March 2007: responses received have been added at the foot of the invitation to comment.

This webnote arises from the Community Planning Forum Bulletin of 25th January 2007. Forum members have been invited to add to the content and knowledge.

Original Invitation:

The ‘Community-led Plans’ event (24th January 2007) - Despite the snow, attendance at this event was excellent – and attendees were treated to some great insights and stimulating workshops. A particular issue for discussion was the ‘status’ of parish plans in the overall plans-making scheme; practice in the south-west is that these are often made to form Supplementary Planning Documents, whereas in the east the Government Office is not permitting this and there parish plans have an action document standing, part of the ‘action’ potentially being to seek to influence the content and development of the Communities Plan and the Local Development Framework.

Would you be willing to share your experience of this issue and there may be sufficient interest for a good-practice note to emerge? Please email your input to room@rtpi.org.uk

– and many thanks. 

Response from Forum Member Phil Turner: 

Sorry I could not be at the event - had to be at another gathering in London

My view is:

Items in a Parish Plan's Action Plan can influence the local authority's/authorities'  Community Strategies - Education, Health, Infrastructure, transportation, environmental actions etc.

It is my understanding that if there are items in such a Parish or Town Plan/ Action Plan that are to do with spatial planning (old style land use plus) then it is possible that those parts of a Town Plan can be adopted by a Planning Authority as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), provided, (again as in a Village or Town Design Statement - VDS or TDS) they do not conflict with existing planning policy or emerging policy in the new Local Development Framework (LDF).

For example such items in the Action Plan might be:

• -   affordable housing (numbers based on a housing needs assessment) located in a general location rather than a precise site
• -   employment or business to complement/ augment existing sites ( again with a general indication of location rather than a precise site)
• -   encouragement to individual, independent traders in the town centre.
• -   enhancement proposals for an existing industrial or employment site to improve access, parking, landscape
• -   recreation land for playing pitches and buildings to be provided (again in a general location)

(just examples, dreamed up by me rather than the local people that matter.)

All these could then be taken into consideration in the LDF  - Local Development Documents (LDD) of the Statutory Development Plan.

But it is very rare to find such things in a Parish or Town Plan. I have few examples -

• Caradon on the South West has adopted two.
• Faringdon Oxfordshire Health Check and Town Plan had as a main item of Action a proposal for 400 homes, land for business development and a major extension to Folly Park (recreation) between Park Road, Stanford Road and the A420. The 400 homes became a proposal in the Review Local Plan.
• The adopted Vale of White Horse DC Local Plan shows allocation of 437 houses at Faringdon.

Since the 2004 Act, LPAs are sometimes reluctant to agree (in their Local Development Scheme) to adopt SPD if it has been Community-Led, because the LPA officers cannot govern the delivery of the document (by volunteers of the community) in time to meet the dates in the LDS which have been agreed with the government office. Failure to deliver could mean loss of some Planning Delivery Grant. Other LPAs are more confident, and know that they can vary the detail of the agreed (annual) LDS, by an exchange of letter between the LPA and the GO.

Remember, if adopted as SPD a document becomes a ‘MATERIAL CONSIDERATION’

What’s that?

The Planning System: General Principles. ODPM 2005

The Courts are the arbiters of what constitutes a material consideration. All the fundamental factors involved in land-use planning are included, such as the number, size, layout, siting, design and external appearance of buildings and the proposed means of access, together with landscaping, impact on the neighbourhood and the availability of infrastructure.

The Courts have also held that the Government’s statements of planning policy are material considerations which must be taken into account, where relevant, in decisions on planning applications.

So that above is relevant to a VDS or TDS.

The legal basis for a material consideration is the 'Plan Led System" Status

– adopted as SPD

– a material consideration in planning decisions

   (backed by the courts, and by planning inspectors)

“… in making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” Town & Country Planning Act 1990    Section 54A              

And in the 2004 Act - Section 38(6):

"If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise."

That applies to all SPD - VDS, TDS and relevant (spatial) parts of a community-led Parish / Town Plan.

I hope this encourages you all.

Phil Turner 

Richard Hammersley, a Community Planner with the RTPI in the West Midlands, has commented:

A couple of months ago I did a little study into Local Development Schemes in the West Midlands region. What I found was that, of 21 Schemes from 'rural' Local Planning Authorities, only three had any sort of commitment to 'using' Parish Plans (PP). Three more said they would look in to the potentials after 2007; leaving 14 with no mention of PPs - and one specifically stating that they would not be involving themselves with PPs at all."

Trevor Roberts of TRA Ltd has very helpfully contributed from his experience on this topic also:

"I organised and produced the Parish Plan for the Parish where I live – Threlkeld in the Lake District – a couple of years ago. Although we sent a copy to the Lake District National Park Authority there is no evidence they have referred to it at all in making decisions. So far as I can see it is a ‘material consideration’, and we had suggested they adopt it as a Local Development Document – but no response on that one either. An example of where they could have referred to the Parish Plan is in making decisions re pub extensions, where we would have thought it legitimate to seek s106 contributions towards bus shelters (to promote public rather than private transport and generally support use of the bus service).

Overall I thought the whole Parish Plan exercise was a bit of a con, giving the then Countryside Agency something to do – although having such a document does provide a bit of a long term framework for local initiatives in a community which like many others finds it hard to look further ahead than next month.”

Trevor Cherrett from the Commission for Rural Communities sought to challenge some of the points made by Trevor Roberts:

“Trevor Roberts raises some genuine concerns re Parish Plans. But those concerns have arisen not because they "were something for the Countryside Agency (CA) to do" but because a new planning system (the 2001 T&CP Act and the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act) drove a coach and horses through all the good work which had been done to enable Parish Plans to be adopted as Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD), by introducing new requirements for community involvement, sustainability appraisals, etc. It has also given a great excuse for those planners (all too many I’m afraid) who don’t want to spend time talking to Parish Councils!

Jeff Bishop`s research in the South West (for SWAN) has demonstrated how many of these problems can be overcome, not least through the community planning process - well documented via RTPI and other conferences on this issue, eg http://www.swan-network.org.uk/page/communityplanning

Trevor`s comment is not only very unfair about the CA`s excellent work in this area, but is blind to the weaknesses and failures of the planning system! Perhaps he is keen to stimulate debate - in which case he has been very successful! Seriously, there is great confusion and vituperation on this issue which would benefit from more enlightened debate. More comments please !”

Phil Turner, the member that started this whole discussion strand, has contributed some related and relevant comments from a colleague at the University of Gloucestershire:

“Re: Councillor involvement in planning decisions, CLG 2007, click here to read this

Overall I am astonished to find no mention of Parish and Town Councils (PTCs) whatsoever. This is especially bizarre and extraordinary given Government's commitment to 'Strong and Prosperous Communities' based e.g. around Quality Parish Councils.

There is also no recognition of principal authority Councillors wearing 'multi-hats' - that is the same individual acting as e.g. a Borough and Parish Councillor, County and Town Councillor etc..... It should also be remembered that PTCs are an increasing urban phenomenon, and not just present in rural communities. So there are PTCs in Dover, Birmingham etc...”

In detail: (these points need to be read alongside the CLG Report referenced above):

Section 1.1 mentions the 'local champion for an area' - surely a function of democratically elected PTCs?

1.2.1 argues for "strengthening community leadership and democratic

renewal": again surely a responsibility of democratically elected PTCs?

5.1.1 (4) "the local partner" - no mention of PTCs.

5.2.5 "Role of the public and 3rd parties" - no mention of PTCs.

5.2.6 "Delegation" - no mention of PTCs. And no mention of delegated powers to PTCs e.g. long-standing devolution of some development control decisions by Taunton Deane and S Somerset LPAs to some PTCs.....

6.2.8 "Relations with other local interest groups/lobbying" - no mention of PTCs.

7.2.4 - 'Statements of Community Involvement' - again, incredible given the title that there is no mention of a role for PTCs; nor of their existence!

All in all I am amazed at the gaping holes in this research, given the lack of recognition accorded to PTCs. Unbelievable.

James Derounian, Senior Lecturer, University of Gloucestershire

Felicity Sylvester, a Community Planner with SW Planning Aid added: “I would like to contribute my experience of working as Parish Plans officer for Caradon DC running a national pilot to consider the integration of parish plans into District Council policies, including planning.

At the end of the pilot in 2005 Caradon DC had 5 parish plans adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance and 4 Parish Plans adopted as Supplementary Planning Documents with Sustainable Appraisals(SEA) developed jointly with the planning officer considering sustainable appraisals for the Local Plan/ LDF and the Agenda 21 officer. The adoption of 4 SPDs was completed in 6 months and subsequent adoption of other completed plans was included in the Caradon DC’s LDS. These plans may be seen on the Caradon website links to Community and living/parish plans and the draft process for the SPD adoption is included in the appendix to the ”Final Report, June 2005” also posted in this section.

Government Office SW planning officers gave advice on process for both the SPG and SPD adoptions, and subsequent information and support for this work was discussed with the GOSW planning officers at the Community led plans event in Wells in October 2006. As can been seen the SW has a positive view on the contribution that Parish Plans and Town Plans can made to involving the rural communities in the LDF.

Community involvement is often encouraged in national government policy statements and consultation documents. The recently completed Lyons Report is a good example - Lyons warns that new arrangements must allow local communities “to make their views known” - the community led plans are surely useful for this?

Finally as a community planner for SW Planning Aid I am a member of the Cornwall “Getting Connected Partnership “ which is a regular meeting of all the regeneration officers in all district councils in Cornwall and others, serviced by the Cornwall Rural Community Council. This group is developing a series of updated information booklets on community planning. ”Creating a Parish Plan” is an excellent source of information and can be seen on www.crcc.co.uk website.

Steve Bendle has added this potential encoragement:
High Bickington: A 4 year community planning exercise proposed 6 homes for sale, 32 affordable homes, community centre, 1100m2 workspace, new school, and community woodland, all on county farm site offered to community by Devon CC. Torridge DC granted permission; but the application was called in 6 months later; and after 15 months the Planning Inspector finds it an “interesting model for community-led provision” but feels must recommend refusal on planning grounds; CLG agree and reject, just after Ruth Kelly’s appointment. This was especially ironic for the community which had unanimously opposed a new housing development on ‘white land’ north of the village which Torridge also agreed - but GO South West did not call in. A new “sustainable community” scheme on similar lines is now being prepared (but opportunity for Objective 2 and other funding now lost). Meanwhile a similar proposal a few months later in Caradon DC was agreed by CLG overturning the Inspector. So maybe CLG policy is now accepting community-led needs-led planning applications as meriting special consideration under the new system? More information on www.highbickington.org

Author:

Andrew Matheson

Publisher:

The Royal Town Planning Institute

Date:

05-Feb-07

Categories:

Networks & Associations 

Sections:

Events, Awards & Networking

This article has been read 2274 times.