Planning White Paper Background

21-May-07

Introduction

This page sets out preliminary actions and positions adopted by the RTPI, before the publication of the Planning White Paper for England  

Preliminary RTPI Action

The RTPI has been active in the development and testing of content for the white paper throughout the period before its publication.  We have:

  • met Kate Barker following the publication of her report;
  • following consideration of the Barker and Eddington reports by Executive Board, prepared an initial discussion paper, setting out '10 points' that any new white paper must address;
  • acted as a partner with Communities and Local Government in arranging an invitation only seminar - Towards the White Paper.  This was held on 29th January and was addressed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and by the RTPI President, Jim Claydon, based on the '10 points' discussion paper.  This was an interactive session in which attendees were able to use information technology to communicate live to the conference team and form collective views on propositions;
  • attended a meeting of the CLG’s White Paper Advisory Group;
  • attended two meetings of the CLG’s Planning Advisory Group to discuss the White Paper;
  • discussed specific aspects of the White Paper with CLG planning staff;
  • met the Cabinet Office team who are co-ordinating the drafting of the White Paper;
  • met the RICS, the ICE and the RIBA to discuss common issues on the White Paper, in particular in respect of major investment project (MIPs) inquiries;
  • made a response to the Lyons inquiry further consultation ;
  • prepared two papers and met with the Treasury on the role of planning in delivering infrastructure, work that has also been closely coordinated with that on the planning gain supplement and local area/multi area agreements;
  • organised and held a seminar with CLG on outcome based performance indicators and formulated a joint research project on this which is now out to tender; and
  • joined an LGA, RTPI, POS, PAS task group to develop the planning targets section of the White Paper.

 

Preliminary RTPI Positions

Before the formal publication of the white paper, it is not possible to predict in detail what it might contain.  However, our current thinking on likely content is set out below under the following topics:

It is also summarised in the '10 points' paper referred to above.

These views have been put to government through the actions outlined above, through position papers and policy responses.  Click the links above or scroll down the page to view each heading.  

 

Climate Change

The RTPI welcomes the CLG’s emerging messages on planning and climate change.  Planning is one of the few policy areas that can help mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.  The RTPI looks to the White Paper to carry on the work embodied in the consultation draft of the PPS on Planning and Climate Change.  It should, in particular, cover the role of spatial planning in demand management.

  • Click here to return to the RTPI 2007 White Paper Index of Issues.
Green Belts

We urge that the discussion on Green Belts taken up in the Barker report is not passed over in the White Paper but is changed into one on sustainable urban form.  The RTPI re-iterates its view that Green Belts should neither be treated as sacrosanct nor made available wholesale for urban development.  It is time for a rational national debate about their purposes in the 21st century, their effectiveness in sustainability terms and new ways to shape the development of cities.

  • Click here to return to the RTPI 2007 White Paper Index of Issues.
Major Infrastructure Proposals

The RTPI has already welcomed the fact that changes are proposed for the way in which major infrastructure proposals are dealt with, following concerns that we raised in a number of consultations processes in 2006 and earlier years. These changes are likely to focus on:

  • the preparation of national infrastructure policy statements; and
  • the establishment of an 'independent planning commission' as the decision maker.

However, we have concerns that the system proposed in the Eddington report and developed in the Barker review require considerable refinement before they could be viewed as workable.  We will evaluate any proposals in the White paper against the following criteria.  Proposals should include:

  • the ability to challenge the need for schemes – rather than just their impact;
  • a clear and comprehensive policy framework within which decisions are made – with the decision maker taking into account all relevant Government policy and other material considerations, not just the proposed infrastructure policy statements;
  • a clear means of accountability for those informing and making decisions – and transparency as to who is informing and who is taking decisions;
  • a transparent process with clear opportunities for public involvement;
  • a clear distinction between matters of national, regional and local relevance – including who is responsible to set out and monitor measures to reduce the impact of proposals on local communities; and
  • evidence-based decision making. 

To assist the government develop a workable remit for major infrastructure policy and its relationship with the work of an independent planning commission, the RTPI has proposed an 8 point plan:

  • The commission must be independent from Government but set within a clear national policy framework as established through Parliament by the Government.
  • Any national policy must be consulted upon by the public with real options for change. We have already seen the legal ramifications on not consulting properly with the challenge to the Government’s nuclear energy policy exercised by Greenpeace.
  • Establishing a national spatial infrastructure plan will be key to consulting with the public by helping raise capacity for understanding where the major projects will be located and why. It will also be a ‘shop window’, demonstrating to investors that the UK is serious about sustainable infrastructure development.
  • Any decision taken by the Commission must consider the national spatial infrastructure plan, any other relevant planning policy (such as regional policy) and any other material planning consideration (such as effects on nearby homes).
  • As soon as it is clear a decision will have a local impact the Commission must consult the local planning authority.
  • The Commission must not become overly expensive to run or a bottle-neck. RTPI proposes the commission has several ‘core’ commissioners with a wide range of associate commissioners who can be brought in to deal with specific projects as and when they are needed.
  • Commissioners must be professionals with a range of expertise and backgrounds.
  • The commission must be held accountable through regular checks and audits by Government in much the same way as the Bank of England and make an annual report to Parliament, which includes an assessment of the adequacy of the policy framework within which it is working.

We welcome proposals for a stronger suite of national policy within which decisions would be made but there is a clear need to spell out the spatial impacts and drivers of these policies and to integrate them with an understanding of investment patterns.

  • Click here to access further information about infrastructure planning processes.
  • Click here to return to the RTPI 2007 White Paper Index of Issues.
Better Outcomes, Faster

The RTPI supports the proposition that planning resources should be targeted to planning business in proportion to the significance and need for that business to address the requirements of society, the economy and the environment.  We need better plans and better outcomes.  We need to be able to deliver and we need delivery to be expeditious, efficient and to quality.

In this context, it concerns us to observe significant rises in small scale development proposals requiring planning permission, in circumstances where many such proposals have limited or no adverse impacts in public interest terms.  Serving such applications draws much needed planning human and financial resources away from the tasks that really need to be done.

For these reasons, the RTPI broadly supports proposals to simplify permitted development for householders on an 'impact based' principle.  It looks to the White Paper to set the foundation stones for changes to householder development consents and in respect of permitted development for renewable energy development.

The RTPI opposes the suggestion in the Barker Review that there should be any form of ‘side payment’ or other agreement between neighbours over a proposed development which would result in the application being removed from the planning system, whether or not money is exchanged.  If the impact of a development is such that permission is required then it should be a matter requiring consultation to identify the best balance of public benefit.  If it does not have any wider impact, then it should fall into a class of permitted development.  'Side payments' are considered particularly pernicious in that they generate in the the public mind a view that payments between parties can secure the removal of a matter from necessary public scrutiny and can secure agreement to development impacts that on any objective measure would be viewed as unacceptable.  Such an approach would do untold harm to the public benefit perceived to be provided by planning and to its reputation for probity.

  • Click here to return to the RTPI 2007 White Paper Index of Issues.
Presumption in Favour of Development

The RTPI opposes any move away from a plan-led system and we feel that the Barker proposal for a presumption in favour of development, however circumscribed, is a move in the wrong direction.  We support the aim of achieving a swift coverage of up-to-date local development frameworks but are clear that the achievement of this aim will require further investment in the planning system and enhancement of the role of Government Offices and PINS in providing support for local planning authorities.  A presumption in favour of development where a plan is 'indeterminate' will not lead to the achievement of high quality and sustainable outcomes in support of government policy.

The RTPI has undertaken a study of the potential consequences of the introduction of a presumption in favour of development as discussed in the Barker report, or even in more limited circumstances.  This found that:

  • the justification of the proposed presumption in the Barker report is based on an assessment of the pre 2004 development plan system and is not pertinent to the new system;
  • even if such a presumption were to be introduced, the formulation for invoking it as set out in the Barker report is vague, does not rely on established principles of planning or law and would be subject to challenge;
  • the criteria against which the presumption is to be judged appears to be purely economic – without integrating social and environmental factors;
  • the outcomes from the application of such a presumption could be perverse with, for example, national policies or other material considerations being overlooked and potentially harmful developments being given permission as a consequence merely of the incompleteness of the policy framework in a particular place, rather than the sustainability of the development in that place;
  • the basic concept of an ‘indeterminate’ plan merits much more consideration as to its meaning in practice.  One key issue is that LDFs alone no longer form the development plan – these now include Regional Spatial Strategies.  As a consequence, whilst the development plan may lack detailed local content, it would very rarely be ‘silent’ on an issue or proposal.  Nor, in this context, would a development plan become out-of-date in the way that plans in the former system could; and
  • similarly, the existence of potentially conflicting policies in a plan should not render it 'indeterminate'.  Spatial planning exists to resolve competing policies and priorities and must be allowed to do so on the merits of proposals and the facts of each case;

We note that Kate Barker has now modified her opinion on the efficacy of this proposal – perhaps in line with the statement made elsewhere in her review that ‘[w]hile it might be thought that a system based on a presumption in favour of development would support economic growth better than one based on plans, this plan-led approach is to be supported as it provides an effective balance between certainty and flexibility.’ 

Removal of the Needs Test

The policy of revitalising town centres has been one of planning’s successes and the RTPI cannot understand why the Barker Review, which champions the cause of fair competition, should risk throwing this away by abandoning the needs test. The RTPI believes that, far from increasing the ability of more traders to enter the retail market, the removal of the test would be likely to compound concerns about monopolistic tendencies and harm the economic, social and environmental health of sustainable and dynamic town centres whilst also exacerbating unsustainable travel patterns.  The RTPI notes that the Competition Commission in a parallel review of supermarket retail found the proposition that the needs test was leading to economic inefficiency and harm unproven on the evidence, and that Kate Barker herself has now expressed some doubts about it.

  • Click here to return to the RTPI 2007 White Paper Index of Issues.
Planning, Funding and Delivering Infrastructure

The White Paper provides a key opportunity to develop proposals to link spatial planning more closely with infrastructure investment.  The RTPI has been working closely with HM Treasury through their review of infrastructure for housing growth on the relationships between spatial planning and investment planning for infrastructure at national, regional, sub-regional and local levels and we look to the White Paper to put forward clear proposals for making these links – whilst spelling out the resource implications for any changes to the system.

The White paper must not be used to further the insupportable move towards the Planning Gain Supplement, as most recently consulted upon by HM Customs and Revenue and CLG.  Reasoned opposition is growing and is to be found in all sectors of the planning and development industry.  The Treasury, HM Customs and Revenue and CLG must stop and think again.  It is reprehensible that the Government is pushing through a paving Bill to allow substantial public expenditure on the establishment of a PGS system that very few feel will work at all. 

  • Click here to access further information about infrastructure planning processes and their relationship with local and multi area agreements.
  • Click here to return to the RTPI 2007 White Paper Index of Issues.
Outcome-based Targets

RTPI consultation responses have consistently pressed home the message that the current time based performance targets for planning (BV109) lead to perverse outcomes that reduce the quality of planning services and outcomes.  

The RTPI has held a seminar with CLG to examine to scope from a move away from process based targets for planning to targets that are outcome based: measuring what the government and communities want to achieve from the planning system and whether this has been delivered.  Following the seminar, the CLG are keen to support a research project to look at the ways in which outcome targets can be formulated, measured and monitored. A memorandum of understanding has been negotiated and the RTPI will shortly announce the commencement of work on this very interesting project,

The RTPI is also a member of a joint task group, co-ordinated by the LGA, which has been invited to contribute to the relevant section of the White Paper.  The reductions in the overall number of performance measures announced in the Local Government White Paper provides the opportunity to integrate spatial planning targets with overall ‘place-shaping’ or sustainable communities targets.

More immediately, we strongly advocate the commonplace adoption of Planning Delivery Agreements (sometimes referred to as Planning Process Agreements) as the most effective means of bringing certainty and mutual endeavour to the processing of major applications.  Where such agreements are made, the application should not be included against any time limited process based target for development management progress, although it may be appropriate to record (for example) the percentage of agreements broken by the planning authority and the percentage broken by the applicant.

  • Click here to read the RTPI HPDG consultation response, which addresses the target regime.
  • Click here to see an invitation to tender for the RTPI research project examining outcome based targets.
  • Click here to return to the RTPI 2007 White Paper Index of Issues.
Resourcing Planning

Spatial planning cannot achieve its potential whilst it remains under-resourced.  The RTPI has welcomed the Government’s programmes to increase resources through the Planning Delivery Grant, but the fact remains that the investment required to meet the demands of delivery expected of Local Planning Authorities, - producing plans and meeting deadlines - significantly exceeds the resources currently available to them.  We call for enhanced funding for the planning service and look forward to working with CLG to support their efforts to achieve this in this year’s Spending Review.

There are concerns that the proposals for a Planning and Housing Delivery Grant to replace the Planning Delivery grant will focus more on the delivery of housing starts rather than the delivery of an effective planning service and that gains made through the provision of Planning Delivery Grant (both in terms of staff numbers and skills) may be lost.  The RTPI supports CLG in their work on this year’s Comprehensive Spending Review to mainstream enhanced funding for the planning service.

Local setting of planning fees has been floated as one means of addressing funding shortfalls.  The RTPI recognises that this approach is likely to enjoy widespread support in local government.  However, care is required to ensure that planning fees do not become disproportionate or vary between localities in ways that act as a penalty to investment or cannot otherwise be justified.  There will remain classes of 'public benefit' planning processes that generate no commercial value and should have nominal or no fee charged.

  • Click here to read the RTPI HPDG consultation response, which addresses resourcing questions.
  • Click here to return to the RTPI 2007 White Paper Index of Issues.
Public Engagement

The Local Government White Paper proposes that there should be an integrated approach to community engagement within local authorities.  The proposal to abandon the PINS assessment of Statements of Community Involvement, which the RTPI supports, is just one part of this.  Given these proposals, the RTPI considers it to be premature to abandon any statutory stage of public consultation in the LDF in advance of wider proposals being formulated.  Even if one formal consultation stage were eventually to be abandoned, the RTPI considers that initial stage of issues and options should be retained as this fulfils a critical aim of ‘front-loading’ spatial planning system and avoiding costly and time consuming changes to plans after their direction has been set.

  • Click here to return to the RTPI 2007 White Paper Index of Issues.
Integrated Strategies

Planning Together, a guide on integrating spatial planning with Sustainable Community Strategies and Local Area Agreements was written by the RTPI for Communities and Local Government was launched on 31st January.  This interrelationship between different areas of local policy making and investment planning has the potential to very fruitful in placing spatial planning at the heart of local government policy making and to link it directly with investment plans.  The White paper must embed the messages in Planning Together and give clear messages on how this integration should be achieved in practice.  The RTPI has produced a paper that demonstrates how this linkage might be brought about.

  • Click here to access further information about Planning Together and its relationship with infrastructure planning processes.
  • Click here to return to the RTPI 2007 White Paper Index of Issues.
Professionalism and Changing Culture

The RTPI has been at the forefront of engendering culture change in planning and will continue to support and develop more effective practice.  Such proposals as the recognition of the status of the Chief Planner should provide a focus in the White Paper for stating clearly the attributes of professionalism – including championing of equality and community involvement, a reliance on evidence and an ethical approach.

The RTPI, in association with other bodies will continue to press for investment in training and other actions to improve the capacity and skills planning, involving practitioners and elected members.  The White Paper needs to take forward the proposals in the Local Government White Paper and in the Barker Land Use Review for training for councillors, including compulsory training for members in spatial planning.

  • Click here for a link to the RTPI response to the Local Government White Paper.
  • Click here to return to the RTPI 2007 White Paper Index of Issues.

 

 

 
Author:
Rynd Smith
Publisher:
The Royal Town Planning Institute
Date:
21-May-07
Categories:
Practice, Policy 
Sections:
What Planning Does

This article has been read 3058 times.