Communities and Local Government

• Planning, building and the environment
• Publications
• Legislation and policy
• The Government's Response to the Transport, Local Government and Regional Affairs Committee's Report - The Planning Green Paper

Planning, building and the environment

---

Summary

Introduction

1. In December 2001, we issued a Green Paper Planning: delivering a fundamental change. We also issued consultation documents on new procedures for Major Infrastructure Projects; reforming planning obligations; changes to the Use Classes Order; and on compulsory purchase and compensation. We received over 16,000 responses to the Green Paper.

2. The Government's response to the Select Committee reflects careful consideration of the thoughtful and constructive contributions received. We intend to continue this dialogue with stakeholders.

3. We welcome the Committee's contribution to the debate.

4. Since the Committee published its report we have published Sustainable communities: Delivering through planning setting out the key decisions we have taken on the Green Paper proposals in the light of the response to consultation. We also published two supplementary papers on regional and local planning and on compulsory purchase. Those documents addressed a number of the concerns raised by the Select Committee and they are attached. This formal response sets out each of the Committee's recommendations in turn, and gives our view.

The Government's Response to the Committee's Recommendations

5. Recommendation (a) said:

The current planning system requires significantly more staff and resources than are currently available. The new system proposed by the Government will require even more staff, and any radical changes will not be possible until they are in post.
(Paragraph 8 of the Committee's report).

6. We agree with the Committee that the success of the package of reforms in delivering a step change in the operation of the planning system is dependent on proper resourcing. The Government has therefore provided a significant injection of £350 million in additional resources over three years for local authority planning services.

7. Recommendation (b) said:

The inclusion of a statutory objective for the planning system would be helpful if one could be agreed. This will not be easy. Any objective would need to command wide acceptance and should not be a potential source of dispute at each stage of the planning system.
(Paragraph 12 of the Committee's report).

8. We propose to include a statutory purpose for planning in any legislation that is brought forward, subject to ensuring that this is done in a way that does not create additional complications for the way that the system operates.

9. Recommendation (c) said:

The Government should evaluate the desirability of establishing a National Spatial Strategy.
(Paragraph 16 of the Committee's report).

10. We are not convinced of the need to prepare a comprehensive spatial strategy at the national level. We prefer an alternative approach: to make improvements to national planning policy (PPGs); to make clear statements of national policy and priorities in relation to national infrastructure provision; and to strengthen planning at the regional level, including proper consultation with adjoining regions. Revised guidance will give even more emphasis to considering inter-regional issues. We consider that trying to bring all these elements together into a single national spatial strategy would in the English context be an unnecessarily complicated and time consuming task and not enjoy the flexibility of our proposed approach. It would add a tier to the planning system and create delays. The Committee is unclear about the level that they envisage that this would operate at. Planning is a devolved responsibility in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and substantially, in Wales.

11. Recommendation (d) said:

PPGs play an essential role in defining national policy. The Committee welcomes any review which strengthens their role and makes them more user-friendly. The pursuit of brevity must not lead to the omission of essential policy. Distinguishing policy from guidance on its application is helpful provided the policy is not dependent on best practice guidance for its interpretation. PPG3 is an acceptable model. Good practice guidance should have the same weight as a PPG.
(Paragraph 21 of the Committee's report).

12. We welcome the Committee's support for the review of PPGs. We will, over time, review and replace the existing Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) with national Planning Policy Statements (PPSs). We will seek to reduce the volume of guidance and increase its clarity. We intend to review existing policy guidance over the course of the next three years.

13. Recommendation (e) said:

Decisions about regional planning should be taken by groups of democratically-elected members of local authorities. Wider interests should be consulted but not make the decisions. We support the proposal in the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions, that where elected regional assemblies are set up, they should take over regional planning functions. Where elected assemblies are not set up, the present system should remain.
(Paragraph 26 of the Committee's report).

14. We welcome the Committee's support for the proposal that in those regions where elected assemblies are established the assemblies should take over responsibility for regional planning. We disagree with the Committee that where elected assemblies are not set up decisions about regional planning should be taken solely by groups of local authorities. In five of the eight regions draft regional planning guidance is now the responsibility of the more inclusive regional chambers. We consider that such inclusive bodies, provided they meet criteria to be specified in regulations, should have responsibility for producing the new draft regional spatial strategies. There must be safeguards against commercial self-interest dictating policy. Our advice, as set out in PPG11 on Regional planning, is that members must declare any commercial interest and that where these are affected by the draft Regional Planning Guidance (RPG), the relevant member should be excluded from the decision process.

15. Recommendation (f) said:

The Regional Spatial Strategies should take precedence over and guide the land-use aspect of all other regional strategies drawn up by other regional agencies including the Regional Development Agencies' regional economic strategies.
(Paragraph 27 of the Committee's report).

16. We agree with the Committee that the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) should provide the long-term spatial planning context for other regional strategies, including the Regional Development Agencies' strategies. In doing so it will be important that the RSS is better integrated with other regional strategies. We drew attention in the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions, to the role of the regional chambers in facilitating such integration.

17. Recommendation (g) said:

There is a need for an effective sub-regional planning system between the regional planning level and local plans. In addition, planning for waste, transport and minerals, which would continue to be carried out by county councils or their successors, should be effectively integrated into comprehensive sub-regional plans.
(Paragraph 35 of the Committee's report).

18. We agree with the Committee on the need for effective sub-regional planning. However rather than perpetuate a separate tier of sub-regional planning outside the metropolitan areas, we consider that sub-regional issues should be fully integrated into the regional strategy making process with the county councils playing a key role in this, including as agents of the regional planning bodies. It makes sense for county councils to continue with their roles in relation to planning for minerals and waste as they are the development control authorities for these matters, and in relation to Local Transport Plans, counties are the transport authorities.

19. Recommendation (h) said:

Some county boundaries are still relevant but others no longer reflect the way people live or work. Councils should be allowed to agree amongst themselves the appropriate strategic planning arrangements, which could include retaining county structure plans in some areas.
(Paragraph 36 of the Committee's report).

20. We intend to proceed with the Green Paper proposal to abolish county structure plans. Two levels of plans in areas where there are counties and districts leads to complexity, overlap, duplication and delay. It can take 10 years or more to get policy in place if each plan is reviewed sequentially and, as the Committee acknowledge, strategic planning issues can cut across local authority boundaries. Furthermore, much of the content of a structure plan is a mixture of repeated national and regional policies and of detail that should be left to the local level. We consider that authorities should be free to agree amongst themselves what Local Development Framework documents to produce and whether any of these should be on a joint basis, including with a county council. These may cover the area of more than one local planning authority. However, we do not agree for the reasons just stated that this should extend to keeping a two-tier system by retaining structure plans.

21. Recommendation (i) said:

The proposals for Local Development Frameworks have many failings and lack many of the advantages of Unitary Development Plans and Local Plans. The new Local Development Frameworks may be quicker to draw up but they are unlikely to be as clear.

• They would be more complex than the simplicity offered by Unitary Development Plans and Local Plans and would provide less certainty;
• A complex array of plans at a local level would be created which would be fragmented and difficult to understand and co-ordinate;
• The frequent review of frameworks is also unlikely to provide the clarity and certainty sought by the Government and all parties;
• The Local Development Frameworks could cause considerable confusion because of the reliance on vague criteria;
• A plan-led system without a comprehensive land-use map would give rise to a great deal of uncertainty, delay in determining planning applications and a significant increase in planning appeals;
• The proposed Local Development Frameworks may not gain the confidence of local people. The new forms of community consultation for Local Development Frameworks are welcome as is the linking of the frameworks to Community Strategies, but they will not be an adequate replacement for the rights to appear at a public inquiry which are required for Unitary Development Plans and Local Plans.
  (Paragraph 60 of the Committee's report).

22. We are committed to the main principles set out in the Planning Green Paper for reform of the plan making system at the local level. However, we have given careful consideration to the many comments made in response to our specific proposals including those made by the Committee, and revised our proposals accordingly. In response to the particular points made by the Committee:

• the Local Development Framework will bring together all the local planning authority's planning policy documents for its area including the equivalent of any supplementary planning guidance. The core elements of the LDF: area wide policies, statement of community involvement and proposals (see below), will be mandatory for all authorities. However, they will have flexibility to add to that area action plans setting out detailed proposals for change where that is needed. Some authorities may decide to produce just one comprehensive document. The new local planning system should not be any more complex than the present one and will be much more flexible and responsive;
• rather than providing for any fixed review cycle we have taken account of the Committee's concerns and reviews will be undertaken by authorities as frequently as is necessary. Our proposals will allow for quicker and more effective reviews;
• in response to the concerns expressed by the Committee and others we now propose that the general policies in the core strategy should be supported by site specific policies and proposals where appropriate, not just in action plans, and that there should be a proposals map; and
• we have also taken on board the Committee's concerns, about the right to be heard and propose to retain it at the independent examination.

23. Recommendation (j) said:

Retaining and improving Unitary Development Plans and Local Plans would be a better option than introducing Local Development Frameworks, since there would be certainty and continuity as well as the retention of public confidence in the system. The process of drawing up and adopting Unitary Development Plans and Local Plans has been slow, but it is now almost complete. Considerable progress has been made in solving the problems and further improvements could be made if:

• the plans were approved by inspectors after a public inquiry;
• rigorous preparation timetables were laid down and enforced with appropriate penalties; and
• repetition of policies in structure plans and regional planning guidance was removed.
  (Paragraph 61 of the Committee's report).

24. We agree with all three of the Committee's recommended improvements and they are reflected in our proposed new arrangements. However, unless we also introduce more flexibility into the development plan system and the examination process these reforms will not be sufficient. Under our proposals we will require the local planning authority to prepare a three year project plan, or Local Development Framework Scheme, setting out the documents they propose to prepare for the LDF and the timetable for preparing each one. Adherence to the scheme will form part of the Best Value assessment indicators against which the performance of the local planning authority will be measured. We propose to substantially improve the process whereby plans are tested and adopted.

Better engagement at earlier stages in the process will help reduce objections at later stages. But we also intend to: abolish the "two-stage" deposit process; promote mediation over objections to plans; require time-tabling of the inquiry process and give Inspectors more control over the procedures to be used subject to the right to be heard. This will include thorough consideration of written representations, an examination conducted on a round table basis, and a hearing or a formal local inquiry if necessary. We propose to make the Inspector's recommendations binding on the authority subject to a power of direction by the Secretary of State.

25. Recommendation (k) said:

The revision of plans should not cease because of the proposals for reform, as Lord Falconer stated.
(Paragraph 62 of the Committee's report).

26. We strongly agree with the Committee. We continue to expect local planning authorities to progress their reviews of development plans under the existing arrangements as quickly as they can. We will be introducing a new Best Value indicator in 2003-04 to measure this. We will consider transitional arrangements so that work done under the present system can be on account of the proposed new system. We will also be publishing joint guidance with the Planning Officers Society, the Local Government Association and Royal Town Planning Institute on how authorities can move forward with plan reviews in the interim period before any new planning Act. Further guidance on the transitional arrangements for any new Act will be published in due course.

27. Recommendation (l) said:

The Committee welcomes some of the adjustments to the present development control system. We strongly support the proposal that re-applications should not be automatically accepted. None of these proposals requires primary legislation, and they illustrate the kind of evolutionary approach to improving the planning system which will bring general benefit.
(Paragraph 64 of the Committee's report).

28. We welcome the Committee's support for the changes to the development control system. Some of the proposals mentioned by the Committee will require changes to primary legislation and we shall seek an early opportunity to introduce these as well as pressing ahead with those that do not require such legislative changes.

29. Recommendation (m) said:

Targets for reaching decisions are useful to provide guidance for local authorities on operating an efficient development control system, but considerable flexibility is required to allow for complex applications which cannot be considered within the timescales. It should be remembered that delays can be due to the developer as well as the local authority.
(Paragraph 69 of the Committee's report).

30. We welcome the Committee's support for targets for reaching decisions. For 2002-03 we improved the targets we set local authorities for handling planning applications. The targets are now focussed on the different types of applications that authorities handle and reflect the different expectations of the speed with which cases can be decided. Each target is set to take account of the fact that not all applications can be determined within the target timescales. We will keep the targets under review and will strengthen them if necessary.

31. Recommendation (n) said:

The Committee supports the proposals to reduce planning permissions to three years. However it is important that a 'standard' time limit is not applied in cases where a longer implementation period is justified by the applicant. There should be an opportunity for local variation where appropriate.
(Paragraph 72 of the Committee's report).

32. We welcome the Committee's support for the reduction in the period of validity of a planning permission to 3 years and recognise the Committee's concerns about flexibility. We will implement this change with the caveat that local authorities should have the discretion to agree longer permissions where this would be appropriate.

33. Recommendation (o) said:

The 90 per cent target is arbitrary, and no justification was given for it. If the Government decides to go forward with the target that 90 per cent of planning applications should be delegated to officers, it should advise Local Planning Authorities on the types of application which might be suitable for delegation to officers (eg householder applications) and the circumstances in which officers could decide applications without infringing democratic accountability (eg where there are no local objections and the Chief Planning Officer would recommend approval). All local authorities should be required to monitor delegated decisions. The Government should reiterate the seriousness with which it would view attempts to influence officer decisions by inducements.
(Paragraph 74 of the Committee's report).

34. We strongly disagree with the Committee on this point. We consider that delegating decisions to officers can help to simplify planning procedures, speed up the process, minimise costs and leave Committee members with more time to concentrate on major or controversial cases. We should stress that the 90% figure is a target, rather than a mandatory figure. Local authorities who receive a disproportionate number of controversial applications which cannot be dealt with by officers, can always justify performance below 90% on these grounds. However, a fifth of district councils are already achieving 90% with a further 10% achieving 80% or more so there is clearly much scope for other authorities to significantly increase the number of delegated decisions without harming local democracy. We would view any attempt to influence decisions by officers most seriously.

35. Recommendation (p) said:

Statutory consultees have an important role in contributing specialist advice to local authorities on planning applications. The proposal to reduce the number of statutory consultees would not in itself reduce the time taken for consultees to respond, since it takes only one key consultee to cause a delay. Furthermore, authorities are not obliged to wait anyway.
(Paragraph 82 of the Committee's report).

36. We are happy to join with the Committee in recognising the important role that statutory consultees have in providing specialist advice. However, the Planning Green Paper identified statutory consultees as a major potential source of delay in processing planning applications. The responses to the consultation did nothing to change our view on this. We intend therefore that the number of statutory consultees and the types of development for which they should be consulted should be reviewed but we agree with the Committee that there should be no presumption that the list should be reduced.

37. Recommendation (q) said:

Last year the Government published a report which sought to improve the current arrangements by ensuring that:

• local authorities facilitate pre-application discussions with statutory consultees;
• consultees are required to allocate sufficient resources and put in place systems to respond promptly to planning applications.

We recommend that in place of its proposals to reduce the number of consultees, the Government introduce these recommendations.
(Paragraph 84 of the Committee's report).

38. As we have set out above in response to recommendation (p) (at paragraph 36 above), we will review the list of statutory consultees with no presumption that the list should be reduced. We continue to support the recommendations for speeding up the consultation process set out in our document Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultation report and encourage all consultees and local planning authorities to adopt its examples of good practice.

39. Recommendation (r) said:

Witnesses recognised that there was a need for better consultation. We support the proposal that all local authorities should be required to publish their consultation arrangements. The Department should issue clear guidance and examples of best practice.
(Paragraph 85 of the Committee's report).

40. We welcome the Committee's support for this proposal. Local Planning Authorities will be required to include a Statement of Community Involvement as part of their Local Development Framework. This will set out benchmarks for community participation in the preparation of LDF documents and significant planning applications. Consultants are carrying out research to determine the precise manner in which these matters should be expressed, and this will include guidance and examples of best practice which we shall publish.

41. Recommendation (s) said:

The Green Paper does not adequately consider the need for third party rights of appeal. Greater community participation at the pre-application stage is not a substitute for the legal right to appeal against a decision. External scrutiny is required to avoid the potential conflicts of interest between the local authority as planning authority and the local authority as property owner or developer with a pecuniary interest in the result of a planning application. The National Assembly for Wales' approach to reviewing planning decisions made by councils concerning land that they own should be monitored with a view to its possible adoption in England.
(Paragraph 90 of the Committee's report).

42. We disagree with the Committee. The Green Paper set out clearly our reasons for not supporting a right of appeal for third parties, even one limited in scope. A right of appeal for third parties would slow down the system and would not be consistent with our democratically accountable system of planning. Elected councillors represent their communities - they must take account of the views of local people on planning matters before decisions are made and justify their decisions subsequently to their electorate.

In relation to the situation outlined by the Committee, local authorities are often required to take decisions on issues in which they have dual interests - there are around 5,000 cases a year in which local authorities have an interest in land to which they grant planning permission. Sometimes these are town centre sites; often they involve regeneration. Local authorities operate under strict rules to deal with possible conflicts of interest and avoid any impropriety.

Local authority development proposals, like those of other persons applying for planning permission, must be decided in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Proposals which do not accord with the local plan must be notified to the Secretary of State so that he can consider whether to call in the application for his own determination. Local authorities are obliged to act fairly in relation to persons affected by planning decisions. Their decisions are subject to control by means of judicial review in the Courts. This ensures that decisions are taken in accordance with the law and within the authority's powers, and that they do not act for any illegitimate purpose or extraneous motive, for example bias or vested interest. There are in addition numerous other general safeguards to ensure propriety in all decision making by local authorities.

43. Recommendation (t) said:

The existing right of third parties to object to draft policies in Local Plans and Unitary Development Plans, and to pursue these to inquiry in front of an independent Inspector if unresolved by the local authority, is a vital third party right. We recommend that it should not be watered down. Third parties should have the right of appeal where there has been a significant departure from to the Local Plan or Unitary Development Plan.
(Paragraph 91 of the Committee's report).

44. We recognise the Committee's concerns about limiting the right to be heard. We have therefore decided not to remove the right to be heard for objectors to draft Local Development Framework documents (see paragraph 22 above). We note the Committee's view that third parties should have a right of appeal in the case of departures against development plans. But we take the same view as on the general issue of third party rights of appeal as set out in paragraph 42 above.

45. Recommendation (u) said:

The proposal for Business Planning Zones appears to be based on the misconceived idea that the planning system is stopping desirable development rather than helping to enable it. There is no evidence of this. The zones are unlikely to encourage significant amounts of development, but there is a serious danger that the development which they will attract, will be car-based and of a lower standard than if they had been subject to normal planning controls. The best means of promoting sites for high technology development is using the existing planning system.
(Paragraph 97 of the Committee's report).

46. We intend to proceed with the proposals in the Planning Green Paper for Business Planning Zones (BPZs). Some high-tech companies working on the leading edge of technologies operate in an environment that is extremely fast moving and where businesses start up and either expand or fail quickly. We want to enable such companies to operate in an equally flexible planning regime. Similarly, we want areas of low growth or high unemployment to be able to stimulate new jobs with improved planning for business. BPZs will need to be planned in the regional strategic interest but will be designated by individual local authorities. Development within BPZs will be of high quality and of low environmental impact, and we will set the parameters of development tightly to ensure that good quality environments are created. An environmental impact assessment will be required before a BPZ can be designated. We would not intend them to include activities that are major employment generators or that have high infrastructure requirements, or that require special environmental requirements, such as generating noxious substances. We will be issuing guidelines on how the new Zones will work.

47. Recommendation (v) said:

There is a 'business' agenda running through much of the Green Paper. It largely ignores the environment while supporting business development. The planning system is the key bulwark in preventing urban sprawl and restraining unsustainable development and should not be subservient to the requirements of business. The reforms should stress the need for the planning system:

• to protect the countryside and improve the quality of the built environment;
• to minimise the use of natural resources; and
• to reduce the need to travel.
  (Paragraph 103 of the Committee's report).

48. We reject the Committee's suggestion that the Green Paper outlines a 'business agenda'. The planning system should not be subservient to the interests of any single interest group. Our proposals will build on the fundamentals of the planning system which have been built up over many years: the philosophy of the 'plan-led' system; applying the principles of good regulation - consistency, proportionality, targeting, transparency and accountability; and promoting and facilitating effective public participation. As we made clear in the recent Planning Policy Paper Sustainable Communities: Delivering through Planning we believe that the planning system should deliver in a sustainable way key Government objectives such as housing, economic development, transport infrastructure and rural regeneration whilst protecting the environment. Planning should: create and sustain mixed and inclusive communities; enable local communities to be involved much more positively than before; and deliver a high quality and respected public service.

49. Recommendation (w) said:

The Government's proposals for tariffs would replace one form of complexity with another. Instead of site by site negotiated solutions after the submission of planning applications, enormous effort would be required to establish the basis for tariffs around the country, authority by authority, at the forward planning stage.
(Paragraph 124 of the Committee's report).

50. Recommendation (x) said:

There is a danger that the change to the tariff system will affect the Government's grant to local authorities.
(Paragraph 125 of the Committee's report).

51. Recommendation (y) said:

However, the Government's other proposals (see points above) for improving the practical operation of the planning obligation system would tackle many of these objectives without the need for changing the whole basis of the system. We recommend that the Government introduces those procedural changes first as outlined above, and only revisits more radical options for reforming the planning obligations system to improve its speed and transparency, if significant problems remain in five years' time.
(Paragraph 126 of the Committee's report).

52. Recommendation (z) said:

The Government needs to undertake substantially more work to demonstrate that funding affordable housing by tariff rather than by the current system of negotiation will clearly produce significantly more affordable housing.
(Paragraph 131 of the Committee's report).

53. Recommendation (aa) said:

We were heartened that Lord Falconer wishes to consult on the details of the emerging scheme and on the Government's advice to local authorities, but, nevertheless, feel that the proposal to introduce a tariff requires considerable further development before the Committee can take a view on whether it is workable.
(Paragraph 133 of the Committee's report).

54. We consider that many of our objectives can be delivered without legislative change. We will revise our policy guidance and work with all the relevant stakeholders to create a more streamlined system that will enable the community to share in the benefits arising from development. We will also carry forward the measures in the consultation paper for making the present system more transparent and predictable. For example, we have already required planning obligations to be entered on the planning register to ensure that they are open to public inspection.

55. Recommendation (bb) said:

We strongly support the proposal to introduce National Policy Statements. They should be the subject of public consultation after which they should be debated by Parliament on an amendable, substantive motion. If they are prepared well in advance of projects coming forward, they will be a major step forward. The policy statements could take a variety of forms:

• in some situations they would indicate a need to make provision within a region, leaving the regional guidance to indicate a suitable site for the particular facility;
• in others, they would need to indicate a range of options or a precise location or route corridor. The policy statements should relate to the National Spatial Strategy.
  (Paragraph 141 of the Committee's report).

56. We welcome the Committee's support for the proposal to introduce National Policy Statements.

57. Recommendation (cc) said:

We recommend that the Secretary of State have the power to designate projects as Major Infrastructure Projects (MIPs) by the new Parliamentary process, but emphasise that he should only select Major Infrastructure Projects of truly national significance for authorisation. We are concerned that both the list of potential Major Infrastructure Projects in Annex C of the Government's paper, and the list contained in the Town and Country Planning (Major Infrastructure Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2002 are far too broad.
(Paragraph 144 of the Committee's report).

58. Recommendation (dd) said:

Based on the evidence received, there is unlikely to be any time saving by adopting the proposed Parliamentary process. The Government has continued to stress the length of time taken by the public inquiry to consider Heathrow Terminal 5; this was wholly exceptional.
(Paragraph 161 of the Committee's report).

59. Recommendation (ee) said:

If the Government were to go ahead with its Parliamentary proposals, the public would also lose confidence in the inquiry system since long established rights of hearing would be restricted. It will be very difficult for Parliament to give a fair consideration to Major Infrastructure Projects as required by the Human Rights Act. Even if there is no formal whipping of MPs by party managers, the influence of party discipline would be extremely difficult to avoid.
(Paragraph 162 of the Committee's report).

60. Recommendation (ff) said:

Giving Parliament the power to decide on the principle, need for and location of a Major Infrastructure Project would lead to unavoidable duplication later at a public inquiry and the increased likelihood of legal challenge.
(Paragraph 163 of the Committee's report).

61. Recommendation (gg) said:

It is not appropriate for MPs to be asked to consider the issues raised in Major Infrastructure Projects given the likely length of hearings and the probable need to sit part of the time away from the House. If implemented the proposal would constitute a retrograde step and would be counter to the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bills of Session 1987-8, which was approved and implemented by both Houses. Worse, the partial consideration suggested would add a further highly undesirable complication that would almost certainly increase the likelihood of delay, thus defeating the main object of the proposal.
(Paragraph 164 of the Committee's report).

62. Recommendation (hh) said:

When it 'approves' Major Infrastructure Projects, Parliament should do no more than it currently does under section 9 of the Transport and Works Act for schemes of national significance. We therefore recommend that the scope of the Transport and Works Act be extended so that certain Major Infrastructure Projects may be selected by the Secretary of State to fall within an appropriately amended section 9 of the Act.
(Paragraph 165 of the Committee's report).

63. Recommendation (ii) said:

Under our proposal, as with other Transport and Works projects, after completion of the Parliamentary stage the project would be scrutinised at public inquiry. At the inquiry the Inspector would be guided by a National Policy Statement and the approvals of both Houses of Parliament. These would be weighty material considerations for the Inspector to take into account. There would also be further guidance from the Secretary of State who will have issued a statement of the matters which should be considered at the inquiry. Nevertheless, the public inquiry would be the forum to consider all aspects of the proposed development.
(Paragraph 166 of the Committee's report).

64. We recognise the Committee's reservations about whether a Parliamentary procedure would lead to a speeding up of the process of planning Major Infrastructure Projects. We do not intend therefore to pursue the Parliamentary element of the package. We shall instead be introducing proposals when the legislative programme permits to enable public inquiries to be conducted more efficiently.

65. Recommendation (jj) said:

We welcome the Government's proposals for making public inquiries more efficient, and emphasise the need to keep the Major Infrastructure Projects inquiry rules under review and update them when necessary.
(Paragraph 169 of the Committee's report).

66. We welcome the Committee's support for the need to make public inquiries more efficient and have recently published new Procedure Rules for conducting inquiries into Major Infrastructure Projects. One way that this might be achieved is by allowing the consideration of issues concurrently rather than sequentially. Initial findings suggest that this could save inquiry time of up to a third. This means that the inquiry would not have to wait for each issue to be dealt with in turn, when two or more issues can be dealt with quite adequately at the same time, thereby saving time.

67. Recommendation (kk) said:

We welcome the formation of the DTLR's Planning Central Casework Division to handle the Secretary of State's called-in and recovered appeals, and Lord Falconer's statement that he envisages that within two years the Division will halve the time it takes for decisions to be announced. In the past the announcement of decisions has on occasion been delayed for political convenience. In this context we note that both the new MIP and the 2000 inquiry rules require the Secretary of State to notify his decision "as soon as practicable" after taking it. We recommend that this rule be amended so that the Secretary of State is required also to take the decision itself as soon as practicable to ensure that decisions are made when required for the efficient operation of the planning system.
(Paragraph 170 of the Committee's report).

68. We welcome the Committee's support for the establishment of the Central Casework Division. The Government needs to improve its performance in handling 'called-in' cases and recovered planning appeals. We have already set ourselves the challenging target of cutting in half by March 2004 the average time taken from the close of a public inquiry into a called-in planning application or a recovered appeal. The benchmark for improvement is performance at October 2001, when 80% of cases were decided in 32 weeks from close of inquiry to decision. Our target is, by March 2004, for at least 80% of cases to be decided within 16 weeks from close of inquiry to decision. We believe that setting statutory timetables would help to underpin our work to deliver performance improvements. We will therefore seek an enabling power in primary legislation for the Secretary of State to prescribe a timetable for called in and recovered planning appeal decisions and any such changes will be reflected in all the relevant Inquiries Procedure Rules as necessary.

69. Recommendation (ll) said:

By comparison with some of the relatively small savings that can be obtained by improvements to the current inquiry process, it is clear from the example given that very considerable time savings can be made by improvements elsewhere. We recommend that the Government conducts a thorough formal review, and reports upon both the pre-application and post regulatory approval stages of all aspects of Major Infrastructure Projects.
(Paragraph 171 of the Committee's report).

70. We agree with the Committee that we will need to continue to keep the situation under review.

71. Recommendation (mm) said:

In combination the recommendations which we have made relating to national policy statements, Parliamentary procedures, public inquiries and the decision taking stage, will bring about the required improvement in procedures while at the same time providing a fair hearing for affected parties and retaining public confidence in the inquiry system. Of no less importance is the need for Ministers not to postpone taking decisions for political reasons after an Inspector's report has been received.
(Paragraph 172 of the Committee's report).

72. We are committed to speeding up the processes for dealing with Major Infrastructure Projects. We believe we can achieve this by pressing ahead with the proposals to issue clear statements of national policy, and to make public inquiries more efficient and we shall be introducing statutory timetables for determining called in and recovered planning appeals (see paragraph 69 above).

73. Recommendation (nn) said:

The Government's theory that the planning system inhibits economic growth appears to be based on anecdote and prejudice. Well-planned land uses create a favourable climate for investment as many successful local authorities have shown. Attractive and well planned cities are often the most prosperous. With improvement, the existing forward planning system will continue to achieve this.
(Paragraph 185 of the Committee's report).

74. We agree that good planning not only contributes to quality of life but also enhances economic performance. We find it surprising that the Committee should dispute that poor performance should have an inhibiting effect. The facts speak for themselves as over 90% of councils fail to meet the target that 80% of planning applications should, on average, be decided within 8 weeks. 63% of local authorities plans are out of date, 13% are not yet in place. While we have a lot to thank the planning system for, we need greater efficiency which will help both the economy and ensure high quality development.

75. Recommendation (oo) said:

It could well take more than five years before the changes proposed in the Green Paper are fully operational and even longer. The development plan system introduced in 1991 has taken up to ten years to bring full benefits for its users, notably local authorities, developers and local communities. These should not be lost by adopting the Planning Green Paper proposals. With modification to existing Unitary Development Plans and Local Plans, the same objectives could be achieved without the delay which would be caused by the Government's proposals. Many of the other incremental reforms, which have been proposed in this report, could start immediately and not cause the hiatus which the fundamental proposals inevitably will cause.
(Paragraph 190 of the Committee's report).

76. The example the Committee uses provides clear evidence of the need for reform. Under the reforms introduced in 1991 all authorities were supposed to have a plan in place by 1996. As at December 2001, 45 local authorities (13%) have still to adopt their first plan and 214 current plans are becoming out of date with few signs of early review. Cascading a policy change down through reviews of Regional Planning Guidance (RPGs), Structure Plans and Local Plans cannot be achieved in less than about 12 years (based on average times). After the last round of RPG reviews it took 21 counties more than 5 years to adopt a revised plan. Even if all the timetables were halved it would still not amount to an effective development plans system. We recognise that there is a need to maintain certainty and confidence in the plan led system prior to, and from, the introduction of the proposed reforms. Our current proposals are closer to the current development plans system than the Green Paper model and thus would cause less difficulty for Local Planning Authorities in taking on board more of the Local Development Framework principles prior to commencement of the Act. We will be issuing best practice guidance as soon as possible on how Local Planning Authorities can approach plan preparation in the period up to commencement of the Act.

77. Recommendation (pp) said:

Local Authority Planning Departments are short of staff. The Green Paper does not give sufficient weight to the need for councils to retain their planning staff or for the profession to attract new graduates so as to make the current system work effectively. The Government needs to be working more closely with local authorities to improve staff retention, and with schools, universities and the professional bodies to make planning a more popular career. The Government's reforms are unlikely to change the image of the planning profession and raise the status of planners.
(Paragraph 202 of the Committee's report).

78. We strongly agree with the Committee that there is a need to increase staffing levels in local authorities. The Spending Review settlement (see paragraphs 6 and 83) will enable this to happen. However, improved staffing levels will not, of itself, deliver the changes we seek. There needs to be a wider "culture change" in the way planning is delivered. Central to our reforms is the need to re-establish the profile of planning by underlining the positive role it has to play in delivering economic and social change and shaping the future of our communities. The Royal Town Planning Institute is taking a lead in considering the ways in which planners are trained and educated, developing new ideas for life-long learning from the initial education of undergraduates through to continued professional development. The RTPI Education Commission's findings and recommendations are due to be published in the Autumn. More generally, The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is to engage in a process of discussions with a wide range of stakeholders on "culture change" issues - how to promote positive planning, improving education and skills, raise the profile of planning and improve customer service.

79. Recommendation (qq) said:

An incremental approach to reforming the planning system would allow the reforms to be introduced as the skills become available.
(Paragraph 203 of the Committee's report).

80. We disagree with the Committee. The planning system needs a step change in performance. Past attempts at incremental change have failed. The Modernising Planning Statement (January 1998) set out our original agenda for change. It encouraged "shorter, clearer, plans" and a timetabled approach. This was followed by a revised PPG12 (Development Plans) at the end of 1999 and new regulations introducing the "two-stage deposit" process to encourage negotiation with objectors to shorten inquiries. This has produced very few obvious signs of change. Deposited plans are still far too detailed, and practitioners are sceptical as to whether the changes to the regulations have helped. Despite some improvements by those targeted under Best Value, the average position has stayed the same. Incremental change has had little effect. Our reforms build on the fundamentals of the planning system, improve where there are good foundations and provide for comprehensive change where it is needed.

81. Recommendation (rr) said:

Additional funds can be secured by raising application fees but they will not in themselves be sufficient. Local authorities must recognise the important strategic role performed by their planning departments and to allocate a higher proportion of their budgets to them.
(Paragraph 204 of the Committee's report).

82. We agree with the Committee that raising application fees is only part of the answer to the underfunding of planning departments. We raised fees by 14% from 1 April 2002 because we found that they had fallen behind the cost of processing applications since the increase in 1997. Our own research indicates that the level of resources which local authorities have put into planning had declined significantly in real terms since 1996, over and above any fee income shortfall. The Spending Review settlement is intended to rectify this. It will be distributed through a new planning delivery grant which will start in 2003-04. More money must mean a better standard of service, so the extra resources will only go to those authorities that demonstrate their commitment to a high quality planning service. Authorities will be awarded grant when their planning performance improves against Best Value Performance Indicators. The money will not be ring fenced, so authorities will be able to spend it as they like. But they will only get it when their planning performance improves and so authorities are now on notice that they will have to sharpen up their performance. In the interests of transparency, we will require authorities to prepare separate accounts for their planning services.

Order

• This publication is out of print. For information on availability please email publication.query@communities.gsi.gov.uk

Alternative formats

If you require this publication in an alternative format (eg Braille or audio) please email alternativeformats@communities.gsi.gov.uk quoting the title and product code/ISBN of the publication, and your address and telephone number.