Return to Agenda

ITEM EX6

EXECUTIVE – 23 DECEMBER 2003

GOVERNMENT PLANNING POLICY STATEMENTS

Report by the Head of Sustainable Development

1. This report comments on draft planning policy statements (PPS) on regional planning and local development frameworks and on the Government’s proposals for reforming planning obligations (also known as Section 106 agreements). The documents have been published by the Government as part of the consultation on the detail of its planning reform agenda. Comments are to be submitted by 16 January 2004 on the PPSs and 8 January 2004 on the planning obligation consultation.
2. A number of specific questions are asked in the policy statements and these are addressed in Annex A and Annex B of the report. Specific questions on planning obligations and suggested responses are set out in Annex C. The report recommends that any further detailed responses are delegated to me in consultation with the Executive Members for Strategic Planning & Waste Management and for Transport.

Draft Planning Policy Statement 11: Regional Planning (PPS11)

3. When the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is enacted existing regional planning guidance will be replaced by regional spatial strategies (RSS) for each region of England. The Government’s aim is to better deliver policy by:

• giving more weight to regional planning guidance by replacing it with statutory regional spatial strategy;
• ensuring future changes to RSSs are produced on an inclusive basis of partnership working and community involvement;
• putting the arrangements for producing revised RSS on a statutory basis;
• making the RSS more regionally and sub–regionally specific with a focus on implementation; and
• better integrating the RSS with other regional strategies.

4. The draft policy statement sets out the procedural policy on the nature of RSSs and the requirements for revising them. Key points are:

• the RSS will incorporate the regional transport strategy; provide a spatial framework to inform the preparation of local development documents, local transport plans and regional and sub regional strategies and programmes that have a bearing on land-use activities;
• the RSS should provide a broad development strategy for the region for at least a fifteen year period and, amongst other things, identify the scale and distribution of provision for new housing and priorities for the environment, transport, infrastructure, economic development, agriculture, minerals extraction and waste treatment and disposal;
• sub-regions should reflect functional relationships and be based on a clearly recognisable "strategic policy deficit" which cannot be adequately addressed by general RSS policy or individual or joint development plan documents;
• the emphasis is on partnership working with local planning authorities and county councils to ensure strategy "buy in";
• regional planning bodies are to try to enter into appropriate arrangements with "strategic planning authorities "(county councils and unitary authorities) for help e.g. in providing technical expertise, assisting or taking a lead in sub–regional work, providing advice on conformity issues, monitoring and advising district councils on development plan documents and making representations on planning applications, and any other RSS planning function which the RPB may specify. The draft statement emphasises that the strategic planning officers will still be accountable to their members;
• all authorities are expected to assist RPBs as partners in preparation of draft revisions as they have done in the past, including through assistance of their staff and other resources.

5. In the transition to the new system structure plans will be saved for up to three years from commencement of the Act or adoption of the Structure Plan, whichever is the later, unless during that time RSS revisions are published to replace structure plan policies or the Secretary of State directs otherwise. The policy statement says that strategic planning authorities etc should be encouraged to review plan preparation programmes and reconsider whether it is sensible to redirect resources to RSS.

Draft Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Development Frameworks (PPS12)

6. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill proposes the abolition of Structure, Unitary and Local Plans which, at the local level, will be replaced by local development documents (LDDs). PPS12 sets out the Government’s policy on the preparation of local development frameworks, which are seen as a key component in delivery of community strategies.
7. The local development framework (LDF) is effectively a portfolio comprising a "local development scheme" (described as "a public statement of the local planning authority’s programme for a 3 year project plan"), development plan documents (including a new "statement of community involvement", setting out the planning authority’s approach to the subject, and which must itself be subject to independent examination), supplementary planning documents such as action area plans. Joint local development documents may be prepared by two or more local planning authorities. The county council will be responsible for preparing development plan documents dealing with minerals and waste development.
8. LDDs should be focussed and locationally specific; identify inter-dependencies and functional relationships that exist between places; provide an agreed vision for an area signed up to by the community and stakeholders; and not be restricted to matters that may be implemented through the planning system. Spatial expression will therefore need to be given to those elements of other strategies and programmes, particularly the community strategy, which relate to the use and development of land.
9. A statement of community involvement is to set out the local planning authority’s policy for involving the community in the preparation and revisions of local development documents and significant development control decisions. The LDD must be in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy. The development plan document will be submitted for independent examination. The inspector’s report will be binding on the authority.
10. PPS12 says that local planning authorities are to produce an annual monitoring report and that the county councils have a key role in assisting local planning authorities to develop and maintain an effective information base.

Contributing to Sustainable Communities – A New Approach to Planning Obligations

11. This consultation document sets out the broad principles for reform of planning obligations. The proposals follow on from the Government’s earlier consultation document "Reforming Planning Obligations" in December 2001.
12. The Government considers that the new approach to planning obligations should:

• help to deliver high quality, sustainable development;
• continue to provide affordable housing and infrastructure to accommodate the needs of new development;
• help deliver physical investment to foster high and stable economic growth and productivity;
• provide greater transparency, certainty and effectiveness in securing contributions, while retaining flexibility and reducing delays;
• not impose financial burdens on developers which in themselves deter desirable development.

13. To achieve these objectives the Government proposes a twin track approach of revising planning obligation policy and in parallel introducing an optional "planning charge".
14. Revising Policy: The Government proposes early next year to publish a new policy on the use of S106 agreements to reconcile policy with established case law and encourage best practice.
15. An optional planning charge: The second strand to the Government’s consultation is a proposal to introduce a new optional planning charge to promote greater transparency, predictability, accountability and speed. Key points of the proposal are:

• The planning charge would be set in the LDDs and in the interim in local plans. Levies would be specified for allocated development;
• The planning charge would give developers the option of either paying a fixed planning charge, or negotiating a conventional planning agreement;
• Where a developer chose to pay the planning charge they could not be asked to make additional contributions through a conventional agreement;
• Any non-financial issues would still need to be secured through a conventional negotiated agreement;
• The charges should be set at levels that would be sufficient to mitigate the likely impacts of new development, could be set at varying levels for different types of development – such as brownfield/greenfield or residential/commercial;
• The optional charge would include provision for securing affordable housing via financial contributions, through in-kind contributions or by a combination of both;
• local planning authorities could choose to pool a proportion of the charges with neighbouring authorities. This would need to be declared in the development plan.
• Local planning authorities could also consider preparing joint LDDs where there are significant regional issues that could be addressed by such pooling.

Comments by Head of Sustainable Development

16. My main concerns about the draft policy statements revolve around:
    
    

1. the "democratic deficit" involved
2. the uncertain role of county councils, particularly in relation to sub-regional work, conformity and "policing" issues
3. the complexity of the new development plan system
4. the potential for delay, hiatus and consequent uncertainty
5. the absence of convincing proposals to ensure that adequate investment in infrastructure accompanies or precedes development.
   
   
17. Democratic deficit: At present, the development plan in two tier areas consists of the structure plan, adopted by a directly elected county council, and the local plan, adopted by a directly elected district council. Under the new system, it will comprise a regional spatial strategy, approved by the Secretary of State acting on the recommendation of a regional planning body whose members are either appointed or indirectly elected, and an LDD, adopted by the district council on the "binding recommendation" of an inspector. Thus, unless and until there is directly elected regional government, the development plan for any area will be in the hands of two individuals. It is hard to equate this with either devolving power from central government or greater real (as opposed to token) involvement of the community.
18. At the very least, the PPS should explain why the inspector’s report on the LDD should be binding (especially when the EiP panel’s report on the RSS is not binding on the Secretary of State).
19. The role of county councils in the new process appears to be very limited. They have a right to be consulted, but what constitutes partnership working appears to be in the context of what the RPB decides is necessary.
20. A key role for counties in the document is in assisting the RPB in the sub-regional element of preparing the RSS, an area in which the county council is currently taking a lead role in the preparation of a sub-regional study for central Oxfordshire.
21. Suggested areas of work for counties include providing advice for the RPB on conformity issues between LDDs and the RSS, and in making recommendations on planning applications where regional or sub-regional issues are raised. County councils may have reservations about "enforcing" a development plan prepared with so little local democratic input, particularly if there is no statutory requirement for them to have such involvement.
22. Many commentators have observed that the new system appears to be more complex than the existing one. Annex D (download as .rtf file) contains slides from a recent ODPM presentation which do little to dispel that impression.
23. As an example, the requirements for a "local development scheme" and a "statement of community involvement" are new, and the latter must itself be subject to independent examination, thus effectively adding a stage to the process. There are bound to be concerns that this is little more than tokenism, when the local community’s elected representatives are excluded from the final decision on the LDD.
24. Delay: There is a good deal of anecdotal evidence that planning authorities whose work on local plan reviews is far enough advanced are trying extremely hard to get their local plans progressed under the current system, fearing that the new system will be a greater drain on their resources. Other planning authorities currently find their work shackled by the prospect of the new legislation. The courts have ruled that work done on "local development framework" principles is ultra vires; however, if there is insufficient time to get a local plan adopted under the current system there will be a hiatus, which is likely to lead to more planning by appeal, and greater uncertainty. This was precisely the concern which the county council and many others expressed at the time of the planning green paper. It has already affected the timetable for the review of the minerals and waste local plan.
25. Delivery: a fundamental weakness of the current planning system is the inability to ensure that new development is accompanied by adequate investment in transport and other infrastructure when it is needed. As discussed below, the new system appears unlikely adequately to address this.

(b) A New Approach to Planning Obligations

26. The current system does not deliver the combination of infrastructure and affordable housing required, and there is nothing in the proposed changes to suggest that they will make a significant difference. For example, RPG 9 implies an increase in the proportion of new housing that is affordable from the 18% that has been achieved in recent years to just under 50%. It is hard to see how such housing can be provided, and particularly how such a step change in provision can be achieved, without either significant developer input or public subsidy, yet the paper does not address the issue.
27. There is also the problem that both the current and proposed systems are potentially regressive. There is likely to be more scope to achieve higher levels of contribution/affordable housing in pressure areas such as the south east and more need for subsidy in areas of low demand. This point is not addressed.
28. At times in two tier areas there is unavoidable tension between county requirements for infrastructure (schools, transport, etc.) and district requirements for affordable housing. Ideally, the overall contributions from planning obligations and other sources would be adequate for all needs, but where they are not, there needs to be a clear mechanism for apportioning contributions between district, county and other public service providers. This may be particularly important if the government is proposing to reintroduce capping of council budgets. The responsibilities of county councils in respect of minerals, waste and transport are not mentioned in the consultation document.
29. The proposed mechanism for setting the optional charge appears cumbersome and inflexible. The preparation of LDFs is likely to take several years, and by the time tariffs set in draft LDFs come into force they could well be out of date. It would make more sense to give local planning authorities scope to set the charge through supplementary planning guidance.
30. Equally, given the emphasis on trying to maximise the use of brownfield sites within urban areas – which are often small and frequently cannot be identified in advance – it makes little sense to suggest that the optional charge should only apply to sites allocated in the LDD. There also needs to be a mechanism for pooling contributions from small sites, which at present often do not contribute, although cumulatively they put considerable demands on infrastructure.

Environmental Implications

31. The preparation of the RSS and LDFs covering Oxfordshire could have significant implications for Oxfordshire which will have to be addressed in the preparation of the documents. The impact on the delivery of sustainable communities could be significant if shortcomings on the proposed reform of planning obligations are not addressed.

Financial and Staff Implications

32. The Government’s proposals to reform the planning system and planning obligations could impact on staff and very significantly on the financial resources necessary to deliver the infrastructure and services required to facilitate sustainable development and communities in Oxfordshire. The County Council is likely to have less discretion in undertaking work in areas defined in the proposed policy statement, both work on behalf of the region and particularly the supply of information for the districts. The consequence could be an increase in the required demand for the provision of such services.

RECOMMENDATIONS

33. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to:

1. endorse the comments in paragraphs 17 to 25 of the report as the basis for the County Council’s response to the consultation on the draft planning policy statements on regional planning (PPS11) and local development frameworks (PPS12);
2. endorse the comments in paragraphs 26 to 30 of the report as the basis for the County Council’s response to the consultation on proposals to reform planning obligations;
3. authorise the Head of Sustainable Development, in consultation with the Executive Members for Strategic Planning & Waste Management and for Transport to finalise and submit the detailed responses on the basis of (a) and (b) above.

CHRIS COUSINS
Head of Sustainable Development

Background papers: Nil

Contact Officers:
Ian Walker Tel: Oxford 815588
Howard Cox Tel: Oxford 810436

December 2003

Return to TOP