1

The Open Spaces Society, founded in 1865, is Britain’s oldest national conservation body.  A registered charity, we campaign to create and conserve common land, village greens, open spaces and rights of public access, in town and country, in England and Wales.  We have 2330 members consisting of individuals, organisations and local authorities. 

2

We are the leading pressure group concerned with the protection, management and public enjoyment of common land, village greens and open spaces, and we are consulted by DEFRA and the National Assembly for Wales on all applications for works on common land made under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, section 23 of the National Trust Act 1971 and similar legislation.

Chapter 1
 

3

We welcome the focus on sustainable development objectives and positive planning objectives. [1.3]  

4

We agree that the present system is riddled with inconsistencies and needs to be more transparent. [1.6]  

5

The process itself results in delays to all parties, even where there has been agreement in principle, while negotiations take place. [1.8]

Chapter 2

6

We welcome the recognition that there must be positive planning to deliver an improved planning system. [2.1]

7

We welcome the recognition that there must be more of a focus on sustainable development.  However we believe this should be addressed in a mainstream way and not just as an incidental matter through planning obligations. [2.2]

8

We are concerned that the proposed change of emphasis, ie to fund affordable housing, would appear to be detrimental to the emphasis of protecting and enhancing site specific environmental considerations and facilities.  However it is usually site specific issues that concern residents and amenity interest groups, and the proposals suggest removing that link between funding and a particular site. [2.5]

9

Under existing arrangements planning obligations can be used to enhance green belt.  For instance PPG 2 states that planning obligations may be used to offset the loss of or impact on any amenity on a site prior to the development on that site.  In the case where amenity on a site adjacent to green belt is lost as a result of development on that site, it may be reasonable for obligations to provide for offsetting benefits on land in the green belt, as long as there is a direct relationship between the two sites.

10

We believe that the majority of any funding for affordable housing should come from central government funding. [2.6]

11

We are concerned that a restriction for obligations to focus on affordable housing/infrastructure could be at the expense of environmental enhancement and protection of open space. [2.8]

Chapter 3

12

We believe that any planning gain must be related to and have connections with the area and be in the interests of the community immediately affected. [3.3]

13

It is important to retain the objectives of PPG 13 to achieve improvements to transport, walking and cycling (referred to in annex C) but we believe this should be extended to provide improvements to footpaths and bridleways, even ones outside development proposals which affect those particular rights of way. [3.4]

14

We welcome the proposal that there should be more openness and information to the public about planning obligations. [3.10]

Chapter 4

15

The disadvantage of allowing authorities to negotiate their own arrangements is that it will lead to inconsistency between authorities. [4.6]

16

Sustainable development should be at the centre of the planning process and not just an add-on by means of planning gain.  The emphasis should be on the protection  and enhancement of site specific environmental considerations and facilities. [4.10]

17

We welcome this proposal as it may help to increase public confidence in the system. [4.30]

18

We accept that the planning obligation system needs reforming.  However we  require that the existing arrangements, whereby planning obligations can be used to assist the green belt, be retained.  It may be reasonable for obligations to provide for offsetting benefits on land, for instance in the green belt, especially where there is a direct relationship between the two sites. [4.41]

Annex A : Option A

19

These proposals are in essence the present system but enforced more strictly, particularly as regards to ensuring that an obligation has a direct relationship to the proposed development.  We would support this proposal. 

Option B

20

Allowing authorities to negotiate arrangements would lead to inconsistency of decisions between authorities.  We do not support this.  

Option C

21

This option would provide more certainty for developers but less flexibility for local authorities.  However evaluating the impacts on which the fees are based is very difficult, for instance how does one evaluate loss of landscape?  We do not support this.

Annex B

22

There should be central government guidance over the levels or values of planning obligations but with some flexibility to reflect local variations in land markets. 

23

Any planning obligations should aim to deliver sustainable development, benefit the local community and enhance the environment.

Annex C

24

It is important to retain PPG 2 (please refer to paragraph 4.41 above).

25

It is important to retain PPG 13 (please refer to paragraph 3.14 above).

26

It is important to retain the recommendation in PPG 17 for new or replacement open space, otherwise vulnerable open space will be lost to development.

 In Summary