound, prior to
the completion of the Examination stage, to alert the Council
and ascertain whether or not the Council still wishes for the
examination to proceed.[28]
STRUCTURE OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND JOINT
ARRANGEMENTS
The structure of Local Government varies across England
with London Boroughs, metropolitan unitary authorities, other
urban unitary authorities, former County unitary authorities as
well as the conventional two tier system of County Councils and
District Councils. Therefore "One Size Fits All" approach
for "Localism" plan making in England is unlikely to
be appropriate or achievable.
It is noted that informal joint working arrangements
are encouraged by the Coalition Government. However, the nationwide
planning system needs to be clear as to the nature, geographical
coverage and extent of the planning policy documents to be prepared,
their purpose, status, timetable and who will be responsible for
their preparation.
In the case of unitary authorities it may be more
straight forward, however new unitary Councils, such as Wiltshire
and Cornwall, cover geographically extensive areas including many
towns and villages, where a range of differing "local"
views may be expressed.
Other parts of the country, such as Gloucestershire,
Somerset and Dorset, operate a two tier system which, prior to
the Regional Strategies, used to prepare Structure Plans and Local
Plans. What is the intended role of the County Councils in future
"Localism" plan preparation?
The responsibility for minerals and waste matters
is currently retained by the County Councils. Will this continue
at County level and the strategic planning for minerals and waste
undertaken at County level, where such authorities still exist,
or is the intention to integrate minerals and waste planning with
the planning of other issues in the new style plans?
Transportation issues are usually addressed by the
County Councils, where there is a two tier system. How will the
new localism resolve any conflicts between county transport priorities
and local development requirements, where there are funding problems?
Community engagement across local authority areas
inevitably will be variable and views expressed may be contradictory.
The new planning system needs to be clear where and when final
decisions are taken by whom. This will be a particular problem
where joint plan making arrangements are envisaged. Who will have
the last word?
The inter-relationship between localism and the future
planning of specific issues needs to be clarified. Planning issues
are not solely housing related but strongly expressed anti-development
views can distort, delay or disrupt long term plan making to the
detriment of resolving other planning issues.
LOCALISM AND
CROSS BORDER
OR STRATEGIC
ISSUES
The new planning system needs to be sufficiently
robust to accommodate cross boundary issues. This is often a particular
problem where large scale urban extensions are required in adjacent
authority areas to provide for the development needs of a large
urban area, unable to accommodate all of its development requirements.
For example, planning for the needs of Greater Bristol requires
provision in South Gloucestershire, North Somerset and Bath &
North East Somerset. However, these Councils have recently reduced
the level of development to be planned for well below that required.[29]
Whilst easing restrictions on development at smaller
settlements may be highly desirable, it can only provide part
of the solution for delivering the housing and economic development
required in England. Some larger urban development projects will
still be needed, including urban extensions and new settlements.
These projects will require long term planning, co-ordination
of development with strategic infrastructure and other requirements,
such as commercial and community facilities and are likely, in
some cases, to entail cross boundary co-operation between local
authorities, involving a number of "local" communities.
Informal associations of Local Planning Authorities, without a
legal mandate or financial powers, are unlikely to be effective
and deliver timely development.
Many planning issues are "Larger than Local"
and there remains a robust case for some form of strategic sub-regional
planning within a reformed planning system. The integration of
strategic planning issues with locally determined solutions must
be carefully considered by the Coalition Government. To what degree
will the Coalition Government issue policy guidance or good practice
advice on how "Localism" plans are to be prepared in
future?
LOCALISM AND
LOCAL ENTERPRISE
PARTNERSHIPS
The relationships between the emerging Local Enterprise
Partnerships and the reformed plan making system are unclear.
To what regard will Local Planning Authorities be obliged to integrate
the views of the LEPs in their policy planning documents where
there is conflict or inconsistency with Localist views, expressed
by particular neighbourhoods or communities? How will the preparation
of the new style "Localism" documents be co-ordinated
with the formation of the LEPs? Will there be a further unintended
delay in plan making in England?
The DCLG Structural Reform Plan flags the issue of
governance arrangements between local planning authorities and
the relationship to the business sector. How will the creation
of the LEPs interact with Localism?
LOCALISM AND
LABOUR SUPPLY/ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
A key role of the planning system is to ensure that
the right development happens in the right place at the right
time. This is particularly true in terms of employment and economic
development. A dysfunctional housing market can restrict labour
mobility and impede economic development. A static housing market
results in a declining population and economic stagnation.
SCALE OF
"LOCALIST" PLAN
MAKING
The scale of future "localist" plan making
should be carefully considered. Is it intended that District or
Unitary—wide coverage through Local Development Frameworks
will continue? Alternatively, will the advent of "Localism"
result in a return to the preparation of "Town based"
plans and/or Area Action Plans? The prioritisation of the limited
local government planning staff resources likely to be available
could result in frustration and delay for those communities not
at the "front of the queue". The prospect of a neighbourhood
based approach has tensions relative to the continuation of a
district-wide approach, in circumstances where several neighbourhoods
have fundamentally opposing views on the direction of growth for
particular settlements or the location of particular facilities
or specific development proposals.
THE GENERAL
EXTENT OF
THE GREEN
BELT
A specific issue that needs to be addressed by the
Coalition Government is the appropriate policy document to define
the general extent of the statutory Green Belt. Originally, the
general extent was defined through the Structure Plans, prepared
by the County Councils. However, this function was passed to the
now revoked Regional Spatial Strategies. The Coalition Government
must be clear whether or not the general extent of the Green Belt
is to be defined in the Local Development Frameworks or their
"Localist" replacements or whether a joint subject plan
is envisaged. Whilst joint committee and officer working arrangements
can progress the details, the legal status of the plan expected
to define the general extent of the Green Belt must be clarified.
LOCALISM AND
DISENFRANCHISED GROUPS
A fundamental tension exists between the often short
term views expressed by "NIMBY" groups and long term
needs. Some groups are disenfranchised from effective participation
in localism as they are households yet to form or migrants yet
to move to a particular area. In the South West of England there
are deep seated trends on net in-migration which need to be taken
into account by "local" plan making. If such development
pressures are ignored locally then there will be insufficient
provision made and the current housing pressures exacerbated.
Localism presumes that communities will engage in
the planning process. Whereas, in some circumstances, the public
for a variety of reasons may chose not to participate. It is unclear
what is intended to happen where communities decline to participate.
LOCALISM DEFINITIONS
There needs to be greater clarity as to what precisely
"localism" means. Given the "Right to Build"
initiative, it would appear that "Localism" means more
than simply the majority party of a particular local authority.
If this is the case, how under the new system are matters such
as infrastructure assessment and provision to be co-ordinated?
The views of a particular town or parish council may be very different
to those of a controlling party at a unitary authority.
How will a "community" be defined? It is
noted that Parish Councils are highly variable in size and character.
Many councils are returned unopposed, without election, and are
therefore self appointing. Furthermore, Parish Councils may cover
more than one settlement. What is expected in the cities and towns?
Will ward levels be used or will local resident groups be recognised
as representative organisations? What tests will there be of democratic
legitimacy, probity and competence for organisations to exercise
the "Right to Build" or the "Right to Plan"?
LOCALISM AND
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
STRATEGIES
The relationships between the Sustainable Communities
Strategies and the locally produced plans need to be clarified.
Will locally prepared plans for particular settlements still have
to address the matters in the Sustainable Communities Strategies?
Are the Sustainable Community Strategies still meaningful and
relevant? If the "Spatial Planning" approach is to be
carried forward into the new system, it is questionable whether
such strategies are actually necessary. Each Council should have
a "Corporate" plan and clear budget priorities, in any
event.
To what degree will the Localist plans need to be
consistent with the plans of others, such as the Environment Agency's
Catchment Management Plans?
LOCALISM AND
THE HIGHWAYS
AGENCY VETO
The Coalition Government must clarify whether the
current Highways Agency veto will continue relative to locally
prepared plans. In a two tier system of County and District Councils,
how will highway comments be reflected in the locally produced
plans, particularly where there are political differences between
the two authorities?
LOCALISM AND
LONG TERM
DIRECTIONS OF
GROWTH
A key function of the "plan led" system,
in terms of the co-ordination of infrastructure provision, is
to give an indication of the broad long term directions of growth
for particular settlement. The new localist plans should continue
to have regard to the constraints and opportunities at particular
settlements and indicate the long term expected directions of
growth.
LOCALISM AND
SITE ALLOCATION
DPDS
Will the Coalition Government make clear whether
or not the Site Allocations DPDs, envisaged by the adopted Core
Strategies, will be allowed to be completed before the introduction
of the new locally prepared plans? As most Core Strategies do
not include site allocations, how will such sites be identified
in the short term to avoid a dip in the forward land supply in
future?
LOCALISM AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY
PLANS
Will the requirements to prepare an Infrastructure
Delivery Plan for Local Development Framework documents be continued
in the replacement system? If so, who will be responsible for
their preparation and co-ordinate infrastructure delivery? How
will this be monitored?
CONSISTENT PLAN
PERIODS
The importance of consistent plan periods, both in
terms of starting base dates and end dates, to the effective operation
of the planning system should not be overlooked or underestimated.
Plans must be monitored against performance and areas can be compared
on a consistent basis, this is particularly important where joint
working arrangements are envisaged. The revoked Regional Spatial
Strategies covered the period to 2026. The new style plans need
to have a reasonable time horizon post adoption and be subject
to regular review. The current system seeks a 15 year period post
adoption. Phasing, monitoring and review should be tied to 5 yearly
cycles linked to the 2026, 2031 and 2036 time horizons.
SECRETARY OF
STATE'S
RESERVE POWERS
AND LOCAL
OPINION
The role of the Secretary of State, in terms of exercising
his reserve powers, and the Planning Inspectorate relative to
the proposed Localism approach is unclear and requires clarification,
particularly if future legal challenges are to be avoided.
Without binding Inspector's Reports some local authorities
will seek to do as they please with impunity.
Reserve powers for the Secretary of State are essential
to avoid abuses or other failures of the system. Corruption is
not unknown in UK Local Government and the new "Localism"
system must be clear, accountable and transparent regarding how
matters of "probity" and "self interest" are
to be regulated and enforced.
SCRUTINY OF
LOCALLY PREPARED
PLANS
The Government Offices scrutinise the emerging LDF
documents. With the demise of the Government Offices, who will
ensure that the early stages of plan preparation are undertaken
in accordance with national planning policy? If this role reverts
back to the Council, there is a risk that such scrutiny will not
be undertaken to the same level. Should there be a role for the
Planning Inspectorate in the early scrutiny and auditing of locally
prepared plans? If so, will sufficient resources be assigned to
ensure that early scrutiny continues to avoid potential legal
challenges.
LOCALISM AND
PENALTIES FOR
NON-COMPLIANCE
Many Councils have a poor track record of plan preparation,
finding it almost impossible to produce an adopted plan. Whilst
the emerging details of the incentives are noted, it is clear
that the new system will need effective "Sticks" as
well as "Carrots". The penalties for not maintaining
an up to date development plan must be clear and enforced.
LOCALISM AND
THE COMMUNITY
INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY
The Coalition Government appears to wish to pursue
the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and S106 approach advocated
by the previous Government. However, it is unclear how local planning
authorities will determine their CIL requirements in circumstances
where "localist" plans or proposals have yet to identify
their social and physical infrastructure requirements.
September 2010
10 The Coalition: Our Programme for Government (2010). Back
11
Shelter-The Housing Crisis (2010). Back
12
Supplement to Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate
Change (December 2007). Back
13
PPS3 Housing (June 2010) Para 33. Back
14
PPS12 Local Spatial Planning Para 4.37. Back
15
Open Source Planning Page 11 Back
16
Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. Back
17
Habitat Regulations Directive. Back
18
S19(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Back
19
PPS3 Housing June 2010 Para 11. Back
20
Historic Housing Completions Data. Back
21
Government Response to Barker Review. Back
22
PPS3 Housing Para 2 (June 2010). Back
23
West Dorset DC Core Strategy. Back
24
Eastleigh BC Core Strategy. Back
25
Bath and North East Somerset Core Strategy. Back
26
Secretary of State Letter 27th May 2010 Back
27
The Coalition: Our Programme for Government Back
28
Bristol Core Strategy EIP Inspector's Note September 2010. Back
29
South Gloucestershire, North Somerset & BANES Reduced Housing
figures. Back
| 
