Contact: Roger Lawes, ext 6743

1. Summary

1.1 On 12 December 2001 Stephen Byers, Secretary of State at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, unveiled proposals for a fundamental change to the planning system. The Government has decided that the current system is slow, ponderous and uncertain. The aim of the changes proposed in the Planning Green Paper is a faster, fairer planning system with community interests at its heart. The Green Paper is a consultation document. The consultation period extends until 18 March 2002. Having considered all the comments the Government then intends to publish a statement setting out how it proposes to proceed. Until any necessary legislation is introduced the existing system will continue to operate.

1.2 The Green Paper was one of four documents published in the pre-Christmas period relating to local government. The others were:

(i) `Strong Local Leadership - Quality Public Services', the Local Government White Paper which promotes a radical programme for improving council services, enhancing local democracy and strengthening community leadership;

(ii) `Planning Obligations: Delivering a Fundamental Change', a consultation document promoting reforms to the current system of locally negotiated agreements and introducing a tariff system for funding improvements to local facilities and services; and

(iii) `New Parliamentary Procedures for Dealing with Major Infrastructure Proposals', a consultation document promoting a new approach to dealing with development projects of national significance.

Separate responses are being prepared for each of these documents. The Local Government White Paper will be considered by Cabinet in February 2002. Reports on consultation documents (ii) and (iii) will be considered at the March meeting of this Committee.

1.3 The Green Paper deals with matters that are the responsibility of all local planning authorities - county, district and unitary. This report deals principally with those proposals which have implications for Hampshire as an authority with responsibilities for strategic planning, minerals and waste, and development control (albeit limited to the County Council's own developments). It only deals with district and unitary local planning and development control matters where proposed changes to these functions could have a direct impact on the responsibilities of the County Council.

1.4 This report summarises and considers the main proposals and recommends a response. It does not deal with the many points of practice and detail raised by proposals in the Green Paper.

2. Faster, Fairer Planning for All: A Summary of the Green Paper

2.1 The Green Paper recognises that the planning system has done much to help shape the urban and rural landscape, working well to safeguard open countryside and prevent urban sprawl. However, it concludes that plans are over-complex and sometimes contradictory and that business complains that the speed of decisions is undermining productivity and competitiveness. At the same time local communities are feeling under- involved in the decisions that affect their lives. To overcome these problems the Green Paper proposes to:

(i) simplify the complex hierarchy of plans, reducing the number of tiers and clarifying the relationships between them;

(ii) deliver shorter, better focused plans at the local level which can be adopted and revised more quickly;

(iii) better engage the community more closely in the process of plan preparation; and

(iv) improve integration with other local strategies and plans.

2.2 The genesis and details of the proposed changes to the planning system are set out in six chapters. Chapter 1 sets out the Government's objectives for the planning system. The existing system is characterised as inefficient and frustrating to business and others seeking to develop land. Development for business, housing, services and infrastructure is seen as vital to the health of the economy. The proposals in the Green Paper are therefore predicated on objectives to devise an open and fair planning system that commands public confidence and ensures that development is delivered in a way which is sympathetic to the environment and benefits the whole community.

2.3 Chapter 2 explains the need for change: what is wrong with the existing planning system and what is needed to put it right. The system is considered to be complex, remote, hard to understand and difficult to access. It is perceived as a set of rules aimed at preventing rather than enabling development. It is slow and fails to achieve effective community engagement. On the practical side planning is considered to lack customer focus. Local planning departments are overstretched. As a consequence of all these problems the Green Paper concludes that the planning system is under constant attack and its decisions suspect. The solution involves replacing the existing development plans with a single Local Development Framework (LDF) which will include a clear set of criteria by which local authorities will be able to steer development and use growth to deliver the vision for their areas. There will be changes so that planning works better for business and real community participation in plan-making.

2.4 Chapter 3 provides a brief, factual summary of how the planning system works, including the role of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

2.5 Chapter 4 sets out the proposed fundamental changes to the plan-making system. The changes are based on a desire to simplify the plan hierarchy, deliver shorter, better focused plans; engage the community; and improve integration with other strategies and plans. The Green Paper concludes that local plans are failing their users because they are complex, inconsistent, too long, inflexible and are slow and expensive to prepare. Furthermore, it is suggested that their role is being overtaken by the new requirement to prepare Community Strategies.

2.6 The Green Paper proposes to replace the existing development plan system of structure and local plans (or unitary plans in unitary authorities) by a single level of plan, the LDF. This Framework will consist of a statement of core policies; more detailed action plans for small, local areas of change; and a map showing proposed areas of change and existing designations. These LDFs will normally be prepared by the relevant district, unitary or National Park Authority, although the production of joint Frameworks will not be precluded. These Frameworks will take `months rather than years' to produce.

2.7 The heart of the LDF will be the statement of core policies. This statement would establish the authority's long-term vision for the area and a clear set of objectives for what it is seeking to achieve in terms of development and change, together with a timetable for implementation. Criteria-based policies would form the basis of development control and a Statement of Community Involvement would set out arrangements for involving the community in the continuing review of the LDF and significant development control decisions.

2.8 The statement of core policies will need to take account of the land use consequences of other plans and strategies emerging from the Community Strategy, including health, education, waste and environmental protection. It will also identify where detailed actions plans should be produced. Depending on the situation, an action plan could be new and free-standing or based on an existing plan or strategy. Although principally about the planning of a local area, action plans might also be prepared on a topic basis, for example housing allocations or specific proposals for major development which may have local, authority-wide implications. Guidelines on the production of LDFs, including the requirements for community consultation and how to undertake a sustainability appraisal, will be prepared by Government.

2.9 Authorities will be encouraged to work with Local Strategic Partnerships to establish effective mechanisms for community involvement in the LDF process. The concept of action plans is founded on the principle of encouraging planning to be undertaken close to the people who it most closely affects.

2.10 Prior to adoption under the present system local plans are subject to an inquiry process which is often time-consuming and adversarial. The Green Paper seeks views on the most appropriate replacement procedures for adopting LDFs and action plans. The suggested schemes range from a more extensive public participation process to forms of informal hearing based upon the structure plan examination-in-public model. Whatever approach is finally adopted the Secretary of State would retain reserve powers of direction to amend LDFs in exceptional circumstances.

2.11 To address the concern that delays in the preparation of local plans often results in adopted plans being out of date and ineffective in dealing with contemporary planning issues, the Green Paper envisages that LDFs will be kept under continuous review. Local authorities will be required to publish the statement of core policies every year, and every three years to review the core policies and refresh the vision for an area and the strategy for its achievement. The need for action area plans would also be reviewed annually.

2.12 The Green Paper proposes to abolish structure plans because Government considers that the county no longer remains the appropriate level at which to consider many key strategic planning issues, which are increasingly being dealt with at either a regional or sub-regional level. Nevertheless, the Green Paper seeks views about whether counties should have a role in assisting the regional, district and unitary authorities in preparing their plans. As an exception, minerals and waste planning is considered inappropriate at either the regional or local level. Accordingly the present arrangements will be retained with County Councils as both the plan making and regulatory authority.

2.13 Although a number of criticisms are levelled at existing regional planning policies, the Green Paper confirms the Government's commitment to effective planning at the regional level. To provide an effective policy framework for the proposed LDFs and Local Transport Plans (LTPs) the Green Paper proposes to replace the existing framework of Regional Planning Guidance with statutory Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) which would be more focused and better integrated with other regional strategies (for example the Regional Economic Strategy prepared by the regional development agency). The responsibility for preparing the RSS will rest with the relevant regional planning body (in the South East that body is, at present, the South East England Regional Assembly). The Green Paper suggests that existing regional planning bodies have tended to avoid making hard, strategic decisions and have adopted a lowest common denominator approach to decision making. Accordingly it invites views on what changes should be made to the existing institutional arrangements to ensure that they are representative of key regional interests; are prepared to consult a broad range of regional stakeholders prepared to work closely with them to ensure the delivery of the strategy; and are capable of taking a regional view and addressing difficult, regional choices.

2.14 The Green Paper recognises that strategic planning issues rarely fit within administrative boundaries and that an increasing feature of regional planning has been the identification of sub-regions within which it has been recommended that a variety of partners should get together to resolve common issues. Although the proposed two tier approach of RSS and LDFs is expected to be the norm, the Green Paper suggests that most regions will also require the preparation of sub-regional planning strategies, for example the distribution of housing between districts, for incorporation into the RSS. These sub-regional studies would be specifically approved by the Secretary of State and would be subject to the same public examination arrangements as the RSS.

2.15 The final matter considered in this Chapter of the Green Paper is the role of national planning policy guidance. The Government takes credit for the successes of national planning policy guidelines, for example in promoting the use of brownfield sites and contributing towards the regeneration of town centres. However, the Green Paper acknowledges that the sheer amount of guidance imposes a considerable burden on the planning system and that much of it is too prescriptive and serves only to stifle regional and local flexibility. Over the next two years Government proposes to review each of the existing 25 Planning Policy Guidance notes and 15 Mineral Planning Guidance notes with the view of concentrating on important, national policy issues and separating policy from advice. This review will, in the first instance, focus on PPG1 (headline Guidance for the Planning System); PPG4 (Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms); PPG6 (Town Centres and Retail Development); PPG7 (Countryside); PPGs 15 and 16 (Historic Environment and Archaeology); MPG1 (headline Guidance for Minerals). PPG5 (Simplified Planning Zones) is expected to be withdrawn in the light of proposals for business zones.

2.16 PPG3 (Housing) is held up as the model for the format of the new planning guidance.

2.17 Chapter 5 outlines the proposed changes to development control procedures. The Green Paper acknowledges that a system for regulating development is in the national interest. However, the existing system is characterised as slow and unfriendly to customers. Business complains that the planning system is unresponsive to its needs and communities are frustrated by uncertainty. Improvements to the system are therefore needed to ensure that it is responsive to the needs of customers, delivers decisions quickly and transparently, produces quality development and genuinely involves the community.

2.18 The Green Paper therefore proposes to:

(i) develop a model check list in consultation with the Local Government Association so that people know how to submit a quality planning application;

(ii) tighten targets for determining planning applications, including reducing the number of statutory consultees and imposing a statutory responsibility for these consultees to respond within a prescribed period;

(iii) encourage master planning to improve the quality of development under the aegis of action area plans, with a suggestion that outline permission for major development should be replaced by a certificate notifying agreement between the developer and the local authority as the matters that would need to be considered in a detailed planning application;

(iv) promote better community involvement by offering community groups advice on planning;

(v) introduce new business zones where no planning permission is required for certain forms of development. These zones would be developed by local authorities in partnership with universities, regional development agencies and leading edge companies following identification of the need in regional economic or planning strategies. The zones would be specific to businesses which had a low impact on the surrounding area, ie would not add significantly to high local housing demand, have large infrastructure requirements or require special environmental precautions; and

(vi) seek better and tougher enforcement against those who evade planning requirements, including introducing punitive charges for retrospective planning applications.

2.19 Finally, Chapter 6 sets out how the proposed changes will be delivered at a national, regional and local level.

2.20 At the national level the Green Paper refers to the proposed new procedures for processing major infrastructure projects. A consultation paper on these proposals was published on 17 December 2001 and will be the subject of a separate report to this Committee and the Executive Member for Environment. It also explains new targets for dealing with planning appeals, including call-in and recovered decisions and why the Government has decided against giving third parties the rights of appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision by a local authority to grant planning permission.

2.21 At the regional and sub-regional level the Green Paper reaffirms the need for the new RSS to involve key regional interests in decision making and for local authorities to ensure that regional planning activities are properly funded.

2.22 At the local level the Green Paper recognises that to deliver a fundamental improvement in performance local planning authorities need to attract properly skilled and qualified staff and that planning departments need to be properly funded. A fundamental review of the fee regime is proposed to consider how planning fees might better reflect the costs of the service. All authorities will be required to account separately for their planning service. The intention would be to align that data with planning performance so that the local community can judge whether the planning service is getting its fair share of resources and if it is achieving value for money.

2.23 The Green paper suggests that there is considerable scope for involving the private sector in the delivery of the planning service. Where a local planning authority's planning services are failing, or constantly under performing, Government will consider transferring responsibility for the administration of planning applications to the private sector.

3. County Planning Officer's Comments

3.1 The Green Paper proposes fundamental changes to three aspects of the planning system: development plans, development control and administration.

3.2 The development plan system has remained essentially unchanged since the 1968 Town and Country Planning Act introduced both new types of plans (structure plans and local plans) and new approaches to plan preparation, including an enhanced role for public consultation. Although there have been various refinements over the years the basic principles of structure plans prepared by County Councils and local plans prepared by district councils have remained the corner-stone of the plan-making process.

3.3 This process has had to cope not only with the burgeoning levels of advice and guidance from Government but also the increasing demands of business to respond immediately to sudden market demands and, most importantly, the public's desire for greater inclusion in the decision making process. In this maelstrom of activity it is inevitable that delays have occurred and mistakes made. However, in reviewing a system which has generally ensured an effective and positive control over development and change, it is important to look behind the high profile failures and anecdotal criticisms to establish where the actual fault lines exist and what changes, if any, should be made to overcome them.

3.4 Now that the first cycles of structure plans and local plans have long been completed there can be no excuse for the technical aspects of monitoring and review to be overly time-consuming. In that regard, the Green Paper has correctly identified the dead hand of bureaucracy as a major inhibition on speeding up the planning process. Indeed, the process could be speeded up by the simple expedient of amending the raft of Regulations which prescribe the plan-making process and provide a sequence of opportunities to debate the same issues, and hence delay the process.

3.5 Nevertheless it is important not to confuse delays caused by the inflexible, legalistic procedures under which the planning system currently operates with the delays caused by both individuals and communities wishing to become involved in decisions which directly involve them. Planning after all implies intervention in the market place and a challenge to individual rights. With all participants in the process becoming ever more sophisticated in their understanding and use of information, together with the rights and obligations conferred by national and European legislation, simply stripping out a section of the plan-making process, will not necessarily result in a quicker process.

3.6 The fundamental changes proposed to plan-making involve simplifying the plan hierarchy by abolishing structure plans; making regional planning guidance statutory and more prescriptive; replacing local plans and unitary plans with LDFs and action plans; and reviewing and revising national planning policy guidance. Another tier of sub-regional plans would be added as part of the changes to the regional planning process.

3.7 The decision that the structure plan is the tier to abolish is based on the premise that "counties no longer remain the appropriate level at which to consider many of the key strategic issues". However, as far as minerals and waste planning is concerned the County Council will still remain the appropriate level for both plan-making and development control.

3.8 At a time of increasing mobility; changing attitudes to work, shopping leisure and other activities; and an increasing centralisation of services, it is impossible to establish a correct area for plan-making: different activities exert different influences over different areas. Certainly historic settlement patterns and the administrative patchwork of district and county boundaries have no regard for the life styles of 21st century communities. The boundary of the South East Region itself is administrative rather than functional. Planning at any level, for any service, increasingly requires coordination across boundaries of influence and responsibility. Setting aside the proposals in the Green Paper the county remains the area for strategic transport, education, police, social services and health planning. The boundary issue on its own is not adequate justification for removing the strategic planning responsibilities of County Councils.

3.9 Underpinned by its obligation to prepare long-term strategic planning guidance, County Councils have traditionally also undertaken a number of functions. The most obvious has been the preparation of structure plans. These plans have interpreted national and regional planning policy guidelines at a more local level for subsequent translation into detailed policies in local plans. Less well acknowledged has been the increasing integration of plans and strategies across a wide range of urban and rural topics; the acquisition of technical information and development of specialist skills and understanding which has subsequently informed both local plans and regional planning guidance; the development of working with and leading partnerships in the delivery of change; and the fostering of innovation which has influenced action at all levels of local and national government. In the South East the Regional Planning Body would not be able to operate effectively without the technical contributions from County Councils. District local plans and development control have benefited from, and still continue to draw on, these skills and the specialist advice and guidance offered. Dealing with contemporary matters, such as promoting social, economic and environmental well-being, maintaining biodiversity and addressing issues such as life styles, climate change and resource management, requires the skills, resources and information acquired by counties as they have grappled with the problems associated with long-term strategic planning. There is an increasing emphasis and importance attached to these areas of work and centres of excellence are being established in a number of counties, including Hampshire. It is and will remain cost effective for those activities to be provided at a county level rather than either by individual district councils or the Regional Planning Body.

3.10 The proposed changes to regional planning are significant in two respects: first the new RSS will be statutory and second, in replacing structure plans, they will be more prescriptive and contain detailed, sub-regional policies addressing issues such as housing distribution and the location of key growth areas. This new style of regional plan raises two concerns. First, in a region as large and diverse as the South East, if a regional assembly (either elected or unelected) would be capable of resolving issues in the level of detail required to inform plan-making at a district level; and second if the process would, in fact, be any quicker than the present system. Experience suggests that with the diversity of views and communities represented on the Regional Assembly that the first concern will remain unresolved. The second concern is even more difficult to address because the Green Paper gives no details of the procedures to be followed in the preparation of the RSS. Also missing is any guidance about how the proposed sub-regional studies will fit into the process or, in the absence of a county tier, what role the Regional Planning Body will have ensuring that LDFs and development control decisions conform to the regional strategy: a task currently administered by County Councils.

3.11 There is no doubt that statutory procedures add significantly to the time necessary to prepare and adopt Local Plans. Moreover, it is in the nature of planning authorities to stamp their own character and style on policies which, to all intents and purposes, could be common across a range of authorities: a characteristic that also added to the complexity of plan preparation. Accordingly, properly handled the concept of the LDFs supported by action plans is a move in the right direction. The question that arises, and that is specifically posed in the Green Paper, is where the responsibility for these activities should rest to ensure that this reform adds clarity and purpose to the plan-making system.

3.12 The Green Paper implies that LDFs will not only ensure greater clarity in the development plan system but also enable greater community involvement in the process. Involving the Local Strategic Partnerships set up to devise Community Strategies in advising on mechanisms for community involvement is seen as one way of engendering greater community participation: not only in the preparation of the Framework in the first instance but also in subsequent monitoring, review and implementation. Engaging the community has been part of the bed-rock of the planning system. Indeed, it might be argued that the delays that Government and others find so frustrating with the existing planning system are a direct consequence of involving communities in the plan-making and decision making process.

3.13 As the post 1968 system of structure plans and local plans has bedded in and the community become more aware of the significance of the development plan, communities have become more engaged in the process and more sophisticated in their response. Undeniably some communities of interests have lagged behind this learning process: business, with its generally short-term approach to decision making, has been the most noticeable in that regard. Those not engaged in the process, or whose views have been rejected are, inevitably, the greatest critics of the system. Without greater clarity of purpose the proposed Statement of Community Involvement, which authorities will be obliged to include in the LDF, could act as another hurdle in the development process.

3.14 The Green Paper correctly identifies the problems caused by national planning policy guidance. Not only are local planning authorities burdened by the sheer volume of the guidance (some 852 pages in twenty- five different volumes), but they also have to grapple with their lack of focus, their overt prescription and lack of clarity over status. The proposal to review all existing guidance notes and separate national policy which should be followed from advice which can be interpreted more flexibly, is therefore welcome. However, given the acknowledged limitations of the existing suite of guidance notes, it is regrettable that Government considers it will take at least two years to complete the review. It is also regrettable that PPG3 (Housing) is held up as the model for the new style of guidance as it not only exhibits the shortcomings Government has identified with existing guidance notes (considered by the former Planning and Transportation Committee in November 2000), but also fails the test of providing clear distinction between policy and advice.

3.15 The fundamental changes to development control are concerned with improving performance. The Green Paper neither challenges the principle of development control nor questions the need for regulating development in the public interest. The role of elected councillors in the decision making process remains unchanged. While speed of decision making is stressed it also recognises that decisions on major proposals are bound to take longer than those dealing with minor changes.

3.16 Many of the proposals, for example the development of a "user-friendly" checklist of the information needed in an application, support for pre-application discussions, the concurrent determination of parallel consents (such as IPPC) and open committees, greater access to planning committee papers and advice, are matters of good practice and warrant support. The proposed prohibition of twin-track and repeat applications and the strengthening of enforcement against deliberate breaches of planning consent would be welcome as would the proposal for punitive charges for retrospective applications.

3.17 The impact of other proposals is less certain. The ability of local planning authorities to charge for pre-application advice might deter those who would most benefit from the service. The proposed new, reduced list of statutory consultees will be able to charge both applicants, including it appears local planning authorities, for advice if it is provided within 21 days. In complex cases (for example for the treatment of waste) this timescale may be too short, particularly as the consultees will be limited to those providing advice on health and safety matters (or which operate a parallel consents regime - see paragraph 3.16).

3.18 New arrangements are suggested to help the master planning of large sites and avoid the situation where a development does not proceed in the manner envisaged when outline planning permission was granted. The suggested arrangement of replacing outline planning applications with a certificate establishing the basic parameters for development seem cumbersome and less workable than the current best practice which usually requires a detailed development brief to be agreed before any consents are issued.

3.19 On the face of it perhaps the most contentious proposal aimed at meeting "the needs of fast-moving businesses such as our leading-edge technology companies" is the creation of `Business Planning Zones'. In these zones, identified in regional economic and planning strategies, no planning permission will be required for development if it is in accordance with tightly defined criteria. The proposal is, however, rather a phantom menace. First, the number of zones is likely to be small and their genesis through the regional planning process likely to be medium rather than short term. Second, the basic criteria - that the proposed development will not add significantly to high local housing demand, have large infrastructure requirements or require special environmental precautions - will militate against most significant proposals; and third the expectation that the development will be acceptable to the local community will add time to the process.

3.20 There is one final aspect of development control, and that concerns minerals and waste planning. As an exception to all the other changes being proposed in the Green Paper, minerals and waste planning remains a County Council function: both at the planning and development control stages. The reasons why this topic should be treated differently is self- evident to all those closely involved in the matter. The considerations surrounding the mining of minerals, the working of aggregates and the management of waste do not respect district council boundaries although they have local as well as wider impacts. Nevertheless, similar considerations could apply to other strategic matters which are now proposed to be transferred to the regional level.

3.21 The final fundamental changes deal with administration at the national, regional and local levels. The main changes at the national level are dealt with in a separate consultation paper dealing with proposed New Parliamentary Procedures for Major Infrastructure Proposals (eg new airports and reservoirs). Otherwise the Green Paper no more than explains that Government will try harder to deal more quickly with those schemes which, for whatever reason, the Secretary of State decides he needs to make the final decision. At the regional level, the change of the title of the regional plan is likely to be much less significant than the move towards elected regional assemblies: a proposal which will be the subject of another, yet to be published, consultation paper. At the local level there is a welcome recognition in the Green Paper that the planning service needs special skills and expertise and that quality only comes at a cost. The suggestion that Government needs to work with the Local Government Association and the Improvement and Development Agency to develop an action plan to recruit, train and retain planners, while a welcome recognition of the profession, is an unnecessary, time-consuming luxury. As with most local government services, the basic raw materials of staff and skills exist: competition in the market place draws staff elsewhere. In that regard the Green Paper does not help by demonising planners and the systems that they are obliged to operate as inflexible, legalistic, bureaucratic and unhelpful to business.

3.22 The final administrative matter considered in the Green Paper concerns funding the planning service. The proposal for a fundamental review of the fee regime is welcome, as is the separate review of the costs of monitoring mineral and landfill sites. The proposed separate accounting stream for the planning service to give greater transparency about how much authorities are spending on the planning service is a logical extension of enhancing the fee regime. The inevitable comparisons will then be made between costs and performance as measured by the Government's Best Value Performance Indicators.

Conclusions

3.23 The Government's intention to streamline the planning process is welcome. Many of the principles and individual proposals in the Green Paper are long overdue and merit support, including the proposal for a more focused and less prescriptive national planning policy framework; the development of statutory regional planning strategies; simplifying the development plan system, changes to development control procedures, (including the prospect of a single consent regime), the reduced time for lodging planning appeals and increased powers of enforcement. The recognition of the positive role of planning in delivering change is a particularly significant `first'. However, other proposals appear to be driven either by anecdotal evidence of underperformance by individual planning authorities or a lack of understanding about how the planning process works, or is made to work, in the real world.

3.24 It is self-evident that many of the procedures and protocols under which the planning system operates have failed to keep up with the pace of change. A system invented when a single tier (the county) was responsible for the whole range of plan-making and development control decisions, the pace of change was more measured, and community involvement in the decision making process less significant, has not adapted as those influences have changed. For that successive Governments, rather than the process, is to blame. However, despite problems the system has generally worked well and it is regrettable that the Green Paper is silent over the many successes. It is even more regrettable that the Green Paper lacks any clear analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the current system against which to judge the potential for success of the new arrangements. Confidence that an improvement will be achieved is not helped by the singular lack of detail about many of the proposed new arrangements, particularly the extent to which Government will seek to retain control and influence.

3.25 The Green Paper poses a direct question about the role of counties in assisting the regional, district and unitary authorities in preparing their plans. This question could be construed as a tacit admission that, in proposing to abolish county structure plans, the Green Paper has failed to provide a framework that will enable the integration of land use planning with transport planning (LTPs remain the responsibility of County Councils) and major service provision (eg education and health) which is undertaken at a wider than district level, usually the county.

3.26 There would be clear benefits if counties retained a key role in the plan-making process. Not only do they have much to offer including well established track records in:

(i) providing the technical and leadership skills required to collaborate with others in preparing and implementing strategies;

(ii) dealing innovatively and efficiently with difficult issues; and

(iii) working at both the local and the regional level.

But they are also responsible for devising and implementing LTPs and a raft of environmental, economic, educational, social care and public protection strategies that will remain at the very heart of both the vision and objectives for social, economic and environmental improvements that are at the core of the proposed LDFs.

3.27 The justification for a county role is strengthened in the Green Paper by its acknowledgement of the need for sub-regional planning in those areas where the influence of major towns and cities (or combination of towns and cities) extend beyond their individual administrative boundaries. Establishing a formal role for County Councils in preparing LDFs would not only avoid the need to set out special arrangements for coordinating such studies, but would also be wholly consistent with the aims of the Local Government White Paper to empower and strengthen local community leadership and establish the foundation for innovative and responsive local government.

3.28 The abolition of structure plans does not remove the need for coordinating planning activity. It is this role where counties have traditionally excelled: to the benefit both of local planning, regional planning and increasingly now in Europe. However, to maintain this role will require some form of statutory backing if it is to remain effective and credible.

3.29 Regrettably, nothing in the Green Paper gives confidence that the regional planning body will have either the ability or the determination to provide the level of detailed strategic guidance necessary for districts to prepare LDFs. Experience suggests that the very nature of local communities and local political processes militates against voluntary, informal arrangements to prepare effective and visionary sub-regional planning.

3.30 The Green Paper acknowledges the link between the LDFs and emerging community strategies both in terms of content and process. Although there is, as yet, no clear advice on the form and content of these Frameworks, it is clear that Government is proposing to give greater freedom over their contents. As the majority of services are provided at a county level, there would appear to be an inconsistency in denying counties any effective involvement in the preparation of LDFs. Translating a regional strategy into a medium term framework reflecting local diversity and local priorities should be a task undertaken at a county level. Such an approach would not only enable the effective integration of other plans and strategies (not only of the County Council but also of other service providers, most of whom operate at a wider than district area), but would also reduce the burden of plan preparation on district councils and enable them properly to resource the process of managing development and change on the ground. Moreover, this approach would also have the additional benefit of overcoming the anomaly surrounding the Green Paper's proposals for minerals and waste planning by allowing the minerals and waste local plan to be replaced by criteria-based policies in the relevant LDF.

3.31 The Green Paper recognises the importance of engaging the community in the planning process. However, if the planning process is to be streamlined to ensure that development and change is managed in an efficient and effective manner it is also important to manage the participation process to ensure that that process does not unduly delay the process. To achieve overall benefits for the community, planning creates individual `winners' and `losers'. It is inevitable that any `losers' will seek to delay the final decision. It is delays for those reasons that underpin most of the caustic comments about under performance, at both the development plan and development control levels, in the Green Paper. It is also a criticism that can be levelled at Government through its handling of called-in and recovered appeals. As it stands the Green Paper requires local planning authorities to engage the community at all stages in the plan-making process and the development control process: both already common practice. Nevertheless, there are two problems with the proposed Statement of Community Involvement. The first is the suggestion that community involvement could be focused on the local strategic partnership (LSP) established to prepare the community strategy and the second is the heightened expectations that the Framework will generate.

3.32 In terms of community involvement, the most effective groups involved with planning matters are often those formed by individuals faced by a development proposals in a plan or a planning application. They come together for a purpose and are generally not involved with, or concerned by, other, more general matters. Most retain their single issue focus. They are not the service providers involved in local strategic partnerships. The LSP is not, therefore, the most appropriate basis for engaging community involvement in the planning process. The issue of heightened awareness must be a major concern for Government if it is keen to speed up the planning system. Engaging the community not only has a direct effect on the time taken to make decisions but also indirectly on the decision making process itself. Telling the community that it can be involved in all stages of the process will add time. It will add to the burden of elected representatives as they grapple with decisions. It may also influence delegation arrangements, the liberalisation of which is promoted in the Green Paper as one way of speeding up the process. Engaging the community in the planning process is essential to achieve wider ownership both of the problems and solutions to the pressures for change. However, it needs to operate within clear parameters if it is not to stifle or overburden the process.

3.33 Finally, as the proposals in the Green Paper are refined and translated into legislation over the next year or so, it is inevitable that there will be questions raised about the need to maintain commitments to the review of existing plans. The County Council, and Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils are currently in the process of reviewing both the Structure Plan and the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. The review of the Structure Plan fulfils a commitment given to the regional planning body by all strategic planning authorities that they would complete such studies within 30 months of regional planning guidance being finalised. The review of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan is a priority because the existing plan is now, effectively, out of date. It is therefore essential that the established work programmes on these two exercises are maintained despite any uncertainty over the future.

Recommendation

That the Cabinet be informed that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions be advised that Hampshire County Council:

1. In principle supports the intention to:

(i) streamline the planning process;

(ii) encourage community engagement;

(iii) revise the scope and content of national planning policy guidelines;

(iv) reform selected development control procedures and strengthen planning enforcement procedures;

(v) accepts that development plans in their current form should be abolished; and

(vi) supports, in principle, the concept of statutory Regional Spatial Strategies, Local Development Frameworks and Action Plans.

2. Suggests that there are powerful and compelling reasons for County Councils to have responsibility for the preparation of county-wide and sub-regional Local Development Frameworks not only to ensure the necessary cross-boundary integration of land use, transport and other social and community services, but also to enable a body of skills, knowledge and experience to be maintained to inform local, regional and European plan-making, implementation and conservation initiatives.

3. Cautions against any changes that would either undermine the role of democratically elected members, in particular by transferring responsibility for the local interpretation of national and regional planning policy to unelected or remote regional planning agencies.

4. Suggests that if speeding up the planning process is a key aim, then more thought needs to be given to the framework for community engagement so that it is confined to relevant comments at appropriate stages of the process.

5. Advises that the County Council and its strategic and minerals and waste planning partners will continue to expedite the review of the Hampshire County Structure Plan and the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan within the general framework for policies outlined in the Green Paper.

6932/RL