| |
Chapter 2
|
| 9.
|
We agree that the current planning system has many
deficiencies. [2.1]
|
| 10. |
We do not accept that the multi-layered structure of
plans with different tiers is causing complexity and delay. It is essential
to have a strategic plan which is map-based and has site-specific policies
for the whole of an area, otherwise comprehensive planning at a local level
will be destroyed, leading to a disaster for sustainable development. It is
however accepted that there is a delay in updating plans at present. [2.3]
|
| 11. |
We accept that some of the national planning guidelines
may need to be revised but it is essential that the vital detail in the
guidelines is not lost.
|
| 12. |
It is essential to highlight the purpose of a planning
system, ie to regulate the use of land in the public interest. [2.4]
|
|
13. |
It will not be possible to improve efficiency without
further resources and training for those involved. [2.5]
|
| 14. |
There is no doubt that planning departments are under
resourced and have skill shortages and that councillors serving on planning
committees are often insufficiently trained. [2.6]
|
| 15. |
We welcome the aim to strengthen enforcement as,
without this, the system as a whole is ineffective. [2.7]
|
| 16. |
We do not accept that stripping away current tiers will
assist in delivering effective protection of the countryside and sustainable
development. There must be a map-based strategic plan for a particular
area, with site specific policies. [2.9]
|
| 17. |
If this paper addresses problems in the system there
should not be any need for a separate system and procedure for business. We
strongly object to the creation of business planning zones and believe that
this will cause problems, especially in urban regeneration areas. This idea
seems to be based on the failed 1980’s policies of simplified planning zones
which allowed inappropriate development to take place. [2.10]
|
| 18. |
We welcome greater community involvement if there is
real participation and not just paying lip service to the community. [2.11] |
| |
Chapter 3
|
| 19. |
Positive planning with conservation area controls,
through the current system, has resulted in the preservation of national
parks and areas of outstanding national beauty, and the character of many of
our towns and villages, and much of our countryside. |
| |
Chapter 4
|
| 20. |
We strongly object to reducing the number of tiers and
consider that this reduction would neither enhance the performance of the
planning system nor speed up the process. [4.2]
|
| 21. |
We strongly object to the abolition of structure plans,
local plans and unitary development plans and to their replacement with a
new, single level of plan. Structure plans are generally an effective
mechanism for planning, supported by staff at a local level. The county
councils consist of democratically elected councillors with whom the public
can identify. [4.8]
|
| 22. |
If there is only to be a regional planning tier, this
would be too remote and would be less likely to engage local communities in
issues which concern them. The region would be too large an area and may
not recognise the differing needs of towns, communities and landscapes
within the region as a whole. One of the aims of this paper is to deliver a
transparent system. This is unlikely to be achieved with a complex regional
planning process.
|
| 23. |
If there is no statutory duty to prepare structure
plans, there would be a loss of staff to the detriment of the system in
general.
|
| 24. |
The DETR’s research into structure planning, published
in 1999 (Examination of the operation and effectiveness of
structure planning process, DETR 1999) made a clear statement that ‘the
statutory structure plan should be retained as the crucial link (our
emphasis) between enhanced regional planning guidance and local plans’.
Also that structure plans ‘should be concerned with the planning of all
matters that require integrated treatment at a sub regional level’. It also
recommended that structure planning be re-established as a joint activity in
those metropolitan and unitary areas.
|
| 25. |
We believe that the removal of structure plans also
removes the possibility of objecting to proposals at that stage and arguably
decreases the input of county councillors.
|
| 26. |
The abolition of statutory plans will lead to a lack of
a cohesion in transport, waste and minerals policy on land use, as transport
will be split between regional and county levels, while the other two will
be dealt with only at county level.
|
| 27. |
The paper states that local authorities will be
required to produce Local Development Frameworks (LDFs). These will not be
comprehensive or map based and will contain only a few policies which are
not particularly prescriptive. The statement of core policies is
appallingly vague. It will be impossible to deliver a plan-led system with
such a generalised approach. The LDFs will be subject to three-yearly
replacement, annual reviews and continual updating which would seem to
require a higher administrative burden than at present, in spite of the aims
of the paper to simplify and speed up the system. It will also severely
reduce the number of issues which are able to be raised at a public inquiry
and the opportunity for the public to be heard - which will be to their
detriment. [4.10]
|
| 28. |
The proposal Action Plans are discretionary and will
not cover the whole area. There may be no consistency between them. They
are no substitute for local plans. [4.13-4.15]
|
| 29. |
We believe that, rather than replacing the current
local plan structure with an untried and cumbersome procedure, it should be
reformed along the lines of the model suggested by the National Assembly for
Wales (Planning: delivering for Wales, consultation paper, February
2002), to deliver sustainable development and environmental protection. It
is essential to develop existing practices, which would also be more
cost-effective.
|
| 30. |
There must be public participation in a workable
process. The proposed local strategic partnership will not be
democratically elected and so it is vital to ensure the local community has
a real role in shaping public involvement. [4.21]
|
| 31. |
The paper is remarkably vague about how the community
will be involved and we would expect this to be fully spelt out, with
guarantees that it will happen.
|
| 32. |
We object to the removal of the right to make
objections to draft local plans, usually at a public inquiry. Informal
hearings, at present by invitation, are not a statutory right. It is
essential that the public has a defined right to participate rather than a
discretionary invitation. [4.26]
|
| 33. |
We believe that counties do play a vital role in the
planning process and should be encouraged to play an active role in
developing sub-regional strategic plans, perhaps within the same process and
timescale as the regional spatial strategies. This would enable retention
of strategic planning at a workable level to gather information and assess
policy options at sub-regional level. There would be flexibility for
sub-regional planning where necessary to combine different authority areas.
It would also reduce the difficulties of separate regional and sub-regional
processes. [4.33]
|
| 34. |
We believe that the essential detail should be retained
in the planning policy guidelines which then reduces the need for repetition
of such statements in regional and local plans. [4.40]
|
| 35. |
We believe that Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) have
the potential to deliver sustainable development. However RSSs should be
democratically accountable. We consider that there is a place for
developing a spatial plan for England as are being developed in Scotland and
Wales. There must be a clear relationship between strategies and plans.
For instance, will the LDF be able to challenge allocations from the RSSs?
|
|
36. |
The regions remain too remote to be making vital
strategic decisions on where new, large-scale developments should go without
any requirement for proper public consultation.
|
|
37. |
We believe county councils should play an active role
in developing sub-regional strategic planning but within the same process
and timescale as the RSSs. (Please refer to our response to para 4.33
above.) [4.49]
|
| 38. |
We believe that national Planning Policy Guidelines are
essential to produce consistent decisions. If their content is reduced this
will be detrimental to the system as a whole, leading to loss of land and an
increase in appeals. They must set out policy in a comprehensive way which
is clear to all parties. [4.54]
|
|
39. |
PPG 3 on housing is a good example. The PPGs must
contain all policy procedural and legal issues in order to produce
consistent decisions.
|
| 40. |
We welcome the review of PPGs 15 and 16 but are
concerned that PPG 9 will not be reviewed for some time, possibly at least
two years. There have been crucial policy developments since 1994 which
must be included in PPG 9 as a matter of urgency. |
| |
Chapter 5
|
|
41. |
We welcome the introduction of a check list to improve
the quality of applications. We suggest that this should include: |
| |
a)
whether an application affects the highway (including public
footpaths or bridleways) or a path publicly used by permission, and the
consequential proposals,
|
| |
b) whether an application affects common land or other
public open space and what replacement land is proposed. [5.7]
|
| 42. |
The present system of dealing with affected highways
after planning decisions have been made, without reference to them, is
incomprehensible and results in cases such as in Salford where a housing
development has been built over a public bridleway, Irlam 13, and the houses
cannot now be sold.
|
| 43. |
We welcome the proposal for there to be pre-application
discussions. [5.9]
|
|
44. |
It is essential that, where a planning application is
made in respect of common land, the applicant is required simultaneously to
apply to DEFRA under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925 for consent
to any works. [5.15]
|
| 45. |
We oppose the reduction of numbers of statutory
consultees. We believe this will lead to a failure to deliver sustainable
development and loss of protection of the countryside/environment. It is
essential that adequate resources are given to such bodies in order that
they are able to carry out their statutory functions. [5.33]
|
| 46. |
If such a reduction takes place it could lead to the
views of parish councils and environment agencies, for instance, being
downgraded in the planning process, leading to loss of vulnerable land as a
result.
|
|
47. |
We strongly object to the creation of business zones:
please refer to our response to para 2.10. [5.36]
|
| 48. |
We welcome the recognition of the abuse of the system
by the use of repeated applications and twin tracking. We support the
proposal that submitting identical and repeated applications will not be
permitted. [5.42]
|
| 49. |
We support the proposal to reduce the deadline for
appeals from six to three months. [5.43]
|
| 50. |
We believe that permitted development rights should be
determined nationally to ensure that consistent decisions are made. [5.48]
|
| 51. |
We are concerned about the proposal to construct the
use classes order to allow maximum possible deregulation consistent with
delivering planning policy objectives since this could lead to developments
which are contrary to the interests of the wider public. [5.51]
|
|
52. |
We support the expansion of the Planning Aid service, subject to detail and
funding. [5.57]
|
| 53. |
We welcome the proposal that all planning meetings will be open to the
public. This is essential for public participation in the process and
to ensure that the process is transparent. [5.59]
|
| 54. |
We welcome the proposal to give reasons for approving
decisions as well as the current practice for giving grounds for refusal.
[5.60]
|
|
55. |
We support proposals for better enforcement throughout
the planning system, otherwise the whole system is at risk of being
undermined. [5.67]
|
| 56. |
We welcome the strengthening of enforcement procedures,
especially making planning breaches an offence, and reviewing the situation
of retrospective applications. [5.69] |
| |
Chapter 6
|
|
57. |
We welcome the proposal to remove crown immunity from
planning control and trust that legislation will be introduced as soon as
possible. The Ministry of Defence has got away with some appalling
developments because of this immunity. [6.5]
|
|
58 |
The Secretary of State’s ‘calling-in’ policy is
unsatisfactory. For instance most unitary development plans have a general
statement that open space must be preserved and should not be developed
unless replaced by equivalent land. We believe councils frequently ignore
this, especially where they own land, and there is a clear conflict which is
increased by the best value agenda. Planning authorities’ decisions can be
wrong, even if they are of only local importance, and they should be
prevented or it should be possible to appeal against them. [6.9]
|
| 59. |
We believe that there should be a right for third
parties to appeal to the Secretary of State against decisions by a local
authority to grant planning permission.[6.19]
|
| 60. |
It is entirely wrong that the planning system allows
one party to appeal against a decision, but denies a similar opportunity to
other parties. There is a need for safeguards to maintain public confidence
in the planning system.
|
| 61. |
t is accepted that there must be a mechanism to deal with
or prevent frivolous applications. An appeal should only be allowed by
those who have objected to the original planning application, perhaps with
the Planning Inspectorate having a discretion in specified circumstances.
|
| 62. |
There should be a right of appeal (a) where the
planning application is contrary to the provisions of an adopted development
plan, (b) where the local authority has an interest, (c) against major
projects, (d) where the application is accompanied by an environmental
impact statement, and (e) where the planning officer has recommended refusal
of planning permission to the members.[6.21]
|
| 63. |
We are concerned that the paper peremptorily dismisses
proposals for a third party right of appeal without a proper examination of
the arguments. [6.22]
|
|
64. |
We are concerned that there is no reference here to
sustainable development and protection of the environment or the
countryside. These aims should be at the heart of a positive planning
system. [6.39]
|
| 65. |
We support the proposal that councillors should undergo
regular training in order to sit on planning committees. [6.40] |
| |
Conclusion
|
|
66. |
We welcome the Green Paper’s aim to deliver a
transparent and efficient system with greater community involvement but
consider this will not be achieved by the current proposals. We are
concerned that there is no clear statement of the objective of the planning
process and only brief reference to environmental protection and sustainable
development.
|
| 67. |
There is too much emphasis on speed rather than quality
and detail, and it is difficult to envisage how many of the proposals will
deliver a faster system. For instance they propose a new administrative
system, local development frameworks and decisions being made at remote
regional levels. There is a lack of direct action to increase resources and
skills to deliver the new system.
|
| 68. |
We are concerned that the public may have no right to
object to local development plans at inquiries and believe this weakens the
proposal to seek community involvement. We believe that refusal to provide
for even a limited right of third-party appeal is damaging to the proposed
aim to deliver a transparent and fair system. The document pays lip service
to community involvement but is vague about how this will be achieved.
|
| 69. |
We are strongly opposed to the establishment of
business zones. If the paper adequately addresses problems in the system
there should be no need for a separate system and procedure for business
development. Furthermore the focus on economy and business has been to the
detriment of a new system to deliver increased environmental protection and
sustainable development.
|
| 70. |
The lack of comprehensive plan coverage across an
entire local authority area increases uncertainty which is damaging to the
planning process as a whole.
|
| 71. |
We welcome the proposal to review the enforcement
procedures as this is essential if the whole process is not to be
undermined. We also welcome the proposal to remove crown immunity.
|
|
72. |
If, despite widespread opposition to these proposals,
the government wishes to proceed, we urge it to prepare a draft bill for
public consultation as it is essential to get the details right. It may be
that many points can be dealt with in subordinate legislation or
administrative action, but consultation on these in draft is essential. |
| |
|
 |
Nicola Hodgson
Case Officer
Open Spaces Society
14 March 2002 |
|