Archived decisions

Contact: Les Herbert, ext 6768 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 In 2005 economist Kate Barker was commissioned to review the planning system in England. A submission was made by the former Executive Member for Environment: North Hampshire and Spatial Strategy in spring 2006. Kate Barker has now published an interim report and has invited further comments. This paper highlights some of the key points of her interim report and sets out a proposed response by the County Council to assist Kate Barker in drawing up her final report.

2. Background

2.1 In December 2005 Kate Barker was commissioned by the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister to review the planning system in England. The terms of reference for the review were:

"To consider how, in the context of globalisation, and building on the reforms already in place in England, planning policy and procedures can better deliver economic growth and prosperity alongside other sustainable development goals. In particular to assess:

(i) ways of further improving the efficiency and speed of the system;

(ii) ways of increasing the flexibility, transparency and predictability that enterprise requires;

(iii) the relationship between planning and productivity, and how the outcomes of the planning system can better deliver its sustainable economic objectives; and

(iv) the relationship between economic and other sustainable development goals in the delivery of sustainable communities."

2.2 A submission was made by the former Executive Member for Environment: North Hampshire and Spatial Strategy in response to Kate Barker's call for evidence last spring. This is attached as an appendix. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Environment had a telephone interview with the Kate Barker team.

2.3 An interim report has now been published, which sets out Kate Barker's initial analysis of the situation and the areas to be explored further in the final report which will be completed in late 2006. Kate Barker has invited comments on her interim report.

2.4 The interim report draws out the following key points:

(i) The plan-led system has a number of important benefits. It adds certainty so that businesses and individuals know what and where development is taking place.

(ii) However, there may be some hidden costs, including adverse impact on investment, innovation, competition, enterprise and skills, though the report cautions that these should not be over-stated.

(iii) Planning restrictions are likely to be contributing, along with other factors, to high business property costs in England: London's West End has by far the most expensive prime commercial space in the world, while occupation costs in Birmingham and Manchester are around 40 percent more than Manhattan. On the other hand, there is evidence that planning is not a major constraint on the supply of new business space.

(iv) More could be done to speed up decisions. In this regard, the report notes that some have argued that a clearer articulation of national policy could reduce delays.

(v) Recent changes have simplified the planning system, but there are still thousands of pages of national policy and guidance and some concerns that the new Local Development Frameworks which will replace Local Plans are jargon-laden and over-engineered.

(vi) Planning policies and processes can support business investment in various ways: giving certainty over neighbouring land uses; providing regeneration; and making England an attractive place to come to do business - yet planning is consistently one of the top six concerns of firms looking to invest in the UK.

(vii) Planning can help promote competition and enterprise, providing employment land and compulsory purchase orders to overcome barriers to new development, and delivering effective infrastructure and regeneration - but on the other hand it can help incumbent firms to stifle new competitors and can increase property prices.

(viii) There is evidence of planning impeding the development of business clusters.

2.5 The report says that recent changes to the planning system should help, but that more can be done to ensure that planning helps close the productivity gap between the UK and other developed countries. However, the report adds that this "does not and should not imply prioritising the needs of business over other interests". Major structural change to the planning system is neither necessary nor desirable, the document says, and the final recommendations will aim to build on the existing system.

2.6 Issues to be explored further in the final report include:

(i) Efficiency of process - how to make the planning system more efficient, how to reduce delays at national, regional and local levels, and how the skills of decision-makers can be enhanced?

(ii) Efficient use of land - whether current land supply is optimal for development including whether the right land is being used for development?

(iii) Flexibility and responsiveness - can the planning system be made more responsive to price signals and changing economic circumstances and are decisions being made at the right level?

3. Commentary

3.1 It would appear that Kate Barker is taking a reasonably objective approach to her task. She promises that her final recommendations will not seek to advance business interests above environmental and social ones and the interim report acknowledges the difficulties faced by local authorities. On the other hand, the report is too soft on Central Government, which sets overall planning policy but which has failed to create a proper framework for decisions on major infrastructure.

3.2 Concerns have been expressed by some commentators that this Treasury-led commission has focused too much on the concerns of large organisations which may have had a perceived "bad result" with one large application, which may have been refused for sound reasons such as a significant environmental impact on an internationally recognised area of importance. It would be wholly wrong to dismantle a locally accountable, transparent and democratic planning system on such flimsy "evidence".

3.3 There is also not enough recognition yet of the extent to which the planning system is a democratic process which has to mediate between national and local interests, and between social, economic and environmental interests and objectives. Regrettably, the Treasury has misused the interim findings to attack the planning system, rather than accurately report the interim work or await Kate Barker's final recommendations.

4. Proposed Response

4.1 Kate Barker has invited responses to the interim report, particularly where they can assist her in drawing up the final report and making recommendations for further improvements to the planning system. The proposed responses set out below are in key areas in which Hampshire County Council has particular experience, either historically or in the context of day-to-day operations in relation, for example, to sub-regional planning and major schemes, and it can thus speak with some authority. The proposed response does not seek to comprehensively cover the whole scope of the review or the interim report. District Councils and others will no doubt be responding in relation to matters of direct concern to them, such as local planning and development control.

A National Policy Framework

4.2 The interim report examines a number of examples where timescales have been lengthy, the absence of a national policy framework, a lack of clarity of direction from Central Government and over-complex advice. Kate Barker notes that there appears to be substantial complexity in the system and that this can be exacerbated by the range of Central Government interests. There are six main Government departments with an interest in planning and the report notes that it is not always clear that the roles are coordinated effectively. The Dibden Bay proposal is included as an example where timescales were lengthy. It has been suggested to Kate Barker that the absence of a National Ports Policy was a contributing factor. In the County Council's experience Public Inquiries often spend considerable time debating what Government policy might be. The absence of a National Spatial Strategy to inform Regional Spatial Strategies and to inform infrastructure decisions at a strategic level causes confusion and wastes resources.

Target Times for Government Decision Making

4.3 The interim report lists examples of major transport schemes which well illustrate the lengthy timescales (between 27 and 65 months) from submission of an application to decision. All the schemes quoted are examples where Central Government was the determining authority and in no case did the Secretary of State make a decision in less than six months after receipt of the Inquiry Inspector's report. A further example is the South Hampshire Rapid Transit scheme, where it took the Secretary of State almost twice as long (26 months) to make up his mind on the Inspector's recommendation than the whole of the process from application through Inquiry to the Inspector reporting (14 months). Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) are subject to target times for making decisions on planning applications and there is a case to be made for Secretaries of State to be subject to a similar regime, which would help address the concerns about delays raised in the Interim Report.

Delivery of Economic Objectives

4.4 Kate Barker has examined ways in which the planning system can better deliver economic objectives. Related to this is the supply of land for employment purposes through development plan and development control mechanisms.

4.5 An addition to Planning Policy Guidance 3 (PPG3) introduced in 2004 requires LPAs to consider favourably planning applications for other uses on employment land where there is no realistic prospect of it being taken up for employment uses. This has been interpreted as relating to short term prospects, with the result that much land which was previously used for business premises or is allocated for that purpose in Local Plans has been granted planning permission for residential development, especially in urban areas. Many of these sites are likely to be more attractive to small and medium-sized businesses than large greenfield employment land allocations. In Hampshire 70% of the workforce is employed by organisations employing fewer than 200 people and it is these businesses that are most likely to be affected by reductions in the number of small and medium-sized sites available.

4.6 Planning allocations and development control are not the only factors that determine whether land comes forward for development. In Hampshire there are examples of allocated employment sites remaining undeveloped for many years. The reasons for this may be complex but include attractiveness to the market and site-specific constraints. It is also likely, however, that some owners are holding out in the hope that either the allocation could be changed to residential following the addition to PPG3 or that employment land values would rise in the short term.

4.7 The interim report examines ways in which the efficiency and speed of the system can be improved. Providing incentives for LPAs is one possibility. A recent consultation by Government proposes the introduction of a "housing and planning delivery grant" to provide an incentive for LPAs to respond more positively to local housing pressures. If such an incentive were to be linked to the delivery of employment floorspace, a more balanced approach would be encouraged, rather than the provision of additional housing at all costs.

Certainty for Developers

4.8 Planning permission for significant schemes is usually granted subject to a legal agreement on contributions by the developer towards transport and other infrastructure. This can add to the length of time between application and the start of development. As there is no fixed rate for such contributions, experience in Hampshire indicates that timescales are extended by the negotiation procedures necessary to reach agreement. In considering how the proposed Planning-gain Supplement process should work, Government should take into account the advantages of a "tariff" system so that developers are aware of precisely what will be required before making an application.

A Democratic, Locally Accountable and Transparent System

4.9 The efficiency of the system must also be linked to the quality of decisions. As Kate Barker recognises, planning decisions areof the best quality when they balance all the relevant factors, economic considerations being just one.

4.10 There is a continuing case to be made for LPAs being the most appropriate forum for making decisions on proposals for the development of land. LPAs are accountable to their electorates, the advice given to them is open to public scrutiny and their meetings are held in public. They are best placed to balance economic, social and environmental factors in reaching decisions.

A Flexible System

4.11 Notwithstanding the need to maintain a system that is democratic, locally accountable and transparent, there is room for improvement. The development control system could be modified so that the procedures employed reflect the scale and impact of the proposed developments. There is evidence that professional planning staff and administrative resources are being used unneccessarily to process planning applications that have little consequence. This has the effect of bringing the system into disrepute, with needless bureaucracy adding little or no value and use of expertise and resources that would be better employed on more important work, bearing in mind the national shortage of professional planners and the demands of the new Local Development Documents system.

4.12 The Government has published a Householder Development Consents Review which advocates the employment of a more flexible `risk' based approach to development control. This would not only involve modification to the `permitted development' regime, but advocates other more streamlined models for determining planning applications. The approach need not stop at householder applications and could apply to other minor developments, including some for minerals and waste.

5. Next Step

5.1 It is proposed that the comments in Section 4 above should be the basis for the County Council's response to Kate Barker's interim report.

6. Impact Assessments

6.1 Assessment of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act has been considered in this response but no adverse impact has been identified in terms of race, creed or gender.

Recommendation

That the County Council responds to the Kate Barker interim report on the basis of the proposals set out in Section 4 of the report.

1023Rpt/LH