Natural England

Planning green paper: AN AGENCY RESPONSE (AP02/04)

FOR DECISION

The Planning Green Paper

1. The Government published its Green Paper, , in December 2001. It has invited the comments of the Countryside Agency.

2. Ministers have heralded the need for a Green Paper in recent months as the Government has sought to adapt a fifty-year old planning system to serve the needs of the twenty-first century. Briefly, the Green Paper proposes that:

• local plans will become more focused Local Development Frameworks;  

• national, regional and sub-regional planning will be adapted to form a new strategic level (in which structure plans will have no part);  

• more efficient systems will be applied to development control, with an emphasis on enabling, not regulation;  

• the Secretary of State will review his own role in the planning system, looking particularly at delivery;  

• communities will be given better access to the planning system.  

3. The Agency is in a good position to respond to the Green Paper, based on our ambitious planning agenda in Planning Tomorrow's Countryside. Many of those ideas were included in the Green Paper proposals.

4. It is important to note that the Green Paper is concerned solely with the planning system. It does not address details of planning policy.

5. The Green Paper is accompanied by separate consultation documents on planning obligations and major infrastructure projects. Although forming part of a Green Paper 'package', the documents have a separate consultative process and they are discussed in separate Board Papers.

Our broad reactions to the Green Paper

6. Earlier in the Green Paper process, we asked that a number of basic improvements to the planning system (drawn from Planning Tomorrow's Countryside) should be included in its proposals. These ideas - outlined below - have been included in the Green Paper and we therefore recommend that we offer broad support to its proposals - but with some detailed reservations. We examine below the extent to which these earlier ideas have been addressed. 

A new purpose for planning

7. Planning Tomorrow's Countryside advocated a redefinition of the objectives of land-use planning. Above all, the planning process must move from its current emphasis on regulation and development control so that it can re-find its roots as a visionary process that can guide and inspire the activities of others.

8. The Green Paper sets objectives for the planning system that combine the importance of visionary guidance with opportunities for community involvement. It suggests a streamlined process that is more responsive to local circumstances - but which also provides leadership and inspiration.

Proper links with spending plans 

9. Too many plans assume that their policies and proposals will automatically be implemented by other organisations, and nor do they pay much attention to the plans, strategies and spending plans that surround them. This results in an unconnected decision-making process.

10. The Green Paper addresses these points, emphasising the need for the proposed Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks to forge links with the spending plans and policies of a range of strategic bodies, while reinforcing the importance of engaging the community through involvement and consultation. These connections will provide the opportunity for the planning system to play a central role in a wider, more holistic vision for rural and community well-being.

A new style of plan

11. Plans at regional and local level should provide strategic direction and avoid becoming bogged down with detailed policy. We recommended shorter plans which would give direction, not detail, backed by supplementary guidance and action plans for areas of major change. Communities should have considerably more involvement in their preparation.

12. The Green Paper reflects these aspirations closely. Its proposed Regional Spatial Strategies will give guidance for that crucial level of planning. The Spatial Strategies will provide a broad direction for the proposed Local Development Frameworks to be prepared by district and unitary authorities. Action plans will provide further detail where necessary. 

13. However we have reservations about the proposed partial coverage of sub-regional planning, which will replace the strategic policy level currently occupied by structure plans. We think that this new arrangement might leave strategic gaps in rural areas, not adequately covered by regional frameworks.

14. We therefore need to seek more details from those who are designing the new process.

A new form of development approval process 

15. Development control is the link between planning policy and activity on the ground but it has suffered from becoming increasingly regulatory and mechanistic over the years. We look for a development control process (or development approval, as we prefer to call it) in which planners become facilitators and enablers of high quality development rather than regulators of policy.

16. The Green Paper makes all these points and we support it accordingly - particularly those proposals which give the community a greater involvement in decision-making. We also welcome proposals for 'master planning' on major sites, which is close to our idea of 'concept statements'. Our reservation is that the Green Paper bases much of its need for change on the speed of decision rather than on the quality of development. We therefore need to remind the Government of this issue, and of the importance of discussions between developers and communities before planning applications are submitted - because often that is the point when quality can be improved.

The Agency's response

17. The Agency's draft formal response of broad support is attached at Annex 1. It examines the points above in the context of the main Green Paper themes:

• objectives for planning and the need for change
• moving from local plans to local development frameworks
• a new role for sub-regional planning policy
• a more strategic role for regional planning policy
• clearer national planning policy
• speed and quality in development control  

• Ÿ the Government's own role in the planning system
• Ÿ setting planning fees for local authorities
• Ÿ a review of compulsory purchase and compensation.  

18. For each of these themes, we outline the agency's aspirations for the planning system (outlined in Planning Tomorrow's Countryside) and, having tested them against the relevant Green Paper proposals, we set out our conclusions.

19. We will also need to work with the DEFRA team to ensure that the proposed new processes will be readily adapted to the needs of national park authorities. There may also be consequences for the proposed South Downs Park in particular.

Recommendation

• 19. To agree that the Agency should respond to the Government's Planning Green Paper in the following terms: to offer broad support to the Green Paper proposals but with some detailed reservations. The Agency's response is attached at Annex 1.

  January 2002 

Annex 1

THE PLANNING GREEN PAPER: 

The response of the Countryside Agency

The Countryside Agency's aspirations for planning

1. The Countryside Agency has an ambitious agenda for the planning system, set out in Planning Tomorrow's Countryside (2000) and subsequently refined as our policy work has developed. We are, like the Government itself, committed to effective planning for both people and places, and to a society that achieves the sustainable development it needs while protecting the qualities it values.

2. We are pleased to see many of our aspirations reflected in the Planning Green Paper and we offer it our broad support. We outline that support - and sometimes disagreement over detail - in our response below. In that response, we set out the Agency's aspirations against each Green Paper heading and, having 'tested' them against the associated proposals, we draw our conclusions accordingly.

3. Our response concentrates on the broad proposals of the Green Paper but we will also be examining a number of detailed or technical matters as a separate exercise. We would be pleased to discuss our findings with the Department.

Green Paper proposals for new objectives for planning and the need for change

Our aspirations. 

4. In Planning Tomorrow's Countryside, the Agency sets out a clear purpose for the planning system: to promote sustainable development that will bring social, economic and environmental benefits. To achieve this, we maintain that the planning system must have:

• a new purpose;
• proper links with spending plans;  

• Ÿ a new style of plan;
• Ÿ a new form of development approval process.  

5. Above all, we maintain that the success of planning authorities should be measured against meeting their targets and programmes for the implementation of sustainable development projects in their area.

Our conclusions

6. The Government's requirements for a successful planning system are very close to those of the Agency and we offer them our support. These requirements (1.4)include: 

7. We differ, though, in terms of emphasis:

8. We also question some of the assumptions that lie behind the Green Paper, particularly:

9. A planning system that allows and encourages good community access has our support (2.5) but we are concerned that the ways in which communities might be engaged are ill-developed or absent.

10. The findings that the planning system has become bogged down (1.8) accords with out own view but the tone of the Green Paper is unnecessarily negative. The system has undoubted problems but, as the Green Paper itself acknowledges, 'there have also been some clear wins' (3.3).

Green Paper proposals for local plans

• 11. The Green Paper has at its heart proposals for a 'fundamental change for plans' (4.1), which identifies a new scope and function for each level of planning activity. The strategic elements - national, regional, and sub-regional planning - are examined elsewhere in this response. This section concentrates on the proposed new form of local planning which replaces structure plans, local plans and unitary development plans with a new Local Development Framework, to be prepared by district and unitary authorities. 

Our aspirations. 

12. Like the Green Paper, we see local planning as a pivotal part of the planning process. In our view, local plans should:

• include vision statements setting out what the authority intends to achieve and the beneficial changes it wishes to promote during the plan period;  

• encourage whole-community involvement during their preparation;  

• comprise two elements: a slim 'long-life' document containing the authority's vision, policies and sutainability criteria; and more flexible supplementary planning guidance for areas of significant change;  

• set out the criteria that define 'beneficial change' in its local context and express the principles that will lead to sustainable development;  

• include a statement on how the local authority will promote the changes identified in the plan - and on how it will co-ordinate public spending plans;  

• handle areas of change as insets to the plan, usually accompanied by 'concept statements' and an implicit invitation for developers to respond accordingly;  

• be based on a ten-year time horizon, with formal revisions every five years and more frequent partial amendments to reflect changing circumstances.  

Our conclusions

13. The shift towards a more indicative Local Development Framework - with its statement of core policies, action plans for areas of change, and maps showing action areas and existing designations - is supported (4.8). The Framework, in articulating a vision and delivering development to match, has the potential to introduce policy integration across a range of strategies. We note that national park authorities have a role in both preparing their Local Development Frameworks (4.17) and in making connections between those Frameworks and their management plans (4.11). This sort of joined-up approach should be encouraged elsewhere, too. 

14. Likewise, we support the idea of action plans (4.13), which will determine the scope and type of development through master plans, neighbourhood and village plans, design statements and site development briefs - although:

• we are concerned that the process of allocating land and activities in areas without action plans is ill-defined;  
• action plans are generally described in an urban context but many rural areas - particularly the national parks - would benefit from the approach.  
• 15. The further introduction of criteria based policies (4.10) is welcome. It is at this stage that some our own approaches (such as Quality of Life Capital and Village Design Statements) will come into their own. 

16. There will be tensions between locally responsive Local Development Frameworks and the nationally or regionally inspired Regional Spatial Strategies - but there is no indication of how the tension will be resolved (4.20).

17. The principle that the community should become more involved in the planning process is helpful (4.21) - particularly through Local Strategic Partnerships and Community Strategies - but:

• involvement should include the whole community;  

• it is unclear whether community involvement will be a genuinely 'bottom-up' approach or if it is to be a layer of consultation;  

• the connection between Local Strategic Partnerships, Community Strategies and the proposed action plans for neighbourhoods or village needs to be clarified, particularly at the early stages of the processes;  

• the issue of resources and skills for community involvement is not adequately discussed.  

We will explore how Parish Plans and Market Town Checklists can contribute to this process.

18. The proposed Statements of Community Involvement (4.22) - which set out how the community should be involved in both the continuing review of the Local Development Framework and in commenting on significant planning applications - are welcome.

19. The differences in detail between the Agency's proposed timetable for the review of Local Development Frameworks and that of the Green Paper (4.29) are not significant. We both propose a longer review of the visionary and core policy element with more flexible, partial reviews of the policy implications in the light of changing circumstances.

20. If the emphasis on community involvement is to carry through to the whole planning process, the public must be allowed a say in the adoption of Local Development Frameworks (4.26). This means that:

• we support those Green Paper options that introduce some form of independent inquiry but we have no preference for the actual approach;  

• we do not support proposals that exclude public involvement at the point of adoption;  

• we are concerned that representations on the adoption of action plans will be restricted to just those with property rights (4.27).  

Green Paper proposals for sub-regional planning policy

21. We comment here on two Green Paper proposals: the introduction of sub-regional planning, and the abolition of structure plans.

Our aspirations 

22. In the past, the Countryside Agency has not addressed the idea of sub-regional planning per se and nor has it compared the value of structure plans with other forms of strategic planning. Nevertheless, it is clear that the achievement of the Agency's aspirations for policy integration and sustainable development require effective planning at the strategic level.

Our conclusions

23. The value of structure plans (4.36) over the past thirty years has been considerable but we have no strong views on whether they should be retained as institutions. Rather, we stress the need for good strategic planning at a 'structure plan' sort of level and the challenge is to provide it in a form that is at least as good as, and preferably better than, the current arrangements. 

24. Consequently, while recognising the value of sub-regional planning as a mechanism, we remain unconvinced that its proposed partial coverage (4.50) will provide the crucial strategic link between regional and local planning: in areas without sub-regional planning, the gap might be too great. However we recognise that this conclusion is based on the thin information currently given about the scope of Regional Spatial Strategies and sub-regional strategies. We look forward to further discussion of these to see if our concerns can be met.

25. The success of sub-regional planning will depend very much on the provision of the necessary administrative processes - which are ill-defined in the Green Paper.

26. With or without structure plans, county councils should retain a key role in the planning process, based on their role in:

• acting as principal co-ordinators of planning at the regional level and making connections between region and district;  

• providing and joining up key county services to form a coherent planning and delivery strategy;  

• thinking and co-ordinating across district boundaries;  

• forging partnerships and acting as honest brokers;  

• working closely with county-based Local Strategic Partnerships;  

• connecting town and country;  

• taking a broad view of transport matters - with their implications for all levels of planning - through Local Transport Plans.  

27. We support the county council role as the planning authority for minerals and waste disposal. The effects of these two activities almost always transcend district boundaries.

Green Paper proposals for regional planning policy

Our aspirations

28. The Agency has long supported the provision of integrated, strategic advice at a regional level. We invest considerable Regional Office time and expertise in ensuring that current regional planning guidance reflects the interests of rural areas.

29. We were much heartened by the publication of PPG 11, Regional Planning in 2000, which gives a greater role and enhanced status to planning at that level, but we also acknowledge that its integration with the strategies and public spending plans of other organisations - particularly those of the Regional Development Agencies - is far from perfect.

Our conclusions 

30. In addition to the tension between locally and regionally inspired policy noted in paragraph 16 above, we conclude that the replacement of regional planning guidance by more focused but wider embracing Regional Spatial Strategies (4.42) will lead to a more integrated cascade of policies to the levels 'below'. It will also allow better co-ordination with the strategies and, crucially, the spending and delivery plans of other regional organisations - particularly the economic strategies of the Regional Development Agencies.

31. A statutory status for Regional Spatial Strategies (4.42) will give them a force currently lacking in regional planning guidance.

32. The proposals do not address the need for Regional Spatial Strategies to reflect the diversity of a region (4.42) - and in particular for the countryside to be seen as more than 'the bit that is not the town'.

33. Proposals for the democratic accountability of regional planning (4.44) are too reticent. If the process of preparing Regional Spatial Strategies is to fulfil its objectives, and if they are to be given statutory status, then their ownership and accountability must be better than the present hotch-potch arrangements.

Green Paper proposals for national planning policy

Our aspirations 

34. Clear national policy and guidance is an essential starting point for plans and their ultimate delivery on the ground.

35. We seek genuine national guidance - not direction - which planning authorities and others can interpret and tailor to the circumstances of their locality. National policy should set the scene - firmly if necessary - but not act as a strait-jacket to local determination. The current range of national planning guidance acts against the concept of subsidiarity by providing too much detail and prescription.

Our conclusions 

36. We welcome the proposal to review current planning policy guidance (4.59), which will concentrate on the important policy issues that need to be determined at a national level. We agree that the planning system needs clear and unambiguous national guidance, which separates policy from advice (4.60).

37. The proposals do not sufficiently address the existing variable provision of national policy on infrastructure needs - airports, ports, road networks and so on (4.59). 

Green Paper proposals for development control

38. We rarely become involved in development control casework but we nevertheless acknowledge that it forms the crucial link between planning polices and development on the ground. It is one of the main mechanisms for ensuring that development is sustainable and, as such, we call for a number of changes.

Our aspirations

39. Our proposals for an improved development control process include:

• shifting towards a less regulatory emphasis, working towards enabling development rather than regulating it, and perhaps with a change in terminology from development control to development approval;  

• finding more time to achieve good quality development on significant sites through a swifter processing of minor proposals: this could be made possible by:  

• increased delegation to officers;  

• an extension of the prior notification process to many householder applications;  

• various technical changes to permitted development rights;  

• Ÿ requiring significant proposals to include a level of community involvement appropriate to their local impact; 

• Ÿ accepting that the use of outline planning permission cannot guarantee sustainable development and abandoning it as a procedure.  

Our conclusions

40. We submitted a set of ideas on development control procedures to the Green Paper drafting team during the process of preparation and are pleased to see how they accord with many of the present proposals.

41. We offer our broad support to the proposed new scope and purpose for development control (5.4), which aspires to a process that is:

• responsive;
• quick, predictable and transparent;
• geared to high quality development;
• community based.  

42. In offering our support, we have one specific reservation. We support the idea of expeditious development control (5.19) and the associated measurement targets (5.20) but we believe that a speedy process will make it more difficult to achieve high quality and sustainable development. Indeed, there is every likelihood that it will not.

43. We welcome moves to make development control more customer responsive (5.6), including a user-friendly checklist (5.7), pre-application discussions (5.9), customer care (5.11), and e.planning (5.12).

44. The introduction of master planning (5.42) accords very closely with our own ideas, although:

• we would like to see a commitment to our approach of 'concept statements';  

• the idea of development certificates (5.42) - with which we agree providing that they are subject to full democratic accountability - should be extended to ensure that they always replace outline planning permission, which should be abolished.  

45. Community involvement and advice (5.52) should involve the whole community. In particular, we support:

• better consultation;
• an increased use of Planning Aid;
• open committees.  

46. The Green Paper proposes to restrict statutory consultee status (5.33) within the development control process to those government agencies with parallel consent procedures (such as the Environment Agency and English Heritage) and to those with health and safety responsibilities. It remains important that planning authorities should have all the specialist information they need to determine planning applications but Countryside Agency has no firm views on the mechanism by which it might be delivered. The Agency is currently a statutory consultee for aspects of Environmental Impact Assessments. 

47. We accept that many leading-edge industries work in a global market and can locate anywhere in the world; and we understand that the proposed Business Planning Zones (5.36) might well attract such businesses to the UK or to particular regions. Nevertheless, we find that the Green Paper proposals for such Planning Zones are poorly thought out because:

• the Green Paper acknowledges (5.37) that they will work only for businesses with a low impact on local housing and transport links which, by definition, means those with a small workforce. This might not be in the national or regional interest.  

• although the proposals envisage Business Planning Zones as a nationwide concept (5.38), they are likely to be attractive only in areas of existing growth;   

• communities found it difficult to gain a voice in the similar Enterprise Zones of the 1980s and the Simplified Planning Zones of the 1990s;  

• the idea shows a lack of faith in the ability of Local Development Frameworks to deliver business needs.  

• 48. We favour an approach to Permitted Development Rights (5.49) based on a national definition that can be adapted, if necessary, by planning authorities to suit local circumstances. Such flexibility would need to be clearly stated and easily understood to avoid confusion and inconsistency. This approach would accord with the idea of responsiveness to local needs within the planning system and it would fit well with the spirit of subsidiarity. 

49. The Agency strongly supports the use of well-founded and transparent planning obligations as a way of ensuring sustainable development. We will be making separate comments in our response to the parallel consultation paper, Reforming Planning Obligations.

Green Paper proposals for the Government's own role in the planning system

50. We note here and comment (in bold type) on a range of Government proposals for improvements to its own performance in the planning system.

51. Green Paper proposalSuch statements are essential: they could well have reduced the timescale of the Heathrow Terminal Five Inquiry, for instance. We will make more detailed comments in our response to the associated consultation paper, Major Infrastructure Projects.

52. Green Paper proposalAlthough parallel consent procedures operate for development on Crown land, the Crown is a major developer (often in the countryside) and such immunity is an anomaly in the planning process. Crown immunity for the control of many forms of development should be removed.

53. Green Paper proposalWe support these targets and we call for a greater use of moderation in resolving disputes before they get to the stage of becoming a planning appeal. 

54. Green Paper proposalWe recognise the good arguments both in favour of, and against, the introduction of third-party rights of appeal within the planning process. These arguments are legal, moral and constitutional. The Agency considers that the well-being of the countryside would be best served by the skill, rigour, openness and community involvement used in creating plans and policies rather than the introduction of more legal challenges. Resolving potential conflicts within the plan-making process will obviate much of the need for third-party rights of appeal.

55. Green Paper proposalWe support this proposal.

56. Green Paper proposalThis is fundamental to the success of the Green Paper. 

Green Paper proposals for planning fees

57. The Green Paper has an associated technical document on the scale of planning fees. The document concentrates entirely on setting a level of fees that will allow local authorities to recover the full cost of determining planning applications. It also includes financial formulae to be used and methods of monitoring.

58. The Agency has no comments on the technical aspects of the planning fees paper but we support the proposal in Recommendation Three that the full extent of funds available to a planning authority from fee-income should be clearly identified. This would ensure that development control teams are adequately resourced. 

Green Paper proposals for compulsory purchase and compensation

59. The Green Paper also has an associated review of compulsory purchase and compensation procedures. This is a technical document and the Agency does not wish to comment on its procedural or financial detail. 

60. We support, though, one of the reasons for compulsory purchase: to allow authorities to purchase land compulsorily for the full range of planning and regeneration purposes - not least because the Countryside Agency has compulsory purchase powers for some aspects of its work. We recognise that compulsory purchase is usually seen as a tool for helping to assemble land for major urban regeneration schemes but we maintain that it has equal scope in assisting smaller proposals in market towns and villages, too.

Countryside Agency

January 2002