In such a fast changing world, we need a flexible and timely planning framework at the regional level.  We need to respond to change with speed and ambition, as a Regional Economic Strategy (RES) can do.  We also need to integrate many factors and take a view on the preferred route forward in the light of such integration, providing a framework for public decision making, in the way that Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) have done.

The RTPI broadly welcomes proposals for a single regional strategy (SRS), with the opportunities for greater integration and alignment that this brings.  It broadly welcomes opportunities to clarify that which requires to be statutory in regional plan making as against that which does not.  It welcomes the opportunity to develop the principle of subsidiarity in regional plan-making, with policies, activities, delivery and budgets delegated from the regional to the sub-regional and local level where reasonably feasible.

That being said, there are key elements of the sub national review (SNR) proposals around which considerable care will be required in implementation.

The proposed reform, whilst responding strongly to the need for greater flexibility and timeliness in response to economic change, has not engaged well with the need to deliver and to be seen to deliver regional strategies that integrate social, economic and environmental considerations.  The RTPI stands strongly for integrated and integrating planning.  Such planning clearly does take strong account of economic considerations, but dies not do so at unconsidered expense to society or the environment.  Development must be sustainable in social and environmental terms in addition to economic terms, if we are to develop a balanced economy that delivers social justice, access to education and skills and better housing and health outcomes for all, whilst also mitigating and adapting to major environmental changes such as climate change.   Whilst the RTPI is clear that the government is conscious of this need for integration, the language of the SNR needs to embrace this more fully, to provide many diverse stakeholders with the confidence that truly integrated strategies and outcomes will be delivered.  

The proposed reform has superficially removed a strong element of local accountability.  The abolition of Regional Assemblies as regional planning bodies can be read as a lack of commitment to engage democratically elected local government in the expression of a forward vision for the region of which it is a part.  The appointment of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) as their successors, in a context where these will still be expressly ‘business led’ bodies reinforces this concern.

It is for this reason that the RTPI proposes:

• change to the RDA business led model, to the extent of drawing local government leaders into the RDA board structure;
  
• a strong role for local government leaders in making policy, but supported by a new regional planning convention, drawing in local elected members and expert officers to ensure that leaders have the best support when developing regional strategies;
  
• stronger accountability to Parliament through regional Ministers and regional committees;
  
• retention and further development of the examination process to entail examination of evidence, issues and options at the outset in addition to the preferred strategy;
  
• development of the principle of subsidiarity through partnerships, with sub-regional and local authorities and partnerships doing what they can in ways that are more clearly locally accountable, as far as possible without complicating our public life by a further tier of authorities as such; and
  
• emphasising the role of Local and Multi Area Agreements (LAAs and MAAs) in partnerships for delivery.

Much of the concern about accountability rests in the political as distinct from the technical domain.  If one analyses the current regional spatial strategy preparation and approval process, the significant and in the end determinative power of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to resolve the final strategy demonstrates that ‘real power’ lies with the Secretary of State as opposed to with the Regional Assembly.  It is therefore not accurate to characterise the Regional Assembly as being substantially ‘in control’ at present and hence to characterise it as providing a particularly strong local accountability itself.

That being said, the success or failure of successive governments’ policies tends to rest as much on perception as on actuality.  In this case, the point made above notwithstanding, there are many who still perceive and are likely to perceive the RDAs as successor bodies representing a loss of local accountability.  This in turn translates into a significant political risk to regional planning per se, for example should a change of government lead to a political commitment to the abolition or curtailment of powers of RDAs.

The RTPI considers that it is politically necessary for the government to seek means of demonstrating that the RDAs as regional planning bodies will have additional local accountability.  It is politically necessary to ensure as broadly-based support as can be achieved for the preparation of SRS by RDAs.  It is also necessary to safeguard the fragile practice of effective regional planning from a further round of substantial reform, consequent on emerging stakeholder perceptions that RDAs as currently constituted are insufficiently locally accountable.

It must be remembered that regional planning was restructured once consequent on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, is likely to be restructured for a second time in 2009 via the Community Empowerment Bill and, if the result does not commend itself to communities and stakeholders, could then be further restructured in approximately 2011-12.  There are only a relatively small number of planners with significant experience of plan-making at the regional level, and the effect of successive reforms without sufficient attention paid to transitional employment mechanisms, might be to provide a clear incentive for the best of these staff to depart for employment in other parts of the land, planning and development sector.  Such losses need to be avoided.

This is not to say that the new regional planning arrangements should entail no change in the skills and culture of the current cohort of regional planners and regional plan-making.    Significant culture and skill change is required and significant opportunities emerge from change.  These include:

• developing plans that are more timely;
• developing plans that are more flexible; and
• developing plans that incorporate stretch goals and aspirations.

In short, the opportunities entail the development of a common regional planning culture and skill set that draws the best from those active in making RES and RSS.

Detail

A more detailed response and the RTPI's thinking around the likely shape of a new regional strategy process and document can be found in the attached response.

Attachments: 1

• 
  RTPI SNR Response June 2008 (959 Kb)
  04-Jul-08

Author:

policy rtpi

Publisher:

The Royal Town Planning Institute

Date:

01-Jul-08

Categories:

Policy 

Sections:

The RTPI

This article has been read 1494 times.