Sloppy drafting of 'Planning for Growth' - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Ouvert
|
En cours - juillet 2012
|
Dernière modification - May
Sloppy drafting of 'Planning for Growth'
Planners today will be digesting the implications of the budget. Poor links on the DETR website may make a new statement of national planning policy not immediately apparent. http://www.communities.gov.uk/statements/newsroom/planningforgrowth This sets out policy tests that come immediately into place, some of which are welcome, such as the statement 'Authorities should work together to ensure that needs and opportunities that extend beyond (or cannot be met within) their own boundaries are identified and accommodated in a sustainable way, such as housing market requirements that cover a number of areas' In effect local authorities have to cooperate in the subregionally in the same way they did over RSS - RSS by the back door. More troubling is the slopping drafting over the way the statement refer to how to treat applications. 'This statement therefore sets out the steps the Government expects local planning authorities to take with immediate effect...a strong presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework, ...will expect local planning authorities to plan positively for new development; to deal promptly and favourably with applications that comply with up-to-date plans and national planning policies; and wherever possible to approve applications where plans are absent, out of date, silent or indeterminate.' Now this is unclear, does this test apply now or when the NPS is published? 'Wherever possible' it is always possible to approve schemes, does this mean that schemes should always be approved in these circumstances? The publication of national planning policy always renders development plans out of date in some way, does that mean that where it does - which could apply to any development of housing outside the green belt etc. should 'wherever possible' be approved? i.e always. Currently the tests in these circumstances are set out in paras 10-16 in The Planning System: General Principles (2005) http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/147396.pdf Is this now replaced 'with immediate effect' or is it modified? The Second Barker Review suggested a presumption in favour of development where the development plan is indeterminate, does this now apply? The phrasing of planning for growth implies two circumstances - one where a scheme complies with national policy and the development plan, and the other where plans dont apply. Logically however there are four combinations not two. 1. Where a scheme complies with the development plan and national policy - presumably approve 2. Where a scheme complies with the development plan but not more up to date national policy - for example in a more up to date flood risk area traking into account climate change - what happens now? 3. Where a scheme complies with more up to date national policy but not the development plan - for example the more up-to-date still extant circular on Gypsies and Travellers!! 4. Where a scheme complies with neither the development plan or national policy but what is national policy - for example PPS7 protects open countryside for 'its own sake' but 'Planning For Growth' implies that where necessary to meet local housing need countryside not protected by special designations will have to go. The General Principles document has a careful series of tests setting out the circumstances for applying 'other material considerations' as set out by the courts (who for example have stated that a plan being out of date - such as a green belt designated 20 years ago - is not material, what matters is whether is it still supported by the evidence). These tests are now out of date - but clearly need a replacement. In the 80s we at least had a test of 'material considerations of acknowledged importance' which were then listed. Without such a list how are planning officers, decision makers and inspectors expected to weigh and balance decisions and material considerations? Planning for growth simply states 'local planning authorities are obliged to have regard to all relevant considerations' but this is a statement of the law as it existed before 1991 and no longer reflects the current statutory test? (s54a now s38). It is clear that this current statement will be waved at planning committee meetings and public inquiries the length and bredth of the country. Inspectors too will be writing urgently for clarification. I always remember a speech at the RTPI by Richard Wakeford - that the change he was most proud of was insuring that changes to national planning policy only took place after public consultation. I hope Steve Quartermain takes note.
Sorry DCLG, surprised I didnt put MHLG! The circular referred to was 22/80 of course, which im surprised they didnt just dust off and send out again!
The presumption in favour of the development plan is only "unless material considerations indicate otherwise". Government policy is a material consideration. Government policy is promulgated in many ways, including speeches by Chancellors and ministerial written statements. So we have a new Government policy. It is material. So plans must be read in the light of it. The policy is "a strong presumption in favour of sustainable development" (and possibly, or more colurfully, "the default answer to development is yes"). So the issue moves to whether the development is "sustainable". We might, while waiting for more flesh to be put on the bones, argue that those balancing words from the 1980s "which does not cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance" should be read in. They originate from 1923.
I was cut off. I meant to finish by saying the clear message is that this is a budget which wants to promote growth and that must surely be part of the policy as well.
The issue then is the definition. from the recent House of Commons Environmental Audit select committee - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenvaud/799/799.pdf Q27 Peter Aldous: How do you plan to work up the definition of sustainable development that local authorities and then others will use? Will you be using the existing definition or will you be working up a new one? Steve Quartermain: The Minister has accepted that the principles of the definition that are in the 2005 document will be underpinning the basic principles of our definition Usually the 5 principles are on a new government website http://sd.defra.gov.uk/what/principles/ Quote 'Living Within Environmental Limits Respecting the limits of the planet’s environment, resources and biodiversity – to improve our environment and ensure that the natural resources needed for life are unimpaired and remain so for future generations. Ensuring a Strong, Healthy and Just Society Meeting the diverse needs of all people in existing and future communities, promoting personal wellbeing, social cohesion and inclusion, and creating equal opportunity for all. Achieving a Sustainable Economy Building a strong, stable and sustainable economy which provides prosperity and opportunities for all, and in which environmental and social costs fall on those who impose them (polluter pays), and efficient resource use is incentivised. Using Sound Science Responsibly Ensuring policy is developed and implemented on the basis of strong scientific evidence, whilst taking into account scientific uncertainty (through the precautionary principle) as well as public attitudes and values. Promoting Good Governance Actively promoting effective, participative systems of governance in all levels of society – engaging people’s creativity, energy, and diversity.' Scientific evidence and good government are simply a statement that decisions are rational. It is the other three 'end state' issues that will effect case by case decision making. They can be simplified to one simple statement 'meeting needs within resource limits of place' Hmm seems awfully like the Kiwi Resource Management Act principles - In the words of Rob Upton their former planning minister, it is 'a framework to establish objectives with a biophysical bottom line that must not be compromised. Provided that those objectives are met, what people get up to is their affair' One which was criticised in a review in 2007 that 'The RMA works well for small, local consents. But it is inadequate for dealing with wide area, long-term and strategic issues of urban development.' An incoming conservative government in 2009 pledged to change it in order to release more land for housebuilding. All in all the only way to achieve sustainable development whilst accommodating major development is to plan for it strategically.