Contact: Tony Cook, ext 6730 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has now recommenced its progress through Parliament. In addition, the Government has published for comment a series of documents dealing with procedures for certain aspects of the Bill. Further amendments to the Bill and detailed comments on procedures are proposed to be pursued with the Government. The following decisions are sought, that:

(i) amendments to the proposed procedures be sought, based on the comments in Appendix 1;

(ii) the Government Office for the South East and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister be pressed to allow preparatory work on the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework in advance of the commencement date of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act; and

(iii) County Council officers make a further report in due course on the resource and timing implications arising from the new approach to planning matters, and the proposed procedures put forward by the Government in relation to Minerals and Waste planning.

1.2 The Environment Policy Review Committee will have considered the attached report on 3 December 2003 and Members' comments will be reported orally at the meeting.

2. Reasons

2.1 The County Council needs to lobby and influence the approach to the new planning system as proposed in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill and the recent consultation documents on procedures.

2.2 To achieve a meaningful role for county councils in regional and sub-regional planning, and to improve the operation of the new planning process.

2.3 There are substantial aspects of the new process of plan making which are unclear and inevitably, this will mean that the progress of new Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks will be delayed. Despite the desire to introduce the new planning system quickly, there are no provisions for pre-commencement work. The County Council has initiated preparatory work on the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework but parts of this work may have to be repeated unless some recognition is given to previous activities.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Not to offer a response to Government.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor K B Estlin

Councillor J K Glen

8424/TC

Contact: Tony Cook, ext. 6730 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has now recommenced its passage through Parliament. At the same time, the Government has invited views on a set of consultation documents dealing with procedures for aspects of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. Further amendments to the Bill and detailed comments on procedures are proposed to be pursued with the Government to provide for a meaningful role for County Councils in regional and sub-regional planning, and to improve the operation of the new planning process, including allowing additional preparatory work in advance of the commencement date of the Act.

2. Background

2.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill proposes to replace the current system of Regional Planning Guidance (prepared by regional assemblies/Government offices), Structure Plans (prepared by strategic planning authorities, including Hampshire County Council) and Local Plans (prepared by District Councils). It proposes a new two-tier system of plans:

(i) Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) prepared by regional planning bodies (regional chambers/assemblies); and

(ii) Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) prepared by District Councils. There will need to be an LDF covering each district, but the Bill enables several District Councils to prepare a joint LDF if they so wish. Minerals and Waste Local Plans would be replaced by Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks (MWDFs), but still prepared by County Councils.

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has now returned to standing committee in Parliament with certain amendments, including the ending of Crown immunity.

2.2 The Cabinet considered the implications of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill for Hampshire on 6 January 2003. The Cabinet decided:

(i) That the County Council lobby for an amendment to the Planning Bill to secure a statutory role for County Councils in sub-regional planning.

(ii) That, in the event of the Planning Bill not being amended to give County Councils a statutory role in sub-regional planning, the County Council explores the future role other county and unitary councils in the South East region wish to pursue before deciding what approach to take.

(iii) That work continue with all speed on sub-regional strategies for the Blackwater Valley/Basingstoke area and for South Hampshire, with a view to underpinning a new Structure Plan to be placed on deposit by April 2004 or as sub-regional strategies to underpin the new Regional Spatial Strategy.

(iv) That a role for the County Council in developing Local Development Frameworks be pursued both through seeking amendments to the Planning Bill and by a constructive dialogue with Hampshire District Councils.

2.3 The Cabinet further considered the proposed reform of the planning system on 28 July 2003. It was decided to seek a clearer role for Hampshire in the preparation of the Regional Spatial Strategy, to work on improving the emerging secondary legislation, and to influence the new spatial planning regime though the community planning process. The Cabinet also considered regional government arrangements on 24 February, 27 May and 27 October 2003.

2.4 The Government has now published a series of consultation documents:

(i) Planning Policy Statement 11 (PPS11) - Regional Planning;

(ii) Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12) - Local Development Frameworks;

(iii) Town and Country Planning (Regional Planning) (England) Regulations 2004;

(iv) Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004;

(v) Local Development Frameworks - Guide to Procedures and Code of Practice;

(vi) Creating Local Development Frameworks;

(vii) Town and Country Planning (Transitional Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2004;

(viii) Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2004; and

(ix) Town and Country Planning (Major Infrastructure Project Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2004.

Comments on the draft guidance and regulations are required by 16 January 2004. A further consultation document on Planning Obligations will be considered separately by the Executive Member for Policy and Resources on 11 December 2003.

3. The Government's Proposals

3.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill returned to standing committee in the House of Commons in October 2003 following agreement for it to be carried into the next session of Parliament. The Government's amendments for the recommittal of the Bill included:

(i) An amendment to Clause 13 to make clear County Councils' duties to keep under review matters relevant to county interests including the planning of the area's development.

(ii) Technical amendments to Local Development Orders and Statements of Development Principles.

(iii) An amendment to arrangements for Public Inquiries into major infrastructure projects to give the Secretary of State a degree of flexibility to appoint and change the number of additional inspectors during the inquiry process.

(iv) An amendment to widen the use of dual jurisdiction on applications where there has been an appeal against non-determination.

(v) An amendment to alter the duration of consent of planning permission from five years to three years.

3.2 PPS11 and the draft Regulations on Regional Planning set out procedural policy in relation to the content and preparation of a regional spatial strategy. This should cover a period of 15 years and identify the scale and distribution of new housing, priorities for the environment, transport, infrastructure, economic development, agriculture, minerals and waste. Guidance is provided on community involvement.

3.3 PPS12 and the draft Regulations on Local Development Frameworks set out the policies on the preparation of Local Development Documents. A Local Development Scheme detailing plans to be saved and documents to be prepared must be approved within six months of the Act. PPS12 gives details of the process to submit Local Development Documents as well as the arrangements for examination and adoption. The requirements for stakeholder and community involvement in the plan process are also covered in the consultation documents. Authorities have to produce an annual monitoring report.

3.4 The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) Order includes provisions on a number of development control issues, including Statements of Development Principles, Local Development Orders and a new duty to respond to statutory consultees.

3.5 Details of the various consultation documents are given in the attached appendices. Appendix 1 is a Briefing Note on the various documents. The comments section in the Briefing Note is intended to form the basis of a response to the consultations, the main points of which are set out in section 4 below. Appendix 2 gives details of the questions posed by the Government as part of the consultations.

4. Comments of the Director of Environment

4.1 The amendments to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill and the consultation documents on procedures give further details on the Government's proposals to reform the planning system and speed up decision taking. There is though still considerable conjecture as to how the new system will work and whether it will be flexible and effective in improving the time taken to approve development plans.

4.2 Whilst it is clear that it is intended to create a two tier planning system with plan formulation focused at the regional and local level, the Government has recognised the capacity and expertise of County Councils in supporting plan making in the new guidance. It will therefore be important to influence how best the County Councils can participate in a reformed planning system.

4.3 Current lobbying is directed towards seeking a statutory role for all councils that deliver major functions with land use implications. County Councils should be credited with a statutory role in the RSS process. This has been resisted by the Government up to now to avoid the situation of a Regional Planning Body being forced into arrangements with an unwilling County Council, but discussions are still continuing on this issue.

4.4 The draft PPS11 envisages regional planning bodies entering into arrangements with strategic planning authorities (county and unitary councils) for the latter to provide assistance ranging from leading sub-regional strategy preparation to assessing the conformity of Local Development Documents and commenting on planning applications of regional/sub-regional significance. So that all parties, including the public, are clear on which body is undertaking which tasks, the draft PPS11 should require each regional planning body to draw up and publish an agreement between it and the strategic planning authorities within its area. In request of these tasks, however, the Government should be advised that Hampshire County Council will not wish to take on the roles of assessing the conformity of Local Development Documents and commenting on planning applications unless a statutory role for County Councils is added into the Bill. (It is understood that other County Councils are also likely to adopt this stance.)

4.5 Without a statutory role, different `agency' arrangements may be negotiated across the whole country between regional planning bodies and County Councils. For the South East Region, a preference has been expressed by SEERA officers for a `memorandum of understanding' between authorities. However, this is unlikely to be easily negotiated between all local authorities in the Region.

4.6 It is likely that the new arrangements for strategic planning will reduce local community engagement in the planning process. There must be a concern that the distance between the regional and local level will be too large to achieve meaningful community participation which is an objective of the new planning system.

4.7 There is a real danger that the proposed new arrangements will create a hiatus in the planning system. It is intended that implementation of the new arrangements will commence in July 2004 which means that there is a very tight timescale to move to the new system of plans. This matter needs to be further pursued with GOSE and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

4.8 The Government is seeking integration between the new plan making system and other regional strategies as well as integration with community strategies. The relationship between all the strategies is uncertain and if integration is to be achieved it will need clear parameters to prevent stifling the process.

4.9 Integration between strategy preparation and implementation/delivery is also crucial. Under the new regime, these will be divorced in key areas: strategy preparation will be within the province of regional assemblies and district councils, yet delivery of transport, education and other key components of the spatial strategies will rest with County Councils in shire areas. The draft PPS11 offers no robust means for ensuring integration.

4.10 The new planning system places emphasis on `front loading' the work on objections and modifications to the plan in advance of the public inquiry, in contrast to the current development plan system. The Government appears optimistic that early involvement of different interests will ultimately lead to a faster planning system. It would be wrong to underestimate the size of the task of resolving in a short period of time conflicting interest views, and the potential impact of legal challenges on the plan making and development control processes. This will inevitably place pressure on tight staff and budget resources to comply with the timetables for plans required by the Government.

4.11 The 32 months timetable which the draft PPS11 envisages for RSS preparation is unrealistically short, especially in respect of the inaugural RSS when regional planning bodies and their partners are simultaneously trying to understand the new system and also to operate it. Such a tight timetable would mean sacrificing the quality of the strategy and community involvement in the quest for speed. Each RSS will deal with major issues, such as the location of new housing development over the next 20 or so years; by comparison, an extra six months for the strategy preparation seems a small price to pay for a better quality product.

4.12 There will be a considerable procedural impact that will arise from implementing the new processes. The current consultation documents raise many issues related to regional planning, minerals and waste planning and development control. The implications for the County Council are detailed in the attached Briefing Note.

4.13 The Government is still in the process of preparing requirements for some aspects of the new system and further planning policy statements and advice will be issued. Some documents will not be available until spring 2004.

4.14 In conclusion, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has recommenced its passage through Parliament. Whilst some amendments have been agreed to the Bill, further lobbying is needed to achieve a statutory role for County Councils in the new strategic planning arrangements. Further discussion with GOSE and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is needed to allow additional preparatory work in advance of the commencement date of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. There are potentially considerable implications arising from the new procedures especially for the preparation of development plan documents for minerals and waste which will increase pressure on existing staff and budget resources.

Recommendations

1. That the Committee comments on the proposed new arrangements set out in the consultation documents for regional planning, local development planning and development control, and the proposed responses to Government.

2. That County Council officers should make a further report in due course on the resource and timing implications arising from the new approach to planning matters and the proposed procedures put forward by the Government.

8423/TC

APPENDIX 1

THE PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE BILL

BRIEFING NOTE ON THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS ON PROCEDURES

1. The Government's Proposals

1.1 Key matters from the consultation documents are detailed in the following paragraphs.

1.2 PPS11 - Regional Planning/Town and Country Planning (Regional Planning) (England) Regulations 2004 sets out in more detail than in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill the scope and format of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS), the procedures for preparing them and for public inquiries into them (known as `Public Examinations'), and the arrangements for their implementation and monitoring.

1.3 The RSS will provide a spatial framework to inform the development of Local Development Frameworks (LDFs), local transport plans, and other regional and sub-regional strategies. They should provide a broad development strategy for at least 15 years, including the scale and distribution of housing, priorities for the environment, transport, infrastructure, economic development, agriculture, and minerals and waste. The RSS will include a key diagram to illustrate the spatial strategy and will include policies specific to its region, including sub-regional policies where appropriate.

1.4 Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) must prepare the RSS in partnership with regional stakeholders and the community. It must demonstrate this through a `pre-submission consultation statement' explaining who has been involved in the process, which needs to be published alongside a draft RSS revision. In particular the RPB is to work in partnership with local planning authorities and county councils as these authorities are recognised as having a key role in the development of RSS policy and its implementation.

1.5 PPS11 reinvents the term `strategic planning authorities' for convenience, when describing county and unitary councils. The draft PPS says that where RPBs need assistance, they are expected to enter into partnership arrangements with these authorities and this might include:

(i) providing technical expertise to assist the RSS Review, including district distribution of housing;

(ii) assisting or leading on sub-regional work;

(iii) providing advice to RPBs on general conformity issues;

(iv) monitoring and advising District Councils on development plan documents; and

(v) making representations on planning applications where regional or sub-regional considerations are raised.

1.6 Although Structure Plans are to be abolished by the legislation, draft PPS11 sets out the arrangements for Structure Plans to be `saved' during a transitional period of up to three years until RSS is adopted in the region (currently expected to be summer 2006 in the South East). The draft RSS allows RPBs to extend the `saved period' in certain circumstances.

1.7 Six Annexes to the draft PPS provide supplementary advice, including the requirements for community involvement in RSS preparation and the arrangements for Public Examinations.

1.8 PPS12 - Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) sets out the Government's policies on the preparation of Local Development Documents (LDDs) that will comprise the LDF. PPS12 will supersede PPG12.

1.9 All plan-making authorities, including County Councils in respect of minerals and waste documents, must submit a Local Development Scheme to the First Secretary of State for approval within six months of the commencement of the Act. The Scheme is a public statement of a three year project plan. It has to indicate the LDDs to be prepared, the policies/ proposals from existing plans that will be saved, the proposed timetable for preparing the LDDs and how progress will be monitored. It has to identify the resources required, constraints and milestones. The approach has to show the involvement of other local partners and stakeholders in the preparation of the LDDs.

1.10 LDDs will comprise Development Plan Documents (DPDs) which will be spatial planning documents subject to independent examination, Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) which will provide policy guidance to supplement the other documents but will not be subject to independent examination, and Statements of Community Involvement (SCIs) which will set standards for involving the community in the preparation of documents/major development control decisions and will be subject to independent examination.

1.11 DPDs must include a core strategy, site specific allocations of land, action area plans and proposals maps. For minerals and waste development the core strategy should take account of the need to contribute appropriately to national, regional and local minerals requirements at acceptable social, environmental and economic costs, and the local strategy for waste management based on the best practicable environmental option assessment at the regional level. The time horizon for the core strategy should be at least 10 years from the date of adoption. Site specific allocations should be founded on a robust and credible assessment of the suitability and availability of land for particular uses. Area Action Plans will be used where needed to provide a framework for areas of change or conservation. The proposals map will be on an Ordnance Survey base and identify development sites as well as areas of protection. For minerals and waste there is a considerable list of requirements, including minerals safeguard areas, contaminated land and areas protecting the water environment. The LDF should only contain a limited suite of policies and avoid repeating national policy statements. Reasoned justification should be kept to a minimum.

1.12 PPS12 also covers the development process. LDDs should provide an agreed vision for the area endorsed by the community and stakeholders and addressing short, medium and long term priorities. LDDs should not be restricted to planning matters and can include other elements which relate to the use of land. They should not be compromised by unrealistic expectations on the future availability of infrastructure. Reference is also made to preparing a sustainability appraisal and strategic environmental assessment.

1.13 Authorities should take key decisions on the strategy and proposals at an early stage in consultation with bodies identified in the SCI. With regard to preferred options the authority has to publish proposals for general comments for a period of six weeks. Following this stage the authority has to prepare the DPD document. PPS12 states that the authority should be building consensus through continuous community involvement and therefore this should not lead to the need to fundamentally change the preferred options and proposals. Authorities have to ensure that the DPDs are sound.

1.14 Following submission of the DPD, authorities invite representations for a period of six weeks. Any proposals received for alternative site allocations have to be subsequently advertised for comment. Authorities should not normally propose any changes to the DPD after submission. Authorities at this stage seek conformity with the RSS from the regional planning body. After the public examination on the DPD the inspector will produce a report which will be binding on the authority.

1.15 Authorities have to produce an annual monitoring report on progress with LDDs.

1.16 Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 set out the form and content of LDDs and the procedures to be followed.

1.17 The Government's amendments for the recommittal of the Bill to Standing Committee and the draft Regulations make clear the role of County Councils to keep under review matters relevant to county interests, including the planning of development. This means that the County Council needs to monitor the principal physical, economic, social and environmental characteristics of the area, population, transport and any considerations which may affect these matters.

1.18 The draft Regulations contain detailed matters of procedural arrangements in operating the new planning system. The Regulations also indicate that the policies in the core strategy must include a statement of any social, environmental and economic objectives which are relevant to the attainment of the development; LDDs should have regard to the need to maintain appropriate distances between establishments and residential areas and public amenity/sensitivity areas; and the annual monitoring report must cover the progress on completing documents in the Local Development Scheme and identify policies in DPDs which are not being implemented. The Regulations also cover the powers of intervention by the Secretary of State.

1.19 Local Development Frameworks - Guide to Procedures and Code of Practice explains how the new development planning system will operate at the local level. The document is intended to give practical advice and guidance. The document includes, of specific interest, that a process of continuous community involvement should be introduced, that the community should be consulted on the Statement of Community Involvement, that documents can be prepared in advance of a formal Statement of Community Involvement but authorities must meet certain minimum standards, that the Proposals Map must be kept up to date at all times, and that annual monitoring reports also have to cover relevant targets set in other strategies such as the RSS. In addition, all potential sites should be brought forward as early as possible in the process so that they can be considered by the local planning authority and be subjected to sustainability appraisal.

1.20 Creating Local Development provides advice on the process of the new plan making and is aimed at those involved in preparing and commenting on Frameworks. It has been prepared for the ODPM by consultants. Practical advice is given on the various production stages.

1.21 Town and Country Planning (Transitional Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2004 set out the provisions for plans which have reached the stage that an inspector has been appointed to hold an inquiry on the plan. The Bill has provisions for authorities to take no further steps in relation to proposals for plans that have not reached this stage.

1.22 Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2004 sets out provisions on a number of development control issues, including Local Development Orders, Statements of Development Principles and a new duty to respond to statutory consultees. Local Development Orders will enable planning authorities to introduce local permitted development rights. Statements of Development Principles do not grant planning permission but must be taken into account in determining applications for similar development which are submitted within three years of the Statement. The draft Order sets the time period of 21 days for statutory consultees to respond on applications and also requires consultees to report annually to the Secretary of State. There are also other provisions to decline to consider applications, to allow a period of four weeks for dual jurisdiction of an appealed application for non-determination which will allow the preliminaries of the appeal process to start whilst local planning authorities are concluding their determination, to reduce the period of consent to three years for full permissions and to prevent the extension of time limited permissions by applying to vary a condition.

1.23 Town and Country Planning (Major Infrastructure Project Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2004 allow for the appointment of a lead inspector and additional inspectors if required. The new rules will allow inquiries to be held in concurrent sessions by a number of inspectors, introduce some changes in timetabling and alter interpretation rules.

1.24 Further guidance on certain aspects of Local Development Frameworks will be published later this autumn but some advice will not be available until April 2004.

2. Comments of the Director of Environment

2.1 The draft procedures give further details on the Government's intentions to modernise the development plan system and speed up effective development control. The potential for success of the new arrangements and the implications for the County Council are discussed below in relation to each of the consultation documents.

PPS11 - Regional Planning/Town and Country Planning (Regional Planning) (England) Regulations 2004

2.2 The draft PPS11 emphasises the important role of county (and unitary) councils in assisting the Regional Planning Body, ranging from leading sub-regional studies to commenting on planning applications of regional or sub-regional importance. It is difficult to seek more for county councils, short of the retention of county-level plans. The reliance which the draft PPS places on county councils to assist with the new arrangements bears out the case being made by the Local Government Association and others for the county councils' role to be written into the Bill as a statutory responsibility. It is perplexing why the Government continues to resist the latter, while obviously placing so much reliance on county councils' assistance within the draft PPS. However one concern is that Regional Planning Bodies should not be constrained by an unwilling County Council partner. Arrangements should be willingly entered into.

2.3 Without such a statutory responsibility it will be for each Regional Planning Body to decide how to involve its local authorities in preparatory work and for each County Council to choose which role(s) it wishes to perform on behalf of the Regional Planning Body. This could lead to a patchwork of different `agency' arrangements across a region creating potential confusion and inconsistency.

2.4 Although the draft PPS says that the RSS provides a spatial framework to inform other regional strategies, such as the Regional Economic Strategy and Regional Housing Strategy, it gives no guidance on which is pre-eminent in the event of conflict. Arguably this should be the RSS, not least because it is the only document which is statutory. The draft PPS fudges this issue, merely giving platitudes about all the strategies "needing to be aligned".

2.5 It is of course to be hoped that the partnership working between local authorities and their RPB will result in an RSS which all are able to support. The probable reality though is that some local authorities will oppose parts of the RSS and seek changes to be made to it. It is important that the views of such authorities are heard, not just because they are the voice of local people, but also because they must prepare the Local Development Frameworks which will implement the RSS and, in the case of county councils, deliver the education, social services and transport infrastructure which are crucial to new development. It is therefore a major omission that local authorities - whether county, unitary or district - are not amongst the specified list of participants who might be invited to the Public Examination of the draft RSS. Environmental organisations, women's groups, private interest groups and individuals are given as examples of potential participants, whereas the best which local authorities can expect is that "There may be occasions when a representative(s) of groups of local authorities may be invited in view of the matters to be discussed" (added emphasis). Local authorities, especially strategic planning authorities, should have the same status as other organisations within the list of potential participants, recognising that even then the final choice of participants will rest with the independent Panel who will conduct the Public Examination.

PPS12 - Local Development Frameworks/Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004

2.6 The Local Development Scheme has to be submitted within six months of commencement of the Act. The draft Regulations state that a Scheme has no effect unless it is approved by the Secretary of State or no direction is received. There are therefore no provisions for pre-commencement work. The County Council has initiated considerable preparatory work on the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework as part of the Material Resources Strategy. This work is intended to speed up the process for the County Council to achieve up-to-date policies for minerals and waste as the adopted Local Plan only covered the period up to the end of 2001.

2.7 The inference from PPS12 is that only evidence gathering can take place in advance of approval of the Local Development Scheme. As the work on the Material Resources Strategy includes an in-depth stakeholder dialogue, there is a danger that the County Council may be required to repeat some activities after approval of the Scheme. This would increase costs and delay the current programme for the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework. Officers should raise this matter with GOSE and the ODPM. A further report to the Executive Member for Environment may be required.

2.8 Local Development Schemes must provide details of the Local Planning Authority's three year project plan. This will have implications for budget and service delivery planning as expenditure and staff resources for the subsequent three years will have to be identified at the beginning of the process.

2.9 The draft Regulations specify that the Local Development Scheme should include the date the local planning authority intends to comply with public participation on the pre-submission of DPDs and the subsequent submission to the Secretary of State. This provision also applies to the Statement of Community Involvement. Paragraph 3.1.5 of PPS12 infers independent examination of the Statement of Community Involvement before LDDs are prepared. This may be a drafting error, but if it is not this provision will extend the time to produce LDDs.

2.10 In a similar fashion to the Local Development Scheme, the Statement of Community Involvement has to cover resources and management of the participation programme. This will require clear estimates of time and funding before commencing the work on LDDs. Paragraph 3.1.9 of PPS12 supports combined consultation exercises with other programmes and initiatives. The County Council will achieve this to some extent on the Minerals and Waste Development Framework through the overarching Material Resources Strategy dialogue but there will not be a combined consultation programme with Community Strategies.

2.11 More guidance is needed on the spatial content of LDDs. No advice is given on the boundaries of the work to be undertaken outside the normal land use planning interests.

2.12 The proposed content of LDDs is still unclear. Paragraph 1.3.3 of PPS12 refers to an agreed vision signed up to by the community and stakeholders covering short, medium and long term priorities. This infers more than just an individual statement. The proposed emphasis on delivery of strategy means more work will need to be done on feasibility and implementation of policies, including the availability of sites.

2.13 For minerals and waste development, PPS12 requires minerals proposals to contribute adequately to regional requirements. This rather soft approach will allow the rigorous testing of national and regional targets. Waste proposals should be based on Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) at the regional level. The County Council's comments on the draft Regional Waste Management Strategy indicated that there was not a clear regional BPEO.

2.14 PPS12 indicates that Proposals Maps require identification of certain protection areas. This is a greater requirement than previously undertaken in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. In addition the minerals and waste safeguarding areas, etc ultimately have also to be shown on District Frameworks Proposals Maps.

2.15 The inclusion in the draft Regulations for County Councils to keep under review certain survey responsibilities is welcomed. The County Council will need to continue with its broad survey function and make the information available to District Councils, the Regional Assembly and other interested parties. It should be noted that District Councils will have responsibility for housing surveys.

2.16 PPS12 as written indicates a different process to current thinking on formal consultations on LDDs. Paragraph 4.3.4 of PPS12 infers that the preparation of issues and options need only be debated with the bodies set out in the Statement of Community Involvement. Paragraph 4.3.6 of PPS12 refers to preferred options and proposals being published with a six week consultation period. However the draft Regulations refer to a six week period for representations on pre-submission proposals documents. Indeed, even before this stage, the draft Regulations require local planning authorities to consult on the content and proposals of the DPD with the Regional Assembly, District Councils, adjoining local authorities, the Countryside Agency, Environment Agency, English Heritage, English Nature, the Strategic Rail Authority, SEEDA, Health bodies, utility companies and any other appropriate bodies. Subsequently, paragraph 4.4.1 of PPS12 indicates that the submitted document will be subject to a six weeks' consultation period for representations. Alternative sites proposed during this period have to be the subject of a separate consultation exercise.

2.17 Consultation will better inform the process but at the moment the approach proposed represents a complicated and time-consuming exercise. The position on consultations is likely to become clearer after the publication of further guidance during November 2003. However it must be noted that the proposed process is likely to be a more costly exercise compared to current arrangements.

2.18 PPS12 and the Regulations indicate that local planning authorities should `front load' the preparation process for DPDs. New material should not normally be raised at the examination which has not been considered during the production phase of the DPD. Also the Inspector's Report will be binding on the local planning authority. In view of this approach, the County Council will need to ensure that sufficient work on all the minerals and waste issues has been undertaken prior to submission of the DPD. The Government has indicated that authorities will need to change little in the documents if community involvement has been effective. A consensus view will not satisfy all parties and the County Council may need to spend considerable resources on mediation.

2.19 If the Secretary of State thinks that an LDD is unsatisfactory at any time, he may intervene before the document is adopted and direct modifications. Whilst the Government is proposing greater freedom over the content of LDDs, it is unclear how strong a role Government Offices will perform in assessing the soundness of the pre-submission documents. It will only be through implementation of the new procedures that it will be ultimately understood the extent to which the Government wishes to seek to retain control and influence.

2.20 The draft Regulations and PPS12 refer to the content of an Annual Monitoring Report. Whilst an Annual Report on Minerals and Waste Planning has been regularly produced in Hampshire for the last six years, the new procedures have different requirements. Progress on LDDs and reasons for delay have to be included as well as information on policies not being implemented. This also would be a new burden in staff time and costs.

Local Development Frameworks - Guide to Procedures and Code of Practice/Creating Local Development Frameworks

2.21 There are concerns that the implications of the detailed guidelines on process and practice will mean a complicated and convoluted approach to plan making. Compliance with some of the proposals as described could lead to delays as some requirements have a sequential process which will not provide a speedy process as hoped for by the Government.

2.22 The new system of continuous community involvement is laudable but will involve considerable programme management to be able to consult and react to public comment covering all stages of plan production.

2.23 Front loading the preparation of a submitted development planning document will also peak staff and budget resources compared to the current system which spreads the process over a greater timescale.

2.24 The emphasis on delivery will be challenging as the current planning system is ill-equipped to ensure the implementation and timing of necessary infrastructure and services.

2.25 There are many practical advice points that will need clarification and the potential gains or pitfalls will not be really understood until local planning authorities begin to operate the new system.

Town and Country Planning (Transitional Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2004

2.26 As it has been decided to cease work on the roll forward/review of the Hampshire County Structure Plan Review, and that it will not be likely to achieve a first deposit on a review of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan, these regulations will not be applicable to the County Council.

Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2004

2.27 Local Development Orders are proposed which would allow for some permitted development in addition to that provided by the General Development Order. These may have some limited value in respect of giving more flexibility for minerals and waste development. It could be used to identify additional processes at acceptable waste sites and it may be applicable in dealing with Resource Recovery Parks. Orders would have to be advertised, be subject to consultation and ultimately approved by the Secretary of State. It can be seen that the process for adopting a Local Development Order is extensive and there are concerns that for minerals and waste development it may not be cost effective. A best practice guidance note is due to be published in November and this may give further details.

2.28 A local planning authority must issue a Statement of Development Principles in relation to a proposed development if it is requested to do so by any person. There is no set format for a Statement and local planning authorities would have to produce their own templates. The process would be similar to applications for planning permission. This may be a time-consuming exercise but details about fees for preparing Statements are still awaited from Government. The process may be a response to legal problems with outline applications which require Environmental Impact Assessments but in Hampshire most minerals and waste applications are fully detailed. It may also set up a `legal minefield' as an aggrieved applicant may seek judicial review if he or she felt that an application had not been determined consistently with a related Statement of Development Principles.

2.29 The proposed new duty for statutory consultees to respond within a set period could improve performance figures in dealing with applications. A protocol would be needed to determine action if responses were not received within the set timescales. Although ultimately the number of District Council consultations may reduce, the County Council will still be a consultee on certain applications and would therefore have to complete an annual report on its performance on District Council consultations for submission to the Secretary of State.

2.30 The dual jurisdiction of an appealed application for a short period, allowing the appeal process to start while the local planning authority conclude their determination, could be a useful innovation. It may assist decision taking as well as clarifying reasons for refusal at an appeal.

2.31 The reduction of time limits on applications could be beneficial as long as it only applies to commencement times. However, if it were to apply to completion dates, this would be significant for minerals and waste development. In these cases operators often request extensions of time as variations to a condition. Under the new procedures, these would have to be full applications and, in many cases, would trigger Environmental Impact Assessment requirements.

Town and Country Planning (Major Infrastructure Project Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2004

2.32 The appointment of additional inspectors taking evidence on different objections may speed up the process but it may be very difficult for major participants and the public to be involved in concurrent rather than consecutive considerations.

3. Conclusions

3.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill proposes radical changes to the planning system, reflecting the Government's desire for a modern effective planning system. The draft regulations and guidance notes provide some clarity to the proposed new approach.

3.2 Operating the new procedures will be a major challenge for local planning authorities. The County Council has in this report put forward comments on the new procedures and the implications for Hampshire. It will be necessary to consider further the implications of the Government's proposals in relation to pre-commencement work on LDDs. In addition the County Council will need to consider any new additional Government advice when this becomes available.

8423App1/TC

APPENDIX 2

THE PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE BILL

LIST OF GOVERNMENT QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS

The Government has issued the following list of questions with each of the consultation documents.

PPS11 - Regional Planning

1. Paragraphs 1.17 and 1.18 set out the expected format of the regional spatial strategy (RSS). Does this cover the right key points or do you think that there should be changes or additions?

2. Paragraphs 2.8 to 2.10 discuss the relationship between the RSS and other regional strategies and the need to join these up. Do you have any suggestions about ways of securing better integration or other examples of good practice?

3. Chapter 2 and annexes D and E stress the importance of community involvement and partnership working in the RSS preparation process. Is the current balance between procedural policy and guidance right at the moment or does this need changing? In particular:

(i) Paragraph 2.21 and paragraph 8 of annex D requires the RPB to hold a public conference to seek agreement to the issues identified for the review. Should this requirement be retained?

(ii) Paragraph 21 of annex D encourages the RPB to establish a formal group, chaired by someone from outside the RPB or a local authority and with a membership representative of the community, which is consulted at key milestones on the road to the draft RSS revision. Should this guidance be a requirement?

4. Paragraph 2.14 refers to the role that it is anticipated strategic planning authorities may play in leading sub-regional studies. Should we include more on how to make these arrangements effective and if so do you have any suggestions?

5. Paragraph 2.17 lists areas of work where RPBs may wish to enter into partnership arrangements with strategic planning authorities. Do these highlight the right areas of work or should there be changes or additions?

6. Paragraph 2.20 sets out the key features of the project plan for the RSS revision and paragraph 6 of annex D elaborates on this in relation to community involvement. Does the current text adequately describe the features of the project plan or are there others that should be included?

7. Figure 2.1, the diagram of the RSS revision process, sets out a timetable from start to finish of 32 months. Is this in your view about right, too long or too short? If too long, how might we be able to speed the process up further? If too short, where in the process and on what grounds should we allow more time?

8. There is currently no requirement for the draft RSS to be advertised in newspapers (see paragraph 2.31). Should there be? Do you have other suggestions beyond those in paragraph 28 of annex D about how the RPB can best publicise the draft RSS?

9. Paragraph 2.38 sets out the principles that the RPB should consider when determining whether structure plan policies should be saved beyond the normal three year period. Are these the correct ones or should there be any changes or additions?

10. Does paragraph 3.2 adequately describe the content of the annual monitoring report or would further guidance be useful in an annex? If more guidance would be useful what should be included?

11. Do chapters 1, 2 and 3 provide adequate procedural policy advice or are there other areas where we should set out procedural policy. If so, what are these?

12. Are the main aims of a regional transport strategy set out in annex B between paragraphs 3 and 4 and described in more detail at paragraphs 19 to 37 right? If not, what changes or additions should be made?

13. Does this consultation document, and in particular annex B, place sufficient emphasis on the integration of transport and spatial planning at the regional level? If not, what else should be added?

14. Is the guidance on the conduct of examinations in public at annex C sufficiently comprehensive or are there areas where further guidance would be helpful? If so, what are these?

15. Paragraph 20 of annex D draws attention to the importance of involving harder to reach groups and provides advice on how this might be achieved. Views would be welcome on how else these groups might be effectively involved, including whether any of the procedures set out in this PPS should be refined.

16. Should there be any additions to or deletions from the list of bodies at the end of annex D that the RPB may want to consult when preparing an RSS revision?

17. Do you have examples of best practice in partnership working or advice on the principles which should be followed, relevant to annex E?

18. Is the list of proposed national core indicators at annex F correct or should there be any changes or additions?

19. Are there any other comments you would like to make that cannot be accommodated as answers to the questions above?

PPS12 - Local Development Frameworks

1. We propose that local planning authorities should adopt a spatial planning approach to local development frameworks (Chapter 1). Do you agree?

1a. Would you like to see any other information on the scope of local development documents?

2. Chapter 2 sets out the main elements of local development documents - the core strategy; site specific allocations; area action plans; proposals map and supplementary planning documents. Do you agree with the principles set out for each? If you consider that any of these principles give rise to particular problems in preparing local development frameworks, please make suggestions to deal with them.

2a. The core strategy

2b. Site specific allocations

2c. Area action plans

2d. Proposals map

2e. Supplementary planning documents.

3. Chapter 3 sets out the process leading to the preparation of local development documents.

3a. Are the requirements for the statement of community involvement reasonable? Should any requirements be added or removed?

3b. Are the requirements for community involvement in respect of avoiding discrimination (paragraph 3.1.10) sufficiently addressed? If not, what alterations would you suggest?

3c. Does the statement of principles for the local development scheme provide the right level of prescription to enable a firm programme to be prepared for the preparation and adoption of local development documents?

4. Chapter 4 presents the requirements for the preparation of development plan documents and supplementary planning documents. Are the stages set out with sufficient clarity? If not:

4a. What additional requirements need to be considered for development plan documents?

4b. What additional requirements need to be considered for supplementary planning documents?

4c. Are the criteria for the assessment of soundness of the plan (paragraph 4.4.8) comprehensive? Should any considerations be added or removed?

4d. Are the sections on monitoring and review (4.8) comprehensive and clear? If not, what alterations would you suggest?

5. Chapter 5 deals with transitional arrangements. Is this clear? If not, what other information should be provided?

6. Annex A provides definitions. Do you wish to suggest any amendments?

6a. Is the list of suggested components of the proposals map set at the right level? Do you wish to suggest any amendments?

7. Annex B provides advice on other subjects with which local development frameworks will need to relate. Do you have any comments on the content of sections on:

7a. The community strategy?

7b. Resources?

7c. Infrastructure provision and utilities infrastructure?

7d. Transport?

7e. Hazardous substances and air quality?

7f. Are there any omissions to the subjects on which policy needs to be provided in this statement?

8. Annex C provides a list of suggested consultees. Do you have any amendments to suggest?

9. Are there any other matters in relation to the preparation and content of local development frameworks that you would like to see in this statement?

10. Do you have any other comments on this statement?

Local Development Frameworks - Guide to Procedures and Code of Practice

Q1. This document is divided into two main sections - the Guide to Procedures and the Code of Practice. The Guide is intended to give an overview of the local development framework system to those who may wish to know about it or get involved in it, and the Code of Practice is intended to give more specific guidance on each element of the system. Is this a helpful format for the document? If not how should it be changed?

Q2. Are the diagrams helpful and do they provide enough annotation to guide readers to the appropriate text? If not what changes are needed?

The Guide to Procedures

Q3. Is the explanation of the local development framework system in the Guide to Procedures sufficiently clear and understandable? Are all relevant matters covered? If not what changes are needed?

Q4. Is the format of the Guide to Procedures easy to follow and does it provide adequate cross references to the Code of Practice? If not what changes are needed?

Q5. Paragraph 1.6 explains what the new development plan will comprise. Is this sufficiently comprehensive and clear? If not what is missing and what needs to be explained more clearly?

The Code of Practice

Q6. Does the format of the Code of Practice make it easy to find the section which sets out the guidance required? If not how should it be improved?

Q7. Section A of the code sets out what the local development scheme will include, how the LPA will publicise it and what it means to the local community. Does the guidance give sufficient information about the local development scheme? If not what changes are needed?

Q8. Section B of the code explains the purpose and content of the statement of community involvement (SCI) and how it will be prepared. Is the guidance on statements of community involvement sufficiently clear and comprehensive? If not what changes are needed?

Q8.A Are the criteria for the soundness of statements of community involvement as set out in paragraph B.13 appropriate? If not what should these be?

Q9. Section C of the code describes the process of preparing a development plan document. Does it make it sufficiently clear how the people and community will be involved with the process? If not what changes need to be made?

Q9.A Do you have any views on the approach to be taken to assessing the soundness of the plan, paragraphs C.6 and C.7 on the Government Office role; C.9 to C.11 on the pre-submission consultation and C.15 to C.20 on the making of representations?

Q9.B Is the guidance in paragraphs C.22 to C.24 on advertising alternative sites clear? If not what changes do you suggest?

Q9.C Is the guidance on pre-examination changes at paragraphs C.25 and C.26 clear? If not what changes do you suggest?

Q10. Section D deals with the independent examination. Is the guidance sufficiently comprehensive and clear? If not what changes are required?

Q10.A Paragraph D.7 identifies the types of procedure which will be used at the examination. Do you agree that the formal inquiry procedure is unlikely to be necessary in most cases? Are there any other types of procedure which might be used for examining the soundness of the plan or statement of community involvement?

Q10.B Paragraph D.12 identifies the factors which the inspector will take into account when determining the procedure to adopt at the examination. Are these the right factors to consider? If not what others should be included?

Q10.C Does Annex A give sufficiently clear and comprehensive guidance on how the examination process will work? If not what changes are needed?

Q11. Section E gives guidance on the binding report and the adoption procedure. Is this sufficiently clear? If not what changes are needed?

Q12. Section F explains the process for the preparation of supplementary planning documents. Is it sufficiently clear and comprehensive? If not what changes are needed?

Q13. Section G explains the intervention roles of the Secretary of State. Is the guidance sufficiently clear and comprehensive? If not what changes are needed?

Q14. Is the challenge and complaints procedure set out in Section H sufficiently clear and comprehensive? If not what changes are needed?

Q15. Section I explains the procedures relating to the LPAs annual monitoring report. Is the guidance sufficiently clear and comprehensive? If not what changes are needed?

Creating Local Development Frameworks

Q1. Style and format - Is the draft guide easy to understand, and is the format user friendly? If not, what could be improved?

Q2. Coverage of issues - Does the draft guide provide an adequate explanation of how to prepare Local Development Frameworks? Are there any issues that have been omitted and/or issues that require further or more detailed consideration? If so, please detail relating to relevant sections or paragraphs.

Q3. Content - Does the draft guide provide an adequate explanation of the details and main principles of the new system? If not, what could be improved? Does the draft guide provide useful, practical advice on Local Development Framework production techniques? If not, what could be improved?

8423App2/TC