The future of the planning system in England Contents

4Public engagement

62.A crucial element of the planning system is the involvement of members of the public. Whether that is putting in a planning application, responding positively or negatively to another’s application, or contributing to a Local Plan, this has been a mainstay of the system since 1947. The Government’s proposals could potentially impact on public involvement in a significant way. Therefore, we were keen to examine the current rates of engagement, the possible impact of the Government’s reforms, and how to ensure a strong public voice in the future planning system.

Current rates of public engagement

63.The Government does not routinely collect data on public involvement in the planning system. This makes it hard to determine how many people participate, let alone the characteristics of those individuals. The Government White Paper argued that the current system “allows a small minority of voices, some from the local area and often some not, to shape outcomes.” This meant those likely to benefit from developments, such as young people, being amongst those less involved.211 Giving evidence to us the Minister twice cited figures of 3% and 1% for the proportion of the public involved in individual planning proposals and in Local Plan formation respectively.212 But these figures originated from an article published by Sue Manns on the RTPI website, not from nationwide figures.213

64.We received evidence that argued members of the public felt disenchanted by the planning system and held low opinions of developers and local authorities.214 The Government’s view that participation was skewed towards particular groups, with younger people less likely to participate, also had some support.215 Priced Out argued that young people were failed and local campaign groups, disproportionately made up of older and homeowning residents, dominated the system.216 Save Greater Manchester Green Belt complained that:

Participation in planning currently doesn’t feel like it is accessible to all. The systems are complex, and the language and systems seem to be from a bygone age. The White Paper is just adding to this inequality by not including the community at an early stage of participation. People with money, education, access, and time can navigate the system making it inequitable.217

The Department of Urban Studies and Planning, University of Sheffield however stated that:

There are, however, significant dangers in justifying reductions in opportunities to participate on this basis. The dominance of unrepresentative minorities in public and democratic life is certainly not restricted to the planning process and would not be accepted as a reason to abandon democracy in other spheres. Rather it should be understood as a reason to deepen and extend engagement amongst under-represented groups.218

65.Numerous submissions argued that individuals mainly became involved in individual planning decisions rather than at the Local Plan stage. We were told that people’s interest in planning issues results from nearby development.219 This was because:

It is inevitable people are often more motivated to give up their time to engage on individual schemes where they can see a direct impact upon them [rather] than on plans which may influence development in years to come.220

66.Doubt was expressed that the disproportionate involvement of existing residents ends up blocking development.221 Instead, the sense that planning proposals are agreed to despite local objections was frequently voiced in our survey. There were also worries that the changes would involve a missed opportunity: “There is much detail missing about how this will work in practice and a real risk that the opportunity for future proofing planning to be more age-friendly and foster connections will be missed.”222

67.We compared the Minister’s figures with other data about public involvement in the planning system. Polling by YouGov for Social Communications, shared with us, showed that 26% of people claim to have responded to a Local Plan. Polling of 16–18 year olds by Grosvenor found that 8% stated they had been involved in a survey about the future of their neighbourhood run by their local council or a property developer.223 Polling by Opinium in 2019 for the think-tank Demos found that 44% of those surveyed had engaged with the planning system–that is searched the council register for permissions in their local area, submitted, objected to or supported a planning application, campaigned to stop a development, or spoke at a committee or meeting about planning applications). They found those over 55 were most likely to have engaged (50% said they had), whilst 34–54-year olds had the lowest rate of involvement (43%). Homeowners, residents in London were more likely than renters and residents outside of London to have been involved.224

The Government’s proposed reforms

68.The Government’s proposals to public engagement flow from the changes to how the planning system will work. The Government emphasised that there would be public engagement at two points during the Local Plan stage: first, the LPA would call for suggestions for how areas should be designated as growth, renewal or protected. Secondly, the LPA would submit a draft Local Plan for public comment simultaneous with it being submitted to the Secretary of State for examination. A wider range of people will be engaged with the system, through the greater use of technology, such as social media and their phones. The Government also stated “we will streamline the opportunity for consultation at the planning application stage, because this adds delay to the process and allows a small minority of voices, some from the local area and often some not, to shape outcomes.” This included making the 8–13-week time limits firm deadlines for completing applications; alongside greater use of digital technology and software, of data, and of standardised process.225

69.There was support in some evidence for the reforms. Homes for the South West commented that:

Community engagement at the local plan stage should be a basis to move plans forward, with local consent. However, further community engagement when more detailed plans are brought forward can confuse a process when they fall back on the fundamental principle of a development. Instead, community engagement at the design stage should identify and address specific issues around homes that will be delivered for local communities.226

70.Other arguments advanced in favour of the changes were that they would reduce public disappointment at applications being overridden on appeal because of existing Local Plans,227 cause the system to work more efficiently by reducing political interventions that prioritise local resistance to development,228 and enable proper discussion of the trade-offs “rather than playing whack-a-mole with residents’ objections.”229

71.The majority of our evidence however thought that the proposals were likely to reduce public involvement. This would chiefly be through abolishing the ability of people to comment on individual planning applications in growth areas and other extensions to permission in principle.230 Historic England stated “we would like to see more evidence to demonstrate how the proposed changes will enable greater public participation in the planning system.”231 The scale of the change being proposed was laid out by the RTPI:

it is still an enormous challenge to overturn 70 years of people’s expectations that they can be involved in individual planning decisions. At the very least, it will require a national campaign of education plus significant extra resources for community engagement at local level.232

72.Local authority representatives argued that “a lot of local authorities” go “to considerable lengths at the moment in their engagement to reach out to people who would not normally participate.” Their involvement at the Local Plan stage could feed into wider engagement.233 It was also stated by Andrew Longley from North Northamptonshire that:

Typically, on our plans, you will get in the low hundreds of people involved in the plan-making process who make formal representations, whereas, when it comes to the planning application, you can easily have thousands of representations on a controversial application. That is notwithstanding that those same sites—I have some in mind—were part of the local plans that have been subject to a process, but people really only engage when there is the immediacy of a planning application.234

73.We raised the concerns about reducing public engagement during our oral evidence session with the Minister. When asked about the criticism of the reduction in public involvement, he responded:

I do not agree with the proposition that we are reducing accountability or democratic involvement. We are shifting it forward, where we think it really ought to be, so that it can be about the upfront strategic design of communities rather than the reactive response to a particular application, often where very few people get involved and it is rather difficult to navigate and understand what is being proposed. I do not recognise that characterisation of our proposals.235

74.He thought digitalisation could help get people involved in Local Plans, citing the recent 4,500 virtual viewings of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan examination (although this involvement did not appear to have caused significant alterations to be made to the plan). He explained that planning proposals that do not meet the “preordained strategic plan” (the Local Plan) in growth and renewal areas could still be brought forward through the present planning process.236 We raised with the Minister the absence of references to councillors in the White Paper.237 He assured us that “That is not by any means or in any way a desire to exclude local councillors”, and that he had spoken to councillors both individually and through bodies such as the LGA and District Council Network.238

Planning and the legal system

75.The evidence we received emphasised there would potentially be an increase in legal challenges, through judicial review, as a result of the Government’s reforms.239 Claire Dutch, a planning lawyer, told us that there was likely to be an initial flurry of judicial reviews. She expected once the system was established there would be fewer judicial reviews, but they would be directed against Local Plans. This, she warned, would be “more debilitating” because a successful review “can stop it [the Local Plan] in its tracks and stymie development generally in that area … The JRs [judicial reviews] against plans does worry me.” She also emphasised that planning appeals would continue, as developers would proceed through the standard planning process when they thought the Local Plan’s requirements would not permit them the necessary “density, height, scale, massing, et cetera” in their proposals.240 The Smith Institute feared this potential increase in legal challenges “would be a major disaster–especially at this very difficult time.”241 We were also warned that the changes would take time to bed in as new legal precedents were established.242 The changes could also lead to a diversion of “resources into fighting off five-year housing-land-supply appeals”.243 One specific change likely to increase recourse to judicial review, highlighted by the Canal and River Trust, is the possible abolition of the ‘examination stage’.244 That is one option proposed by the Government in its consultation.245

76.The Government must commission research about the extent of public involvement in the planning system. This should precede the collection from local authorities and publishing of statistics about public involvement in Local Plans and in individual planning applications. Such research would give a clearer picture of the current situation and, in particular, at which point in the process people are most engaged.

77.We support enhancing public involvement with Local Plans. However, figures cited by the Minister suggest that far more people are involved at the point when individual planning applications are considered than at the Local Plan stage, and this was backed up by the evidence we have received. We also fear that people will resort to legal measures if they cannot comment upon and therefore influence an individual planning proposal. Therefore, all individuals must still be able to comment and influence upon all individual planning proposals.

78.It is disappointing that local councillors were not mentioned in the White Paper. They have a key role to play in both Local Plans and individual planning applications. We recommend that the Government set out how the valuable role of local councillors will be maintained in the planning system.

Technology

79.Another significant part of the Government’s proposed reform involved increasing the use of digital technology in the planning process. The main proposal was that “Local Plans should be visual and map-based, standardised, based on the latest digital technology, and supported by a new standard template.” It was proposed that all development management policies and codes would be written in a machine-readable format. Furthermore, there should be greater digitalisation and standardisation of processes, including making data more easily available, using digital template for planning notices, the use of 3D mapping, and the delegation of detailed planning decisions to planning officers where the principle of development has been established. The Government argued this would draw in a younger audience, making information more easily available on a national level, and bolster the PropTech sector.246

80.The overwhelming majority of our evidence voiced criticisms of the current state of technology in the planning system. The Home Builders Federation described the current situation as “antiquated processes to engage the public.”247 The Institute of Historic Building Conservation stated: “There is scope to utilise more digital technology in planning.”248 We were told that there was a lack of access to datasets.249 Likewise, the CPRE argued that the sheer number of development plan documents made it hard for the public to know which were current and relevant.250 We also received complaints about an existing digital system called Planning Portal. This is a digital planning and building resource for England and Wales, which covers c.90% of planning applications, along with advice and guidance. It was founded by MHCLG but does not now receive taxpayers’ money.251 We were told that it was “not user friendly and should be revamped.”252

81.We were informed that parts of the current system do already make use of electronic and digital tools in plan-making, decision-making, and in sharing information about applications.253 There was praise for email notifications about applications on a street-level basis, and the use of virtual planning committee meetings introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic.254 It was noted those with care responsibilities and mobility problem had been able to participate.255 However the CPRE did note that even more people would have been engaged had meetings been recorded; and that the virtual format removed the opportunity for informal conversations with participants, leading “to a rather stale format rather than constructive conversation.”256 It was also suggested that direct subscriptions to get notifications of planning application should become commonplace.257

82.There was support for increasing the amount of digitalisation in the planning system, including maps and open data. It was thought likely to increase the involvement of younger people in the process, addressing their lower engagement at present,258 alongside retailers and prospective homeowners.259 It was also thought likely to increase the pace and efficiency of the system.260 There was support for the better collection of data with a creation of national data standards and templates;261 and for 3D maps.262 We were told information gathered through the planning system could help with building safety through fostering a golden thread of building information,263 and that digital technology could facilitate planning across local authorities.264 London was cited as an example of good practice that others aspired to. There social media has helped to bolster engagement, there is more open data available in a public format and on a single website, different 3D models are available, and data on strategic house land available can be collected live rather than through a rolling programme.265

83.The general support for enhanced technology was coupled with wanting a continuation of existing, non-digital methods of communication.266 We were told that surveys had found 5.3 million people adults in the UK had not accessed the internet in the preceding three months,267 that 9 million people in the UK struggle to use the internet independently,268 and that 11.9 million people lack the digital skills needed to go online.269 The changes might adversely affect people living in rural areas (because of a less reliable connection to broadband),270 the elderly,271 the poor,,272 those in manual occupations,273 those without English as a first language,274 disabled people,275 and Gypsy and Traveller communities.276 It was suggested, drawing on experience from neighbourhood plans, that IT was often the less successful way of engaging local people.277 The poor record of central government in delivering IT solutions was also emphasised.278

84.The possible automation of aspects of the planning process also attracted scepticism.279 Friends of the Earth argued it would lead to a tick-boxes approach devoid of consideration of the context of applications.280 The Civic Voice feared using digital technology to decide if design codes had been met would lead to “a uniformity of development which would not meet the aims of building beautifully.”281 The Wildlife and Countryside Link argued that using simplified and digitised Local Plans would “undermine the role of local people in identifying and protecting natural spaces and in scrutinizing development applications and the planning process.” They wanted a continuation of ‘traditional’ Local Plans alongside the shorter digital ones.282 The Canal and River Trust shared these concerns about arbitrary page limits, and added that “Machine-readable/automated approach and use of prescriptive technical standards not appropriate for issues most relevant to the Trust.”283

85.Consequently, there were calls for the preservation of existing methods of advertising planning applications and Local Plan consultations through signs on lampposts, walk in ‘town hall’ events, face to face engagement (e.g. through workshops), hard copy documentation, and notices in local newspapers. We were told that this helped to ‘push’ information to the public.284 The techniques of neighbourhood planning were recommended as a way to enhance public engagement.285 The News Media Association stressed to us the harmful impact on local newspapers that would result from withdrawing statutory notices.286 It was suggested in both written and oral evidence that a review of the role of local newspapers might be due.287

86.Several submissions suggested that citizens assemblies might have a role to play in planning.288 They were particularly recommended as a means to draw in hitherto under-represented members of a community.289 The CPRE saw it as a way to reduce the adversarial culture of planning.290 On the other hand, one individual from a borough reputedly already engaged in citizens assemblies expressed strong criticism of them and a preference for residents associations.291

87.We put to the Minister the concerns raised about how greater use of digital technology could disadvantage certain people and communities. He argued that “as the years roll on, more and more people will have access to digital tools”. But he added that local authorities could decide to use other methods such as publishing adverts in local papers. Asked whether local authorities would be required to put notices on lampposts and in local newspapers the Minister said the Government would reflect on the consultation responses and that it was for authorities “to work out what they may need to do themselves to communicate with their constituents.” He suggested the Government might wish to see how the new method of mailing out Local Plans necessitated by COVID-19, rather than having them available in libraries or local authority buildings, played out.292

88.We welcome the greater use of digital technology in the planning system. But we recognise the need to ensure those lacking access can know about and participate in the planning process. The Minister suggested that the existing statutory notices on local newspapers and on lampposts would become a matter of discretion for local authorities. We do not agree with this approach. It risks creating a postcode lottery as to whether such notices continue. This would disadvantage those residing in financially stretched councils and those moving into local authorities where such practices have been discontinued. The existing statutory notices should be retained for all local authorities, to be used alongside technology. We propose the use of virtual participation in planning meetings continue alongside in-person meetings after the COVID-19 restrictions have been lifted. We also propose that local authorities should experiment with novel ways of engaging the public with the wider planning system, for instance through the use of citizens assemblies.

212 Q128, Q151 (The Minister)

214 Civic Voice (FPS0076), Dr Tim Marshall (emeritus professor of planning at Oxford Brookes University) (FPS0079)

215 CLA (FPS0049), Oxfordshire Neighbourhood Plans Alliance (FPS0052), Mr Simeon Shtebunaev (Doctoral Researcher at Birmingham City University) (FPS0072), Home Builders Federation (FPS0073), Peel L&P (FPS0094), Centre for Cities (FPS0144)

216 PricedOut (FPS0129)

217 Save Greater Manchester Green Belt (FPS0132). See also the evidence from The Beaconsfield Society (Civic Society) (FPS0130)

218 Professor Malcolm Tait (Professor of Planning at University of Sheffield); Dr Andy Inch (Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies and Planning at University of Sheffield); Dr Aidan While (Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies and Planning at University of Sheffield); Dr Madeleine Pill (Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies and Planning at University of Sheffield) (FPS0098)

219 Tenterden Town Council (FPS0003), South Worcestershire Councils (FPS0015), Neighbourhood Planners London (FPS0032), Ashford KALC (Combined parish, town and community organisations in the borough of Ashford, Kent) (FPS0060), Locality (FPS0086), Southwark Council (FPS0110), National Trust (FPS0157)

220 Bartlett School of Planning, University College London (FPS0097)

221 Professor Malcolm Tait (Professor of Planning at University of Sheffield); Dr Andy Inch (Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies and Planning at University of Sheffield); Dr Aidan While (Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies and Planning at University of Sheffield); Dr Madeleine Pill (Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies and Planning at University of Sheffield) (FPS0098)

222 Centre for Ageing Better (FPS0055)

226 Homes for the South West (FPS0070). See also Q3 (Philip Barnes)

227 Adam Smith Institute (FPS085), Centre for Cities (FPS0144)

228 Peel L&P (FPS0094)

229 Centre for Cities (FPS0144)

230 Tenterden Town Council (FPS0003), National Organisation of Residents Associations (FPS0005), Daventry District Council (FPS0011), Rother Association of Local Councils (RALC) (FPS0012), South Worcestershire Councils (FPS0015), North Southampton Community Forum (FPS018), NALC (FPS0021), Kent Association of Local Councils (FPS0028), Neighbourhood Planners, London (FPS0032), Dr Chris Foye (Knowledge Exchange Associate at UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence); Dr James White; Prof. Flora Samuel; Ton Kenny; Dr Gareth James; Dr Bilge Serin (FPS0033), The Smith Institute (FPS0038), Woodland Trust (FPS0045), Mineral Products Association (FPS0050), The Heritage Alliance (FPS0066), Rutland County Council (FPS0071), Wildlife & Countryside Link (FPS0075), Civic Voice (FPS0076), CPRE the countryside charity (FPS0077), Abri (FPS0078), Dr Tim Marshall (emeritus professor of planning at Oxford Brookes University) (FPS0079), Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FPS0081), District Councils’ Network (FPS0082), Locality (FPS0086), The Chartered Institute of Building (FPS0096), Professor Malcolm Tait (Professor of Planning at University of Sheffield); Dr Andy Inch (Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies and Planning at University of Sheffield); Dr Aidan While (Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies and Planning at University of Sheffield); Dr Madeleine Pill (Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies and Planning at University of Sheffield) (FPS0098), Southwark Council (FPS0110), Just Space (FPS0115), The Beaconsfield Society (Civic Society) (FPS0130), Commonplace (FPS0136), North Northamptonshire Joint Planning and Delivery Unit (FPS0147), Greater London Authority (FPS0149), Sustrans (FPS0151), The Highgate Society (FPS0155), London Forum of Amenity & Civic Societies (FPS0156), National Trust (FPS0157), Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) (FPS0161), Robert Rush (FPS0163)

231 Historic England (FPS0092)

232 Royal Town Planning Institute (FPS0113)

233 Q38 (Andrew Longley and Lisa Fairmaner)

234 Q42 (Andrew Longley), Q94 (Claire Dutch)

235 Q154 (The Minister)

236 Q128 (The Minister)

237 Professor Malcolm Tait (Professor of Planning at University of Sheffield); Dr Andy Inch (Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies and Planning at University of Sheffield); Dr Aidan While (Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies and Planning at University of Sheffield); Dr Madeleine Pill (Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies and Planning at University of Sheffield) (FPS0098)

238 Q153 (The Minister)

239 Mr Daniel Scharf (Consultant at PfT Planning) (FPS0002), The Smith Institute (FPS0038), Institute of Historic Building Conservation (FPS0044), Canal & River Trust (FPS0048), Commonplace (FPS0136)

240 Q110 (Claire Dutch)

241 The Smith Institute (FPS0038)

242 Mr Daniel Scharf (Consultant at PfT Planning) (FPS0002)

243 Q33 (Andrew Longley)

244 Canal & River Trust (FPS0048)

247 Home Builders Federation (FPS0073)

248 Institute of Historic Building Conservation (FPS0044)

249 PortalPlanQuest Limited (FPS0030)

250 CPRE the countryside charity (FPS0077). See also Cllr Andrew Wood (Canary Wharf ward Councillor at LB Tower Hamlets) (FPS0137)

251 PortalPlanQuest Limited (FPS0030)

252 National Organisation of Residents Associations (FPS0005), North Southampton Community Forum (FPS0018)

253 Mr Daniel Scharf (Consultant at PfT Planning) (FPS0002), National Organisation of Residents Associations (FPS0005), District Councils’ Network (FPS0082), Southwark Council (FPS0110), Greater London Authority (FPS0149)

254 Richard Harwood OBE QC (Joint Head of Chambers at 39 Essex Chambers) (FPS0059)

255 Just Space (FPS0115)

256 CPRE the countryside charity (FPS0077)

257 Home Builders Federation (FPS0073)

258 South Worcestershire Councils (FPS0015), YIMBY Alliance, London YIMBY, Oxford YIMBY, Brighton YIMBY, PricedOut, Cambridge YIMBY (FPS0017), Oxfordshire Neighbourhood Plans Alliance (FPS0052)

259 Association of Convenience Stores (FPS0069), Sage Housing (FPS0090)

260 Pocket Living (FPS0023), PortalPlanQuest Limited (FPS0030), Historic England (FPS0092), Q2 (Brian Berry)

261 PortalPlanQuest Limited (FPS0030), Locality (FPS0086), Water UK (FPS0140), GL Hearn (FPS0141), City of London Corporation (FPS0148)

262 Cllr Andrew Wood (Canary Wharf ward Councillor at LB Tower Hamlets) (FPS0137)

263 National Fire Chiefs Council (FPS0040)

264 Q116 (Steve Quartermain)

265 Q61 (Lisa Fairmaner and Andrew Longley)

266 Tenterden Town Council (FPS0003), Hever Parish Council (FPS0007), Daventry District Council (FPS0011), Tamworth Borough Council (FPS0013), North Southampton Community Forum (FPS0018), Mr Richard Gilyead (FPS0022), Urban Vision Enterprise CIC, D2H Land Planning Development (FPS0037), CLA (FPS0049), Local Government Association (FPS0056), St Albans Civic Society (FPS0057), Ashford KALC (Combined parish, town and community organisations in the borough of Ashford, Kent) (FPS0060), Association of Convenience Stores (FPS0069), Rutland County Council (FPS0071), Mr Simeon Shtebunaev (Doctoral Researcher at Birmingham City University) (FPS0072), Wildlife & Countryside Link (FPS0075), Civic Voice (FPS0076), CPRE the countryside charity (FPS0077), Abri (FPS0078), Dr Tim Marshall (emeritus professor of planning at Oxford Brookes University) (FPS0079), Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FPS0081), Locality (FPS0086), London Borough of Hackney (FPS0091), Historic England (FPS0092), The Chartered Institute of Building (FPS0096), POETS (Planning Oxfordshire’s Environment and Transport Sustainably) (FPS0108), The Beaconsfield Society (Civic Society) (FPS0130), Emeritus Professor Tony Crook; Hon Professor Vincent Goodstadt; Emeritus Professor Christine Whitehead; Emeritus Professor John Henneberry; Hon Professor Janice Morphet; Professor Cecilia Wong; Professor Malcolm Tait; Hon Professor Kevin Murray; Professor Gavin Parker; Professor Nick Gallent (FPS0131), Commonplace (FPS0136), LSE London (FPS0139), Rother District Council and Burwash: Save our Fields (FPS0143), North Northamptonshire Joint Planning and Delivery Unit (FPS0147), City of London Corporation (FPS0148), London Forum of Amenity & Civic Societies (FPS0156), National Trust (FPS0157), Newcastle City Council (FPS0159), Robert Rush (FPS0163)

267 National Trust (FPS0157)

268 The Heritage Alliance (FPS0066)

269 News Media Association (FPS0068)

270 Hever Parish Council (FPS0007), Rother Association of Local Councils (RALC) (FPS0012), CLA (FPS0049), Ashford KALC (Combined parish, town and community organisations in the borough of Ashford, Kent) (FPS0060), The Heritage Alliance (FPS0066), Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) (FPS0161)

271 Rother Association of Local Councils (RALC) (FPS0012), Tamworth Borough Council (FPS0013), Centre for Ageing Better (FPS0055), London Borough of Hackney (FPS0091), London Tenants Federation (FPS0112), Newcastle City Council (FPS0159)

272 Rother Association of Local Councils (RALC) (FPS0012), YIMBY Alliance, London YIMBY, Oxford YIMBY, Brighton YIMBY, PricedOut, Cambridge YIMBY (FPS0017), London Borough of Hackney (FPS0091)

273 Just Space (FPS0115)

274 London Tenants Federation (FPS0112)

275 Newcastle City Council (FPS0159)

276 London Gypsies and Travellers (FPS0067)

277 Rother Association of Local Councils (RALC) (FPS0012)

278 Cllr John Crawford (FPS0008), Daventry District Council (FPS0011), Rother Association of Local Councils (RALC) (FPS0012)

279 Professor Malcolm Tait (Professor of Planning at University of Sheffield); Dr Andy Inch (Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies and Planning at University of Sheffield); Dr Aidan While (Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies and Planning at University of Sheffield); Dr Madeleine Pill (Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies and Planning at University of Sheffield) (FPS0098), Stonewater (FPS0103), Dennis Elsey (FPS0145), Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) (FPS0161), Emeritus Professor Tony Crook; Hon Professor Vincent Goodstadt; Emeritus Professor Christine Whitehead; Emeritus Professor John Henneberry; Hon Professor Janice Morphet; Professor Cecilia Wong; Professor Malcolm Tait; Hon Professor Kevin Murray; Professor Gavin Parker; Professor Nick Gallent (FPS0131)

280 Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FPS0081)

281 Civic Voice (FPS0076)

282 Wildlife & Countryside Link (FPS0075)

283 Canal & River Trust (FPS0048). See also Homes for the South West (FPS0070), Bristol City Council (FPS0119)

284 Tenterden Town Council (FPS0003), Richard Harwood OBE QC (Joint Head of Chambers at 39 Essex Chambers) (FPS0059)

285 Ashford KALC (Combined parish, town and community organisations in the borough of Ashford, Kent) (FPS0060)

286 News Media Association (FPS0068)

287 Richard Harwood OBE QC (Joint Head of Chambers at 39 Essex Chambers) (FPS0059), Q60 (Lisa Fairmaner)

288 NALC (FPS0021), Dr Chris Foye (Knowledge Exchange Associate at UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence); Dr James White; Prof. Flora Samuel; Ton Kenny; Dr Gareth James; Dr Bilge Serin (FPS0033), UK2070 Commission (FPS0128)

289 CLA (FPS0049)

290 CPRE the countryside charity (FPS0077)

291 Robert Rush (FPS0163)

292 Qq158–160 (The Minister)




Published: 10 June 2021 Site information    Accessibility statement