Archived decisions

Contact: Roger Lawes, ext 6743

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

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

1. In principle supports the need to:

(i) streamline the planning process;

(ii) encourage community engagement;

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

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

2. Regrets that it cannot give the simple yes or no answers to the questions posed at the end of the Green Paper and recommends that, following consideration of all the comments on the Green Paper, a White Paper should be published providing the full details of the new planning system.

3. Considers that there are powerful and compelling reasons for County Councils to have a statutory responsibility in the preparation of Local Development Frameworks at both the local and sub-regional level 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.

4. Suggests that the integration of land use and transport planning with County Community Strategies can only be effectively achieved if County Councils have a statutory role in the preparation of Local and Sub-Regional Development Frameworks.

5. Considers that regional planning bodies would be unable to deal with local issues in the detail envisaged in the Green Paper and cautions against undermining the role of democratically elected members by transferring responsibility for the local interpretation of national and regional planning policy to unelected or remote regional planning agencies.

6. 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.

7. Welcomes the recognition that mineral and waste planning is best carried out at the county level in two tier authority areas. However, it regrets that the Green Paper has failed to grasp the wider resource management issues influencing planning for minerals and waste, and the opportunities provided by the review of the planning system to embrace natural resource management (soils, water, air, renewable energy) alongside minerals and waste planning.

8. Believes that Government has failed to recognise the tensions between the need for development and the concerns of local communities and is naïve in its view that criteria based policies and simple mediation processes will overcome these problems, and is wrong to ignore the impact of legal challenges on both the plan making and development control process.

9. Submits as detailed comments in response to the questions posed in the Green Paper the report of the County Planning Officer to the Hampshire County Council Cabinet meeting on 25 February 2002.

10. Advises that the County Council in consultation with 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.

2. Reason

2.1 To respond to a request by Government for comments on the Green Paper by 18 March 2002.

3. Other Options considered and rejected - Not applicable.

4. Conflicts of Interest declared by the decision maker or a member or officer consulted - Not applicable.

5. Dispensation granted by Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the matter being dealt with if urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: .................................. Date: ....................................

Councillor T K Thornber

7017/RL

Contact: Roger Lawes, ext 6743

1. Introduction

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. Until any necessary legislation is introduced Lord Falconer has recently confirmed that the existing system will continue to operate and that County Councils are expected to meet their responsibilities by reviewing their plans.

1.2 The Green Paper was one of three 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 on the last two papers are being prepared for consideration and action by the Executive Member for Environment.

1.3 On 23 January 2002 the Environment Policy Review Committee considered the main proposals in the Green Paper and their implications for the planning service currently provided by the County Council. Since that meeting the South East England Regional Assembly and the County Councils Network have debated the main proposals in the Green Paper. This report draws on the PRC report, its resolution and those further discussions, and recommends a response to Government, including comments on the 10 specific questions posed at the end of the Green Paper.

2. Background

2.1 The last major review of the planning system was in 1968. Few would disagree that the planning system is showing its age and needs reform. Indeed, unless changes are made the procedures and processes put in place to deal with pressures for development and change over 30 years ago are likely to prevent movement towards sustainable development and frustrate communities in their quest for a better quality of life.

2.2 The Green Paper proposes to simplify the hierarchy of plans by strengthening regional planning and replacing the existing development plan system of structure and local plans (or unitary plans in unitary authorities) by a single level of plan, the Local Development Framework (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.

2.3 Although short on analysis, the Green Paper deals with the key components Government considers essential for a better, simpler, faster and more accessible system that serves both business and the community. However, because of the lack of detail supporting many of the proposals the specific questions posed in the Green Paper require more than a simple yes or no answer.

3. The 10 Questions Posed in the Green Paper

1. We propose to replace local plans and Unitary Development Plans with a Local Development Framework. Do you agree?

3.1 Replacing local plans and Unitary Development Plans with Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) is only one element of the change proposed. A view on the proposal for LDFs cannot be taken in isolation from the rest of the package. At present the context for local plans is established in structure plans, which interpret regional planning policies and other strategies at the local level, and coordinate land use and transport planning across a wider than district area. Accordingly, to be effective the proposed LDF would require greater clarity and prescription in the regional planning framework and backing for integrating policies and strategies across this wider area. Those ingredients are missing from the Green Paper.

3.2 Although there is no clear advice on the form and content of LDFs, it is clear that Government is proposing to give greater freedom over their content. The LDF is expected to include criteria-based policies which take account of the land use consequences of other policies and programmes relevant to the local community strategy. This additional freedom creates two problems. First, the very nature of criteria-based policies is that they are relatively straightforward to devise but often difficult to apply as different parties put different interpretations on the criteria. Criteria-based policies can create uncertainty for both developers and local communities alike since they avoid identifying sites: perhaps one of the strengths of the existing system. An emphasis on criteria-based policies may create greater difficulties in delivering planning permissions for controversial development. Second, as the provision of the majority of services will remain at the county level there is a fundamental flaw in the Green Paper in its failure to identify how this integration will take place. These are fundamental issues which question the likely effectiveness of the proposals.

2. We propose that Local Development Frameworks should include community-based action plans (paragraphs 4.13-4.15). Do you agree?

3.3 Action plans, by other names, have been a part of the planning process for many years. The proposed new arrangements envisage that these plans will be subject to a degree of formal consultation which could inhibit their speed of preparation. Moreover, whereas in the past the earlier forms of action plans concentrated on the details, such as individual development briefs, design statements and village plans (ie detailed schemes implementing established strategies), the Green Paper implies that other policy matters could be promoted this way, for example housing allocations. Unless the form and content of action plans is tightly prescribed there will remain uncertainty over the most appropriate stage for dealing with matters with the inevitable delays that such uncertainty will create.

3. We are proposing new arrangements for community involvement in preparation of the Local Development Framework and in significant planning decisions (paragraphs 4.21-4.24 and 5.52-5.58). Do you agree?

3.4 The Green Paper recognises the importance of engaging the community in the planning process. Engaging the community in the planning process is essential to achieve wider ownership both of the problems and solutions. However, experience shows that it is individuals or sectional interest groups that generally get involved in planning issues. Accordingly, 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 it contributes to, but does not delay, decision making. The suggestion that community involvement could be focussed on the local strategic partnership (LSP) fails to recognise their special responsibilities which relate to the production and delivery of Community Strategies. The more relevant issue which is not addressed in the Green Paper is the integration of community strategies and LDFs (see paragraph 3.7).

3.5 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. The Green Paper appears optimistic about resolving differences between different communities of interest (for example business and local communities). Involving these communities 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.

4. We are proposing to simplify the hierarchy of plans by strengthening regional planning and abolishing county structure plans (paragraphs 4.36-4.51). Do you agree?

3.6 Strengthening regional planning by placing it on a statutory footing is change which many have promoted over recent years as a means of speeding up the planning process. However, guidance at the regional level needs to be appropriate for that level. In all regions, but particularly in the south east, there is a great diversity of activity and of social, economic and environmental problems and opportunities. It is unlikely that a regional planning body could ever properly represent this diversity. There is therefore a need for regional planning guidance to embrace the need for local discretion, otherwise the Green Paper's proposals will result in a prescriptive, top-down approach which fails to address local characteristics.

3.7 The abolition of structure plans does not remove the need for coordinated planning activity below the regional level. The proposed changes to regional planning will require more prescription of policy and greater detail of proposals, for example housing distribution. Dealing with these matters at a regional level may not be possible at the level of detail required to inform plan making at a district, LDF, level. In attempting the task it is questionable whether the process will be any quicker.

3.8 More importantly, the proposal to abolish structure plans and provide no replacement breaks the crucial link between land use and transport at the wider than district scale. The need for integration of these two subjects has never been greater to achieve wider, societal objectives. Updating the system requires proper recognition of the role of counties and others in the integrated delivery of these, and other, services. It also requires a clear acceptance of the need to integrate community and land use strategies.

3.9 Given that the Government is committed to retaining County Councils for the delivery of many public services, it is essential that they are involved in the process of translating a regional strategy into the LDF if that framework is properly to reflect local diversity and local priorities. 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.

5. We propose to review national planning guidance to reduce its volume and complexity (paragraphs 4.54-4.58). Do you agree?

3.10 Local planning authorities are burdened not only by the sheer volume of national planning guidance, but also its lack of focus, its sometimes contradictory advice, its overt prescription and lack of clarity over status. The proposal to review all existing guidance is welcome. However, given the acknowledged limitations of the existing volumes, it is regrettable that the process of review is programmed to take so long.

6. Do you have any further comments on our proposals for reforming plans?

3.11 Many of the principal reforms 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; and speeding up the development plan system. Regrettably, the Green Paper lacks the details to show how these principles will be put into practice.

3.12 The abolition of structure plans does not remove the need for coordinating planning activity over a wider than district or sub-regional scale. 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. 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 (Local Transport Plans, for example, remain the responsibility of County Councils), community planning and major service and infrastructure provision (eg education and health) which is undertaken at a wider than district level, usually the county.

3.13 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.

3.14 Accordingly, there would be clear benefits if counties retained a statutory role in the plan-making process. Not only do they have much to offer, including well established track records in the technical and leadership skills required to collaborate with others in preparing and implementing strategies, but they are also responsible for devising and implementing Local Transport Plans and a raft of environmental, economic, educational, social care and public protection strategies. The justification for maintaining a 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.

7. We are proposing to speed up the planning system and set new targets for local authorities and Central Government for dealing with applications and appeals. Do you agree?

3.15 The Green Paper neither challenges the principle of development control nor questions the need for regulating development in the public interest and, with the possible exception of major infrastructure proposals, 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. However, while acknowledging this one inhibition on speeding decision making, the Green Paper fails to recognise the impact of wider community involvement in decision making and the increasing use of legal challenges to frustrate, delay or overturn decisions: a problem that could be exacerbated by the proposals in the Green Paper for the new form of development plan and criteria-based policies.

3.16 Many of the proposals, for example the development of a "user-friendly" checklist of the information needed in an application, support 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 that warrant support. The proposed prohibition of twin-track and repeat applications as well as 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 There are, however, few details about how these proposed principles will be put into practice and how, and more importantly why, the various performance indicators have been chosen. In that respect, the targets for the DTLR's own performance seem less than challenging and no sanctions are proposed for failure.

8. We are proposing to impose new performance standards for statutory consultees and allow them to charge fees for consultation, to help improve their performance. Do you agree?

3.18 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 and, 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).

9. The Green Paper contains a number of other proposals aimed at making the planning system faster, simpler and more effective. Do you agree?

3.19 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.

3.20 The proposal for Business Planning Zones is rather a phantom. 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.

3.21 The Green Paper is silent on the matter of County Councils retaining development control responsibilities for its own development. Whatever the outcome of the Green Paper debate, County Councils will remain responsible for delivering much of the social infrastructure necessary to maintain the quality of life for local communities. Accordingly, although the Human Rights Act 1998 has raised some questions about procedures, it is essential that the County Council retains the necessary development control responsibilities if this infrastructure is to be provided in the right place and at the right time.

10. Do you have any further comments on our proposals for improving the development control process?

3.22 There is one final aspect, 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 reason 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.

3.23 The Green Paper is unclear about what sort of plan County Councils will need to produce for minerals and waste. It makes no sense to maintain the current type of Local Plan simply for minerals and waste, particularly now that emerging plans are embracing the wider context of resource managements rather than simple mineral extraction and waste disposal. Logically, minerals and waste should be dealt with as a Development Framework plan over the county area with Action Plans for areas of mineral and waste management activity. Furthermore, the opportunity should be taken to embrace natural resource management issues (soils, water, air, renewable energy) alongside minerals and waste planning.

4. Conclusions

4.1 In principle, the Government's desire for a modern, effective planning system is welcome. Many of the principles and practices outlined 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; speeding up 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'.

4.2 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. However, despite problems the system has generally worked well and it is 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.

4.3 The Green Paper poses a direct question about the role of counties in assisting the regional, district and unitary authorities in preparing their plans. There are clear, demonstrable justifications for counties to retain a key role in that process, not least because the plans and strategies that they will continue to be responsible for will be at the very heart of both the vision and objectives for social, economic and environmental improvements that will form the core policies in the proposed LDF.

4.4 There are several models currently being devised by the Local Government Association, County Councils Network and others to demonstrate how County Councils could be involved in the plan-making process without adding to the two tiers of planning proposed in the Green Paper. The implications of these various models are still being assessed. For the moment the County Council should do no more than comment on the positive and practical benefits of retaining a statutory involvement in the process.

7017/RL