PAPER B1
Committee : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
Date : 18 FEBRUARY 2002
Title : PLANNING GREEN PAPER
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
SUMMARY
This paper considers the Planning Green Paper and associated papers which have been published by the Government for consultation. Members are invited to comment on the paper prior to a final response being agreed by the Executive.
BACKGROUND
On 12 December 2001, the Secretary of State published his formal planning consultation document "Planning Green Paper: Delivering Fundamental Change". As a Green Paper, it is clearly intended to be the subject of debate and discussion, and the formal consultation period will run until 18 March 2002. It is also, however, evident, from both the tone and content of the Green Paper, as well as other ministerial pronouncements, that Ministers intend to move on to a formal White Paper and appropriate primary legislation, reflecting the radical nature of their current intentions.
The Secretary of State confirms this radical intent in his foreword to the Green Paper, when he emphasises the importance of the planning system but goes on to say "some 50 years after it was put in place the planning system is showing its age. What was once an innovative emphasis on consultation has now become a set of inflexible, legalistic and bureaucratic procedures. A system that was intended to promote development now blocks it. Business complains that the speed of decision is undermining productivity and competitiveness. People feel that they are not sufficiently involved in decisions that affect their lives. So it is time for a change. We need good planning to deliver sustainable development, to harness growth to build a better future. We need a better, simpler, faster, more accessible system that serves both business and the community. That is exactly what this Green Paper seeks to achieve."
The Green Paper is therefore based on the belief that the present system needs substantial change, and that the proposals will result in significant improvements to the system’s ability to deliver "effective" planning. The Green Paper can be viewed on the DTLR website:www.dtlr.gov.uk in the Planning Section.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
After the short introductory chapter, Chapters 2 and 3 analyse the present system and its shortcomings. The overall commentary is highly critical of the system as over-complex, too slow, unpredictable and lacking in effective community engagement. Members might like to consider whether this criticism is altogether fair. In the view of your officers, the comments are not properly substantiated, are over-generalised and fail to recognise the value that the planning system has provided to the management of the natural and built environment.
Chapter 4 of the Green Paper focuses on a radical change to the development plan system. Structure and local plans would be replaced by a Local Development Framework (LDF), which would consist of a statement of core policies, a map showing areas of change and a set of Action Plans for those change areas. The new LDFs would be much shorter than existing local plans, and it is intended they should be prepared much more quickly. The Action Plans would cover relatively small areas and be tightly focussed. The new LDFs would, themselves, be set in the context of the now-emerging community strategies, which all local authorities are preparing.
Although structure plans would be abolished, minerals and waste development plans would be retained, and county councils would continue to have responsibility for decisions on all planning applications relating to these topics.
At the regional level, Regional Planning Guidance would be replaced by Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) with statutory status. They would be more focussed with less repetition of national policy. They would provide the planning framework for other regional strategies, specifically including the regional development agencies’ Regional Economic Strategy. Greater emphasis would also be placed on the preparation of sub-regional strategies, where there were important issues to resolve at sub-regional level.
The emphasis of national planning policy would also change, with less detailed guidance and proscription, and a reduction in the number and volume of national guidance notes and circulars. By contrast, clearer national guidance would be produced on policy issues of truly national importance and in order to secure the delivery of the country’s major infrastructure needs. In this way, a better-defined national policy framework for regional and local decisions would be delineated.
Chapter 5 of the Green Paper focuses on development control. Considerable emphasis is placed on improved community consultation. The Government also proposes a more responsive system offering a new culture of customer service; a system which delivers decisions quickly in a predictable and transparent way and delivers a quality environment. Specific proposals include:
• introducing a planning checklist so that people know how to submit a good quality planning application;
• tightening targets for determining planning applications and dealing with the delays caused by statutory committees;
• encouraging master planning to improve the quality of developments;
• promoting better community involvement by offering community groups advice on planning;
• introducing delivery contracts for planning for major developments;
• seeking better and tougher enforcement against those who evade planning requirements.
There is also a proposal in this section to establish Business Planning Zones, where "no planning consent will be necessary for development, if it is in accordance with tightly defined parameters". This proposal has clear echoes of the controversial, and ultimately unsuccessful, Special Planning Zones (SPZ) regime of the 1980s.
Chapter 6 is concerned with the delivery arrangements for the new system. The need for adequate resources to implement the new system is acknowledged as is the current national shortage of skilled Planners. For local planning, the Green Paper states, "we recognise that to deliver a fundamental improvement in performance, local authority planning needs to be properly resourced". Substantial increases in fees are therefore proposed, together with the establishment of a new Local Planning Advisory Service, further research on resourcing and
a review of Revenue Support Grant arrangements as part of the 2002 Comprehensive Spending Review. More training for both officers and Councillors is envisaged to enhance skills, together with the appropriate use of the private sector to supplement key skills and add capacity.
COMPLEMENTARY CONSULTATIONS
In parallel with the Green Paper, a series of complementary consultation documents have been published on specific topics. In each case, the consultation period is, helpfully, the same as for the Green Paper as a whole, in other words to 18 March 2002. All make reference to the Green Paper and are set within its framework. The consultation documents are as follows:
i) Compulsory Purchase Orders;
ii) Parliamentary Procedures for Processing Major Infrastructure Projects;
iii) Planning Obligations.
A Use Classes document has also been prepared with a deadline for comments of 24 April 2002, a separate report will be prepared on this. Proposals for the improvement to the CPO system should be generally welcomed as the current system is cumbersome and unwieldy. The proposals for Parliamentary Procedures for Processing Major Infrastructure Projects may be more controversial but the proposed size of project to be covered makes it extremely unlikely that the Isle of Wight would be affected - unless of course the Government ever considered the Isle of Wight should be a suitable location for a power station or similar strategic development. The proposals suggest that Parliament would approve major projects in principle prior to consideration of detailed issues at Inquiry.
A commentary of the Planning Obligations Paper is found at the end of this paper.
EVALUATION
It is important that the Isle of Wight Council considers the impact of these proposed reforms to the planning system on its operation as an individual Local Planning Authority. The Government will also be receiving comments from the LGA which will embody the wider views of all local authorities. To help the consultation, the Government have produced a series of ten questions in respect of the White Paper. They have asked local authorities to consider whether they agree or disagree with these. This paper will consider each of these questions in turn and provide a commentary on each issue.
1. We propose to replace local plans and Unitary Development Plans with the Local Development Framework. Do you agree?
The proposals would replace present arrangements at the regional and especially, local level, with a new development plan system. The Green Paper claims that the new system could be introduced quickly, but experience elsewhere, for example with the introduction of the present development plan system in the 1970s, has shown that such expectations can be over-optimistic. The procedure set out in the Green Paper for the preparation of LDFs and particularly Action Plans also appear to provide scope for debate and challenge, which might well lengthen envisaged timetables for preparation significantly. Again, it is worth recalling that the Action Plans now proposed bear an uncanny resemblance to those that were originally suggested in the 1970s reforms. These were subsequently abandoned, proving too costly in both time and resources, and efforts were instead consolidated in the now-to-be-abandoned District Local Plans and UDPs. Of even more concern is the hiatus that could arise in the period until a new system is put in place. It is likely to be two or even three years until the new legislation could be brought into effect, and then there would no doubt be a period of preparation that would follow. In such a period of several years, will there be an incentive for local authorities to maintain their existing development plans? Many local plans and some structure plans are already out of date. A prolonged period of hiatus could be in prospect which could actually harm, rather than assist, the process of "speedy and clear decision making" which the Green Paper seeks as its central objective. Ministers will therefore need to be much more specific about transitional arrangements, and an early statement by them on this issue would assist.
It must be questioned whether a modification of the current system of development plans would provide a better solution to the problems raised, rather than risking a complete review with the uncertainties this would lead to. On the Island, the current UDP provides a single Plan for the whole area, is up-to-date and provides everyone with clear guidance on what can and cannot be done. It will be relatively easy to update and is a tool which simplified the development control process significantly. For a large, rural authority it is perhaps a good way of dealing with the need to encourage development in some areas and discourage it in others. It is interesting to note that in Wales where a network of unitary authorities all produce UDPs, the Welsh Assembly view is that the current system should be retained (with modifications) as it has provided a sound basis for dealing with development.
Under the Government proposals, the key issue is what happens to existing, long established policy guidance which is site specific, eg. development boundaries. In the Green Paper there is no provision for spatial designations, such as development boundaries, to be maintained. Implementation of the proposals would lead to considerable increase in uncertainty over limits of development and the location of development sites. The proposal would also mean that housing allocations would not be clearly defined, again leading to uncertainty and a difficulty in determining when and if housing requirements are being effectively met.
2. We propose that the local development framework should include community based action plans 4.13 - 4.15. Do you agree?
If the LDF system is implemented as proposed, the Action Plans will be required to provide more detailed guidance for areas of change. There are, however, areas of concern including:
i) How will the Council prioritise the preparation of the Plans, especially if there is a need for a number to be produced simultaneously?
ii) How will the areas not covered by Action Plans have the certainty over change currently afforded by the UDP?
Again for the Isle of Wight, it could be argued that the UDP, with Supplementary Planning Guidance in the form of development briefs for key areas of change would be a better tool for development control than the Government’s proposals which potentially could create a confusing hierarchy of Plans.
3. We are proposing new arrangements for community involvement in the preparation of Local Development Framework and any significant planning decisions (Paragraph 4.21-4.24 & 5.52-5.58). Do you agree?
Any proposals to increase levels of community participation in the planning process are, in theory, commendable. However, there are a number of concerns. Firstly, it is notoriously difficult to get people to be involved in planning policies and their views on them, unless they are specifically affected by a development proposal. How this system would be any better is not clear. Secondly, it is unclear how the increased level of community participation squares with the proposal to speed up the whole planning system. Consultation inevitably takes time and is one of the key reasons why the planning system is currently so time consuming. This dichotomy is not addressed by the Green Paper.
4. We are proposing to simplify the hierarchy of plans by strengthening regional planning and abolishing county structure plans (paras 4.36-4.51). Do you agree?
The proposal for strengthening regional planning and eliminating structure plans is a key issue for many authorities in the south-east. The Isle of Wight as a unitary authority has been able to prepare its own strategic planning guidance as the County’s currently do. The Island would not want to lose any of its current strategic planning powers as a result of the changes under the current guidance the Island is designated as a rural development area and as a priority area for economic regeneration. This latter degeneration is shared by Portsmouth and Southampton and the South Hampshire coastal fringe. It is vital that the Island is identified as a sub-region of the south-east in its own right with its own characteristics and problems as an Island and that all policies and proposals at the regional level do take the Islands special characteristics into account.
5. We propose to review national planning guidance to reduce its volume and complexity. Do you agree?
There is undoubtedly too much national planning guidance and it is too complex. Any simplification of this would be desirable. It is equally important that local areas are able to justify different planning policies from national objectives if it is beneficial to their own area. National planning policy should only be prepared in respect of those areas where Government feels it is absolutely essential for local authorities to adhere to a common set of policies.
6. Do you have any further comments on our proposals for reforming plans?
a) There is a considerable concern over the status of the existing Unitary Development Plan in the transition period to the LDF. The Minister’s recent statement does not really help with this matter. Any weakening of the plans policies would be detrimental to the proper planning of the Island.
b) It could be argued that the Green Paper is really aimed at urban authorities - rural areas have different needs and different planning requirements and it may be that radical reforms are less justified in rural areas where the conservation and protection roles of the planning system are equal to the need to encourage development.
c) It is unclear how the requirements of PPG3 and Regional Guidance in respect of housing numbers will be achieved through the new framework. This needs to be urgently clarified if authorities are to properly plan for future housing needs.
d) The link with Community Plans still need to be clarified. Although this is mentioned in the Green Paper, there is insufficient clarity as to the respective roles of the Community Plan and the LDF and how possible conflicts will be resolved.
7. We are proposing to speed up the planning system and set new targets for Local authorities and central Government for dealing with applications and appeals. Do you agree?
While the new targets do recognise the differential between different types of planning application, the whole system is still too geared towards speed rather than quality. It is interesting to note that the Government have consistently refused to amend the basis of setting standards in respect of planning applications until this moment in time. The fact that these changes (ie separating out householder and major commercial applications and applying different standards) are now being proposed does perhaps demonstrate that the original targets were unrealistic and too inflexible. Of course it is important that applications are dealt with quickly, but there is a need to recognise that achieving quality does sometimes take longer. The proposals for greater emphasis on pre-application discussions are considered helpful. Targets are all very well, but it essential that adequate resources are made available to Local Authorities to achieve Government expectations.
8. We are aiming to propose new performance standards for statutory consultees and allow them to charge fees for consultation to help improve their performance. Do you agree?
This proposal would seem to be a good one providing that the information the developer gives to the consultee is the same as he gives to the Local Planning Authority.
9. The Green Paper contains a number of other proposals aimed at making the planning system faster, simpler and more effective. Do you agree with them?
(i) A user friendly checklist - This seems a good idea but different types of application would require different checklists reflecting local circumstances.
(ii) Master planning large developments - This should be supported.
(iii) Business Planning Zones - There seems to be no real justification for these zones and it is considered that they would be entirely inappropriate for the Isle of Wight. Allocating sites for employment development can mean they are quickly and easily developed, as long as particular requirements are met. Business Planning Zones could introduce an element of uncertainty on the final development which would not help local communities or the Local Planning Authority in the wider planning of an area.
(iv) Preventing twin tracking and repeated applications - generally support.
(v) Limiting planning consents to three years - Good idea.
(vi) Increasing planning fees to help finance better Local Planning Authority performance. Increasing planning fees will help improve planning performance providing the fees are allocated to that function.
10. Do you have any further comments on our proposals for improving the development control process?
The Council welcomes the proposals and comments in the Green Paper in respect of;
1. Improving customer service (5.6)
2. Pre-application discussions (5.9), although for authorities like the Isle of Wight where development often has to be ‘coaxed’ the likelihood of being able to receive realistic fees fro Pre-application discussions may be limited.
3. Customer care (5.11),
4. E-planning (5.12 - 5.14)
5. One stop shop (5.15 - 5.16).
6. Faster delivery (5.19) - although this will only be realistic if all required information is provided when the application is submitted.
7. Delivery contracts (5.25 - 5.28). Officers are of the view that they would be happy to enter into a contract with an applicant as a bigger application over when the application would be presented to Committee. Members views are requested bearing in mind the proposal is to agree a contract over the decision date.
8. Entering the appeals process (5.43)
9. Clearer scope (5.44) - Both points consider to be good ideas.
The Council has concerns or would welcome further clarification on the following points:
1. Remitted development rights (5.45 - 5.49). It is suggested that a new section within Part 1 should be provided dealing with the issue of open amenity areas to include balconies and raised decking areas. These have caused problems on sloping sites.
2. Paragraph 5.49. It is considered that the introduction of local permitted development rights would cause confusion and uncertainty and would hinder rather than help efficient planning.
3. Better Enforcement. (Para 5.67 - 5.70.
It is recognised that there are certain instances where people make genuine mistakes as well as those instances where people clearly disregard advice and proceed breaching planning regulations.
On balance consider that it should be made a criminal offence but that considerations such as Human Rights and proportionality are taken into account before a prosecution is raised. There is a need to educate people to a greater degree if a more formal approach is to be adopted.
There should be an ability to reject an application once Committee resolve to take enforcement action. Developer has right to appeal through Enforcement Notice.
An Enforcement Notice should be able to effectively turn back the clock returning a site to its condition immediately before the first breach occurred. There does seem to be a dilemma at the moment that certain actions are not considered to be development, such as the removal of trees or hedgerows which therefore cannot be required to be replaced through an Enforcement Notice.
The use of a Breach of Condition Notice to remedy a problem with a developer during the development phase is problematic. Minimum time you have to give is 28-days and this is meaningless on the basis that the breach of condition continues in this period. A shorter time period to remedy such a situation is required.
Equally, BCN regarding an activity eg opening hours of a takeaway, notice should give 24 - 48 hours for action and not 28-days.
CONSULTATION PAPER ON REFORMING PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
The Government propose that a revised planning obligation system should deliver enhanced quality of development and the wider environment and make a positive contribution to sustainable development. It should help provide an increased supply of affordable housing, public space provision and facilities and infrastructure need to accommodate growth. It is suggested that a good system will promote economic prosperity but not impose such unacceptable burdens on developers that desirable development did not take place. It is intended to be open and transparent to all in the community and provide greater certainty but also enable agreements to be concluded quickly.
The current system of obligations is based upon ensuring that services and infrastructure required by a development are provided on a site specific basis. It is suggested that the current system is inconsistently applied, unfair, lacks transparency, that agreements take unacceptable long to negotiate and involve high legal costs and can frustrate, delay or prevent development and that there is a widespread consensus that the system needs to be changed.
The suggested system is proposed as a means of regularising what in some areas have become uncertain procedures (based upon court interpretation of greater flexibility in legislation than is intended by current Government policy) for achieving wider contributions to the community from development. The wider interpretation of the current system has not been used on the Island but was being investigated before the publication of this consultation paper.
It is suggested that the preferred option is for a standard tariff based system applicable to new development which would provide contributions to a range of planning objectives. It is further suggested that negotiated agreements should only substitute or supplement the tariff system where justified to deliver site-specific requirements.
The system of setting the tariffs locally, for local benefits, through the plan making system and that details of all planning obligations will be available for public inspection on the planning register will lead to a more transparent system.
The full text of the consultation paper is available on the DTLR web site.
The consultation is geared around a number of questions where Local Authority’s views are specifically sought. These are set out below with suggested responses in bold typeface.
1. Do you support the refocusing of the planning obligation system around the objective of sustainable development? Yes
Comments: The extension of the planning obligation system to legally enable development to contribute more to the wider community than just the minimum requirements of a specific proposal is welcomed provided that the system does not restrict the initial full provision of all services and facilities require to support a proposed development and also make provision for their long term maintenance.
2. Do you agree that we should:
a) Introduce a standardised tariff-based approach for planning obligations? Yes
b) Incorporate the provision for affordable housing within the standard tariff? Yes subject to comments.
Comments: A standardised tariff approach for planning obligations should only apply to the provision of facilities and infrastructure which cannot be provided as part of the development. The tariff approach will allow small scale incremental development to make an equal contribution to the provision of wider facilities and affordable housing to that provided by major developments. It is agreed that this should not remove the need for major housing schemes to provide for affordable housing as part of mixed housing provision within the development. The locally determined tariff should itemise its make up so that where particular contributions were to be made as part of the overall development proposal then that element could be deducted from the tariff applied for the remaining elements.
The suggestion that there should be higher tariffs for greenfield sites than for brownfield sites should be based on the inclusion, or not, of particular elements within the tariff to be applied to such sites. A general higher tariff for greenfield sites (whether within or outside settlements) might suggest the ability to buy greenfield consents. It may be appropriate in some areas however for a tariff on greenfield sites to establish funds over time which could be used by the local authority to contribute towards the clearing of derelict land, dealing with contamination or assisting with land assembly and so promoting regeneration projects and the bringing of brownfield land back into beneficial use.
3. Do you believe that any of the other option listed in annex A provide a better solution than our preferred option? No
Comment: The preferred option is seen as broadening the current legal basis of obligations whilst retaining the principle that development proposals should meet their site specific requirements.
4. How do you think the tariff should be set:
a. on gross floor space;
b. on a per dwelling basis;
c. as a proportion of development value; or
d. other (specify)? Other
Comment: A combination of a unit tariff per bedroom for residential development and on the gross floor space for all other forms of development. The use of bedrooms would ensure that the contribution from residential development reflected the population to be accommodated by the development and smaller dwellings would not bear a disproportionate loading, particularly bearing in mind the shortage of smaller units of accommodation and predicted smaller household size. This would also mean that residential extensions or conversions which increased the occupancy capability of dwellings would make an appropriate contribution. The application of the tariff on other development would mean that it would contribute to the provision of affordable housing and if that element could be offset against actual provision would encourage mixed use development and the provision of say affordable housing on upper floors above ground floor town centre uses such as retail. Development for community uses could be exempted from the tariff in recognition of their beneficial nature.
5. Do you agree that sites should be identified within the planning system specifically for affordable housing? Yes
Comment: The ability to identify sites exclusively for affordable housing will be of particular importance in supporting rural communities where otherwise residential development would be resisted. However affordable housing should generally be seen as no different from market housing and fully integrated as part of the mix of residential areas and development. The ability to be able to identify specific sites will need to be included in the Local Development Framework system proposed in the Planning Green Paper.
6. Do you support the provision of central guidance about how the tariff-based (system) should work, whilst retaining local flexibility on the details of implementation? Yes
7. Do you agree we should retain negotiated agreements where they are needed to address, principally, site-specific issues? Yes
Comment: Provided they include the provision of affordable housing element on site within suitable residential development. See above.
8. Should we enable local authorities to pool contributions should they wish to do so? Yes
Comment: This is unlikely to be applicable to the Isle of Wight but should be for the joint provision of facilities for the community and presumably would need to be part of the agree tariff element.
9. Are you in favour of the use of a dispute resolution mechanism? If so, how might it work?
Comment: The paper appears to suggest that any reductions in the tariff expectations from a development would be exceptional and this would need to be the case in practice or the fears that it would lead to lengthy negotiations will be realised. However it appears to be suggested (4.39) that higher infrastructure provision costs for a site could be used to offset the standard tariff which would have been set to ensure equality of contribution to the wider community. If site conditions are such as to warrant abnormal additional expenditure to enable development this should be recognised in the land value, not a means of avoiding the tariff. The fact that development costs for competing sites will be different in every case should not become the basis for suggesting that tariffs are flexible and open to negotiation. The ability to for example to locally nominate tariff free types of development which are of community benefit may enable such uses to compete for unfavourable sites and bring them into beneficial use. (See comment 3 above). The appeal process remains open to resolve unfavourable decisions on planning applications.
10. Would you welcome new good practice guidance about monitoring, accounting and the use of model clauses for planning obligations? Yes
Comment: It is not clear from the paper as to which stage of planning consent the application of tariffs would apply. With outline consent the gross floorspace of a commercial development or the number of dwellings or bed spaces may not be established until later consents are sought. It will be important that if there are to be exemptions for small development the incremental application for approval of reserved matters is not used as a means of avoiding the tariffs. The point at which the tariff become payable is also not clear; it is assumed that this would be on initial occupation rather than on issuing the consent but the collection mechanism will need to be clear.
Contact Point: Paul Airey, Planning Policy and Environment Manager - ☎ 4556
M J A FISHER
Strategic Director of Corporate and Environment Services