House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee

Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies: a planning vacuum?

Second Report of Session 2010–11 Volume II Additional written evidence

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 28 February 2011

Published on 17 March 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

The Communities and Local Government Committee

The Communities and Local Government Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Current membership Clive Betts MP (Labour, Sheffield South-East) (Chair) Heidi Alexander MP (Labour, Lewisham East) Bob Blackman MP (Conservative, Harrow East) Simon Danczuk MP Rochdale (Labour, Rochdale) Steve Rotheram MP (Labour, Liverpool Walton) Mike Freer MP (Conservative, Finchley and Golders Green) Stephen Gilbert MP (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay) David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) George Hollingbery MP (Conservative, Meon Valley) James Morris MP (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis) Mark Pawsey MP (Conservative, Rugby)

The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament: Clive Efford MP (Labour, Eltham) George Freeman MP (Conservative, Mid-Norfolk) Toby Perkins MP (Labour, Chesterfield) Chris Williamson MP (Labour, Derby North)

Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/parliament.uk/clg. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.

The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume.

Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Huw Yardley (Clerk), Judith Boyce (Second Clerk), Josephine Willows (Inquiry Manager), Kevin Maddison (Committee Specialist), Emily Gregory (Senior Committee Assistant), Mandy Sullivan (Committee Assistant), Stewart McIlvenna, (Committee Support Assistant) and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Communities and Local Government Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 1234; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

List of additional written evidence

(published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/clgcom)

1 Dr Tim Leunig, LSE (ARSS 01) Ev w1 2 John Halstead (ARSS 02) Ev w2 3 National Plot Owners Association (ARSS 03) Ev w3 4 Lower Broadheath Parish Council (ARSS 04) Ev w4 5 Jim Parke (ARSS 05) Ev w5 6 Jim Parke (supplementary) (ARSS 05A) Ev w10 7 Steve Tremlett (ARSS 06) Ev w11 8 Paul Cheshire, LSE (ARSS 07) Ev w14 9 Blaby District Council (ARSS 08) Ev w18 10 Bedfordshire Councils Planning Consortium (ARSS 10) Ev w19 11 Mr & Mrs D Thorpe (ARSS 11) Ev w21 12 Tring Town Council (ARSS 12) Ev w22 13 Pentland Homes Ltd (ARSS 13) Ev w22 14 McCarthy & Stone (ARSS 14) Ev w23 15 Star Planning and Developement (ARSS 15) Ev w25 16 West Midlands Regional Sustainability Forum (ARSS 17) Ev w27 17 Dr Helen Chadwick (ARSS 18) Ev w28 18 Gazeley UK Ltd (ARSS 19) Ev w30 19 RIBA (ARSS 20) Ev w32 20 English Rural Action Ltd (ARSS 22) Ev w34 21 CBI Minerals Group (ARSS 23) Ev w36 22 Save Our Green Spaces (ARSS 24) Ev w37 23 SSE (ARSS 25) Ev w39 24 Robert Hitchins Limited (ARSS 26) Ev w41 25 The Community Law Partnership (ARSS 27) Ev w44 26 Community and Regional Planning Services (ARSS 28) Ev w46 27 Rail Freight Group (ARSS 29) Ev w50 28 ENPAA (ARSS 30) Ev w52 29 Janet Mackinnon MA (ARSS 31) Ev w54 30 Joseph Rowntree Foundation (ARSS 32) Ev w56 31 Whitchurch Village Action Group (ARSS 34) Ev w60 32 Association of Regional Observatories (ARSS 35) Ev w62 33 Mills & Reeve LLP (ARSS 37) Ev w63 34 Pegasus Planning Group Ltd (ARSS 38) Ev w65 35 Galliford Try (ARSS 39) Ev w70 36 Councillor Professor Alan Townsend (ARSS 40) Ev w72 37 Npower Renewables Ltd (ARSS 41) Ev w76 38 CPRE South East (ARSS 42) Ev w80 39 Crest Nicholson Plc (ARSS 43) Ev w84 40 Traveller Law Reform Project and Friends, Families and Travellers (ARSS 44) Ev w87 41 Hogan Lovells International LLp (ARSS 45) Ev w91

42 Finham Residents Association (ARSS 46) Ev w94 43 Cavendish Keymar (ARSS 47) Ev w95 44 E.ON (ARSS 49) Ev w98 45 Dr Angus Murdoch (ARSS 50) Ev w99 46 Oldham Common Save our Green Spaces (ARSS 51) Ev w103 47 South Wiltshire Agenda 21 (ARSS 52) Ev w104 48 North West Transport Roundtable (ARSS 53) Ev w107 49 Irish Traveller Movement in Britain (ARSS 54) Ev w108 50 The Gypsy Council (ARSS 55) Ev w112 51 Eric Avebury, Professor Thomas Acton OBE, Professor Alan Townsend, Andrew Ryder, Marc Willers (ARSS 56) Ev w116 52 Hallam Land Management Ltd (ARSS 57) Ev w117 53 Harborough District Council (ARSS 59) Ev w121 54 Graham Pearce, Aston University, and Sarah Ayres, Bristol University (ARSS 60) Ev w112 55 County Councils Network (ARSS 61) Ev w126 56 The Law Society (ARSS 63) Ev w127 57 Residential Landlords Association (ARSS 64) Ev w128 58 David Lock Associates (ARSS 66) Ev w131 59 Ashfield District Council (ARSS 67) Ev w135 60 House Builders Association (ARSS 69) Ev w139 61 Retirement Housing Group (ARSS 70) Ev w141 62 Building and Social Housing Foundation (ARSS 71) Ev w143 63 Freight on Rail (ARSS 72) Ev w147 64 Young Planners Thought Leadership Group (ARSS 73) Ev w150 65 Boyer Planning Ltd (ARSS 74) Ev w153 66 South Worcestershire local planning authorities (ARSS 75) Ev w156 67 Ropemaker Properties Ltd (ARSS 76 Ev w161 68 Ecotricity (ARSS 77) Ev w164 69 Anglian Water Services Ltd (ARSS 78) Ev w168 70 Devon County Council (ARSS 79) Ev w173 71 SJ Berwin LLP (ARSS 80) Ev w175 72 Covanta Energy (ARSS 82) Ev w178 73 Bristol Friends of the Earth (ARSS 83) Ev w181 74 Chris Skidmore MP (ARSS 84) Ev w184 75 Dundry Residents Action Group (DRAG) (ARSS 85) Ev w186 76 Land Use Consultants (ARSS 86) Ev w187 77 Leicestershire County Council Liberal Democrat Group (ARSS 87) Ev w191 78 Environmental Services Association (ARSS 88) Ev w194 79 British Property Federation (ARSS 90) Ev w196 80 Norfolk County Council and Norfolk County Strategic Services (ARSS 91) Ev w198 81 Staffordshire County Council (ARSS 92) Ev w200 82 Turley Associates (ARSS 93) Ev w202 83 North East Chamber of Commerce (NECC) (ARSS 94) Ev w207 84 Leicestershire County Council (ARSS 95) Ev w208 85 Grundon Waste Management Ltd (ARSS 96) Ev w212

86 Construction Industry Council (ARSS 97) Ev w214 87 Fenland District Council, Huntingdonshire District Council, and Cambridgeshire County Council (ARSS 98) Ev w217 88 Denton Wilde Sapte (ARSS 100) Ev w220 89 Network Rail (ARSS 101) Ev w224 90 The Wildlife Trusts (ARSS 102) Ev w226 91 Alan Wenban-Smith (ARSS 103) Ev w228 92 Leckhampton Green Land Action Group (LEGLAG) (ARSS 104) Ev w232 93 Cumbria County Council (ARSS 106) Ev w233 94 Mineral Products Association (ARSS 107) Ev w237 95 Southern Water Services (ARSS 108) Ev w238 96 National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups (ARSS 109) Ev w239 97 ARUP (ARSS 110) Ev w240 98 Persimmon Homes (ARSS 112) Ev w246 99 Rushcliffe Borough Council (ARSS 113) Ev w249 100 English Heritage (ARSS 114) Ev w251 101 Legal and General Property (ARSS 115) Ev w251 102 Bloor Homes (ARSS 116) Ev w252 103 Essex County Council (ARSS 117) Ev w253 104 Levvel Ltd (ARSS 118) Ev w257 105 Cheshire Wildlife Trust, Cumbria Wildlife Trust, and The Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester & North Merseyside (ARSS 119) Ev w262 106 Housing Forum (ARSS 120) Ev w266 107 West Coast Energy (ARSS 121) Ev w268 108 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (ARSS 122) Ev w271 109 Merseytravel (ARSS 123) Ev w273 110 Barton Willmore (ARSS 124) Ev w278 111 London Gipsy and Traveller Unit (ARSS 125) Ev w282 112 College Development Company and Kennet Properties Limited (ARSS 126) Ev w285 113 Landscape Institute (ARSS 127) Ev w289 114 Professor Colin Jones (ARSS 128) Ev w293 115 The Theatres Trust (ARSS 130) Ev w296 116 Savills (ARSS 131) Ev w298 117 Fairview New Homes (ARSS 134) Ev w300 118 Chartered Institute of Housing (ARSS 135) Ev w304 119 Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain (ARSS 136) Ev w307 120 Planning and Development Association (ARSS 137) Ev w310 121 Baker Associates (ARSS 138) Ev w313 122 Federation of Master Builders (ARSS 140) Ev w317 123 Worcestershire County Council (ARSS 141) Ev w320 124 Local Government Association (ARSS142) Ev w322 125 Thames Water (ARSS 143) Ev w324 126 Localise West Midlands (ARSS 144) Ev w326 127 Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (ARSS 145) Ev w330 128 Dr Alastair Scott (ARSS 147) Ev w332 129 Kent County Council (ARSS 149) Ev w334

130 UK Green Building Council (ARSS 150) Ev w337 131 North West Regional Leaders Board and North West Regional Development Agency (ARSS 152) Ev w338 132 Beryl Metcalfe (ARSS 153) Ev w341 133 Bryan Jezeph Consultancy (ARSS 154) Ev w345 134 Kilbride Four Ashes (ARSS 155) Ev w348 135 Redcliffe Homes (ARSS 156) Ev w349

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SO] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w1

Written evidence

Written evidence from Dr Leunig, London School of Economics (ARSS 01) Abolition of RSS House Building Targets and Evaluation of Proposed Incentives Summary — The abolition of RSS house building targets is welcome if accompanied by sufficient incentives… — But the proposed incentives are manifestly insufficient. — If nothing changes, house building rates will fall, house prices and rents will rise, the numbers in poor quality housing will increase, inequality will increase, and the housing benefit bill will rise further. — Much better alternatives are available, that would give local councils big incentives to support new development, particularly in areas and periods of greatest need, and without any cost to central government.

In Detail 1. The replacement of “top-down” RSS based housing targets is to be welcomed, provided that it is accompanied by incentives sufficient to increase total house building. 2. The proposed incentives are far too small, and house building will fall dramatically. (a) Some significant housing plans have already been withdrawn or rejected. (b) MPs generally see the changes as meaning fewer houses in their area (in my area Zac Goldsmith has been jubilant about cuts in house building that he expects locally) rather than seeing new incentives that will lead to more houses being built. (c) No academic or independent expert I know believes that the incentives are large enough to maintain let alone raise house building rates. Glen Bramley (Herriot Watt University) estimates that London house prices will double in real terms by 2025, to an average of £500,000 in today’s money as a result of falling levels of house building. Does anyone think that is what we need? 3. Good incentives would have three characteristics: (a) Large enough to induce councils to support house building. (b) Larger in areas in which additional housing is most needed (ie areas with high house prices) (c) Larger in periods in which additional housing is most needed (ie periods in which prices are rising) 4. Ideas such a community infrastructure levy and 6x council tax do not meet these criteria. 5. In order to make new housing electorally popular, incentives have to be large. It seems plausible that the necessary profit for the council, over and above the cost of providing new infrastructure (ie not just the roads on which the new houses are built, but also additional school and hospital places, etc), will be in the tens of thousands of pounds per property, and self-evidently that money must be received immediately if agreeing to new housing is to be electorally advantageous to councillors. Both CIL and 6x council tax fail this test—CIL on size, 6x council tax on size and that it arrives long after the development—the political party that allowed the development could easily not be in office by the time the money arrives. 6. House prices can be high for two reasons: because an area is intrinsically attractive, or because it is an economically attractive place to live. In general, high house price areas in Britain are because they are economically attractive places to live. Surbiton, where I live, has high prices primarily because of proximity to London, a major employment centre, not because it is beautiful. 7. Given this, expanding housing in high house price areas, such as most of the south east, is economically much more sensible than expanding housing in other areas with lower house prices, since the high house prices indicate a well-functioning economy that is good at creating jobs and wealth. This is where people want to live, and it is where Britain plc should want people to live. 8. We therefore want incentives to be greater for councils in high house price areas. The 6x council tax idea fails this criteria, and the CIL is not necessarily bigger in such areas either. There is a danger that even if we get some houses, we will not get them in the optimal locations. 9. House price booms and busts are unhelpful to individuals, who cannot plan ahead, and who may get “caught out”, buying at the top, and for society, since busts can lead to negative equity, restrictions on labour mobility and so on. For that reason we need greater incentives to build when prices are rising, and smaller incentives to build when prices are falling. To some extent developers have those incentives already, but the extent is clearly insufficient, given the observed cyclicality of house prices. We therefore need an automatic incentive to councils to support more development when prices are rising. Neither the CIL nor the 6x council tax idea meet that objective. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w2 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

10. A better solution is that set out in my pamphlet “In my back yard” [see bibliography]. This shows how the highly successful 3G mobile phone spectrum auction mechanism can be applied to extract most of the rise in land values when planning permission is given for local communities. (Note that this is not a tax on development, and does not require funding from central government). Councils would have a very large incentive to support development (c. £100k per property over and above section 106 levels in high value parts of the south east), the incentive would be greatest in places where house prices are highest, and greatest in periods when prices are highest. Thus all of the desirable criteria for planning incentives are met. The Town and Country Planning Association say that the idea is workable and compatible with good planning objectives, the Barker Review said that it should be piloted, Michael Gove endorsed it as Conservative Policy when he was Tory shadow Housing Spokesperson, as did Edward Davey when he shadowed the ODPM empire on behalf of the LibDems. 11. The failure to adopt this scheme, or another scheme that would achieve the same objectives, will lead to falls in house building rates. This increases the number of people who are inadequately housed. This has bad effects on them in the short run, but also in the medium term—we know, for example, that children growing up in overcrowded conditions find it harder to do homework, reducing educational attainment. It also means rising house prices and rising rents. Although this is good for some people (usually the older and wealthier), that is at the expense of others (usually the younger and poorer). Rising rents will also increase housing benefit bills, raising the tax burden on all of us. Finally, higher costs for non-residential land increase the cost of everything produced in Britain, raising living costs and make the UK economy less competitive internationally.

Bibliography 1. Tim Leunig In My Back Yard: Unlocking the Planning System Centre Forum, March 2007

2. Tim Leunig and Henry Overman “Spatial Patterns of Development and the British Housing Market” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 2008 24(1):59–78, special issue on Housing Markets and the Economy. August 2010

Written evidence from John Halstead (ARSS 02) Review of the Coalition’s Localism Agenda — The whole matter of planning control is a real maze and is often impossible for people to understand. — Present procedures regularly result in decisions that are unfair and defy common sense. — Complexity causes unnecessary cost burdens on local councils and ultimately on council taxpayers, due to the need for large numbers of staff. — Needs and solutions vary considerably across the country and the prevailing “one size fits all” concept is inappropriate and damaging to community life because local conditions presently carry little weight in the determination process. — Planning officials presently slavishly adhere to “guidelines” and disregard local conditions and impacts. — Planning committees are often afraid to refuse inappropriate applications due to the risk of appeal costs against their councils. — I submit that the object of planning control is to determine what is best for a particular area and its inhabitants whilst taking into consideration the needs of the wider community. The present system often fails to achieve that objective. — The planning “industry” has expanded beyond what is required to protect town and country from inappropriate development. — The proposal to introduce more localism is most welcome. Simplification of the planning determination procedure and the introduction of localism is definitely required. I can cite several cases locally where common sense has been disregarded and where unfairness has been caused due to obscure planning arguments; two examples of illogical and unfair decisions are shown as an appendix to these notes for study if appropriate. So, here are my suggestions for solutions that will bring some simplicity, fairness and sense into the procedure and save considerable cost at Local Council level. For domestic housing proposals, including new builds, extensions, renovations. A presumption in favour of permission providing: 1. The proposal would have no adverse effect on nearby properties. 2. The proposal would have no adverse effect on the area. 3. The proposal would be environmentally “friendly”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w3

4. The proposed style would be in keeping with other property in the area. 5. The proposal would not overload local services (roads, schools, drainage etc.). In the event that one or more of the five conditions are not met, then the proposal is referred to the appropriate planning committee for debate and decision. For industrial/commercial proposals, including new builds, extensions, renovations, changes of use. A presumption in favour of permission providing: 1. The proposal would be within a designated or existing industrial/commercial area. 2. The proposal would not adversely affect nearby business premises or domestic housing. 3. The proposal would incorporate the latest environmental protection measures. 4. The proposal would not overload local services (roads, drainage etc). 5. The proposal would incorporate appropriate safe access/egress for commercial vehicles. 6. The proposal would incorporate adequate off road parking for delivery, collection, staff and visitors’ vehicles. In the event that one or more of the six conditions are not met, then the proposal is referred to the appropriate planning committee for debate and decision. For infrastructure proposals, including roads, power stations etc. A presumption in favour of permission providing: 1. There is a proven need for that proposal in that location. 2. The location is suitable in terms of technical, scientific, heritage or environmental requirements. 3. No other location would be as suitable for technical, scientific, heritage or environmental reasons. 4. There is a fair compensation plan in place for residents and businesses adversely affected. Compensation determined by the average of three valuations by professional valuers; one appointed by the proposer, one appointed by the affected resident/business and one by the appropriate Parish Council. In the event that one or more of the four conditions are not met, then the proposal is referred to the appropriate planning committee for debate and decision. Adoption of the above will simplify and speed up the determination process; it will save money and significantly reduce unfair decisions. At the same time the local needs and environment will be protected and local people will be able to see common sense being applied.

APPENDIX Two examples where the planning system has failed to best meet the needs of the local residents. 1. An application to build three houses on a brownfield site in a residential area was refused partly on the grounds of vehicular access to the main road, yet a subsequent application for a large office block on the same site and housing up to 200 workers was allowed, with no objection on highway access grounds. 2. An application to build a specially designed bungalow, on a site that would have affected no-one, for a severely disabled little girl and her devoted fit and healthy parents was refused. The consequences are that the little girl will have to go into council care unless suitable premises, none of which are available locally, can be found. The little girl may be deprived of contact with her friends and she will suffer unwanted and undeserved distress. August 2010

Written evidence from National Plot Owners Association (in formation) (ARSS 03) Inquiry into the abolition of regional spatial strategies We are part of hundreds of registered land owners who have bought plots (between 0.015 to 0.02 acres) split from a bigger plots (between 1.5 and 3 acres) which currently are not economically active and are located in rural areas near existing villages. We have the legitimate expectation to build a home once the issues of planning permission are sorted out. Our interest is that the government considers us as a part of the solution to reactivate the national economy and to meet the housing targets encouraging local governments to allocate the land for residential development. We are aware that we could contribute to reach the national target of reduction of CO2 emissions applying the concept of Eco-homes planned and implemented in several places in England for instance in Blackpool. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w4 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

We are aware that the concept of Common Hold introduced by part one of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, which is a new form of land ownership of registered freehold land and has not had application, could facilitate the designing of nucleus of homes in the plots such as those we owned.

Also, we are aware that the scheme promoted by the National Self Build Association (NaSBA) that we could follow, is a key contribution from the private sector to any government wishing to reactivate the economy and to provide homes for people who already own a plot of land, like us.

Recently the Conservative Planning “Green Paper” No.14, recognises that: “…One of the best examples of individuals taking responsibility for housing is in self-build. Self-building can mean people literally building their own homes or hiring a contractor to build it for them once they have the land and the planning permission. It also often refers to groups of people coming together to pool their skills and build a number of houses collectively, neighbours literally building their community. Successful projects also can involve unemployed and unskilled people, young and old, who would otherwise struggle to find employment and housing.

Self-built homes rely on being affordable and because they are the ultimate representation of having a stake in a home and a community, they are usually more environmentally friendly and built to higher design and quality standards.12As part of our progressive Conservative vision for housing, self-built homes—like Local Housing Trusts—are a perfect embodiment of individuals and families taking responsibility where, under this Government, the State has sucked power out of communities. Giving more power back to local people and self-builders can increase the creation of successful communities and the revitalisation of existing areas across the country.”

Finally, we reiterate the interest to be part of the solution and to build homes starting from the scratch with the support of the government encouraging local governments to take us into account in allocating land for residential development as well as big developer firms, establishing a mortgage scheme which enables plot owners to get loan to build their homes and allowing people to make choices. In this regard we could contribute to reduce the deficit of affordable homes and to generate jobs due to the participation in the cake of construction of small firms or independent engineers, architects and other technicians and builders, who could support us in the construction of our homes.

For instance, before Ashford Borough Council there is a proposal (CHAR20) under consideration for its DPD in which 67 homes could be build, also, Aylesbury Vale District Council has already started the process to establish the Local Development Framework covering the period until 2026 which could be a good beginning considering to allocate rural land for 60 homes in Buckingham town as it will be requested.

The abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies and the limit of number of houses open more possibilities to plot owners. August 2010

Written evidence from Lower Broadheath Parish Council (ARSS 04)

Evidence and Observations on Behalf of Lower Broadheath Parish Council in the County of Worcestershire — Whilst the Parish Council did not support the Regional Spatial Strategy we share the general mode of uncertainty that now exists as a result of it's withdraw, however we hope the forthcoming Green Paper on localism, will provide some guidance on how it is to be replaced. We consider the needs of the community are more important than those of the house builder's balance sheets. — The concept of localism, in place of a “top down dictate”, is to be applauded but at the same time we acknowledge that areas the size of Counties and possibly Unitary Authorities must adopt strategic long term plans for guiding their administrative districts. This long term strategy must be carried out in conjunction with District Councils, Highways Agency and Service providers to ensure that adequate and affordable infrastructure investment is put in place. Meaningful consultation with Town and Parish Councils is essential in order to achieve “grass root” support. Previous consultations at this level have been actively responded too, only for us to find our opinions have been totally ignored. — The proposals to “bribe” Councils to build as many affordable homes as possible carries the danger of outward migration from the major urban areas in the same way as new towns did in the 1960’s and 70’s resulting in long distance commuting unless supported by sustainable housing and employment close to current major strategic transport infrastructure. — County, Unitary, District Councils and service providers have been wholly reactive to developers planning applications in the past. This has led to planning applications for land totally unsuitable for sustained development but just happen to be sites that have willing vendors. This should be replaced by proactive planning that only promotes sites that are sustainable for both housing and employment and wholly to the benefit of local communities. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w5

— Small settlements, such as our own that are close to major cities and towns, may be capable of supporting 50 to 60 homes with small employment sites. Developments in settlements further removed may not be acceptable to the communities involved unless perhaps supported by local employment that is not dependent on the use of heavy transport and long journeys to major road networks. We do not support peripheral overflow developments on current green belt or green field sites adjacent to large cities and towns and believe that every effort should be made to use existing buildings or brown field land before creeping into adjacent districts. — The projected housing growth figures produced by the previous Labour administration were totally unrealistic. Future housing growth should be in support of local population needs and sited in areas where new employers have demonstrated an enthusiasm to set up new businesses. I hope you will find these observations helpful in your discussions. Clerk to Lower Broadheath Parish Council. August 2010

Written evidence from Jim Parke (ARSS 05) Executive Summary This evidence is based on a wide range of strategic planning experience. Part of that experience was gained at a number of Examinations in Public (EIP) of Structure Plans and Regional Spatial Strategies. The issues relating to house-building targets were common to almost all of the EIPs. The evidence also draws on relevant strategic planning practice in Scotland and Europe. The following conclusions are reached:

(i) Planning Authority Co-operation — The scale of the administrative regions did not reflect the nature of the housing markets within them. — The abolition of the regional spatial strategies need not jeopardise the effective consideration of housing matters provided cooperation is required across complete housing market areas. — If LEPs are to be given strategic planning powers, particularly for housing, their areas should encompass complete housing market area.

(ii) Demand Methodology — It is important that whatever system is adopted to replace regional spatial strategies incorporates a requirement to facilitate an open debate on estimates of housing requirements. — Experience at EIPs suggests that a requirement should be imposed on the system replacing RSS to openly benchmark the housing market assessment against the most up-to-date ONS projections.

(iii) Top-Down and Imposed Targets — It is important that the replacement system is required to establish an open decision making process. — Major stakeholders and the public should have an opportunity to challenge any assumptions and findings. — Any residual issues should be subject to a public independent inquiry.

(iv) Incentives — The incentive approach should work within the findings of the replacement housing strategy system.

(v) Other Matters — There is no reason why a Local Economic Partnership could not deal satisfactorily with the wide range of planning issues formerly covered by regional spatial strategies.

(vi) Green Belt Protection — It is important that whatever approach replaces regional spatial strategies should not be predicated on the protection of the Green Belt.

(vii) Data Handling — There is international recognition of the need for strategic planning mechanisms to gather the data, carry out research and prepare strategic plans for city regions. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w6 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— In England sub-regional technical capacity should be established to take responsibility for inheriting and updating the data and research collated by the now abolished Regional local Authority Leaders’ Boards. — In the London area consideration should be given to a body covering the wider London region.

Brief Introduction 0.1 This evidence is based on a range of strategic planning experience including work with Strathclyde Regional Council at a directorate level from its inception in 1974 until its demise in 1996. This work involved a wide range of planning issues from the urban renewal of the Greater Glasgow conurbation to the challenges facing the rural areas of Ayrshire and Argyll. It included the preparation and regular review of the Strathclyde Structure Plan. 0.2 Since the demise of the Regional Council in 1996, experience has been gained of European and international strategic planning with Metrex, a Network of European Metropolitan Planning Authorities. 0.3 Knowledge of the RSS system has been gained as a member of the panel of EIP Panel Chairs. In that capacity the experience included chairing the Warwickshire Structure Plan EIP in April 1999, the East Midlands RPG Public Examination in June 2000, the Kingston upon Hull and East Riding Joint Structure Plan EIP in January 2004, the Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan Alterations EIP in July 2004, the North East Regional Spatial Strategy Examination in Public in March-April 2006, the South West Regional Spatial Strategy Examination in Public in April–July 2007 and most recently the East of England Regional Spatial Strategy Lakeside Basin Single Issue Review Examination in Public in August 2009.

Commentary Planning Authority Co-operation 1.1 The scale of the administrative regions in England rendered co-operation across the constituent authorities unlikely, as there were few issues that required such co-operation. The issues that did link them could also be considered as national issues eg major transport linkages, ports and airports. 1.2 In the North East most of the planning issues focussed on the two city regions of Tyne and Wear and Teeside. By the time of the EIP in 2006 the Teeside local authorities had established joint working arrangements to deal with planning issues such as housing provision. The evidence submitted supported the view that the Teeside area could be regarded as a strategic housing market area as it contained both the origins and the destinations of the great majority of households which move home. It was therefore an appropriate area across which co-operation on strategic housing distribution could take place. In contrast there was no such co- operation to draw together housing issues around the Tyne and Wear conurbation. The urban authorities at the core of the conurbation were concerned about the scale of housing land being made available in the adjoining commuter areas of the counties of Durham and Northumberland. The absence of a co-operative mechanism allowed the emergence of unsustainable patterns of development, which became the focus of debate at the Examination in Public. 1.3 Many of the other administrative regions contain distinct sub-regions, which are relatively self-contained. Yorkshire and the Humber covers the four sub-regions of N. Yorkshire, Hull and the East Riding, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire, within which housing matters are largely self-contained. In the North West region there is some interaction between the conurbation housing markets, but they are largely self-contained. The local authorities in Cumbria have indicated that it should be regarded as a separate housing market area. In some cases policies and proposals in draft RSSs were introduced which contradicted the principle that a strategic housing market area should be treated as a self-contained entity. The draft RSS for the North West allowed the land supply in one sub-region to be restricted because of the availability of land in another sub- region in the South West the demand in the more rural housing sub-regions was reallocated to more urban areas. 1.4 The South West Regional Assembly, during the preparation of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy 2005, gave consideration to the question of housing market areas, as prompted by PPS3. It was the only regional authority to implement this approach and it elected to identify housing market areas in terms of complete local authority areas. The Assembly concluded that the South West region is made up of 13 housing market areas (HMA) very few participants at the EIP disputed the usefulness of the areas in the consideration of the strategic housing issues. As the HMAs could be regarded as largely self-contained in terms of commuting and local migration patterns, they provided the Panel the means of dealing with the trend based limitations of the DCLG projections at district level. They also offered a useful means of considering how past trends can be modified to reflect sustainability principles. 1.5 In some of the main urban areas of the South West administrative region the local government boundaries made planning particularly difficult. In the Cheltenham area the areas of Tewkesbury Council and Cotswold Council resisted development areas around Cheltenham. At Swindon the most natural development opportunity fell within North Wiltshire District, which resisted development. Some of the more appropriate development areas around the Bournemouth/Poole conurbation lay within surrounding local authority areas. The housing market area approach allows such anomalies to be tackled if the local authorities are required to cooperate. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w7

1.6 At the time of the EIP in 2007 the local authorities within some of the identified housing market areas were already co-operating in the preparation of strategic housing market assessments. The local authorities around Bristol, the West of England Partnership, were already involved in such work although all of the HMA authorities were not participating. In Dorset the County Council and the constituent authorities had also commenced work on assessments for the two HMAs within the county. The initial focus for these assessments was on the need for affordable housing. None of the assessments had progressed to the stage where a full assessment of the total housing requirement and the distributional implications had been assessed. It is this stage, which puts the greatest strain on joint working. 1.7 In dealing with the use of housing market areas the Panel Report1 drew attention to the potential of adopting a tiered approach to housing market areas as suggested by the Housing Market Assessment Manual. The Manual suggested that some authorities might want to undertake an assessment at sub-regional level and then undertake further analysis at a level greater than a single authority. 1.8 The Panel considered that this more sophisticated approach would be particularly relevant to the more complex city regions such as Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth and Bournemouth/Poole. It was considered that the approach would provide a better appreciation of the balance between local and strategic demand. 1.9 The attention of the Committee is drawn to a working example of co-operation on strategic housing matters by 8 local authorities around Glasgow in Scotland. The Scottish Government has decided to require the local authorities around the major cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen to co-operate in the establishment of a strategic planning capacity to deal with a wide range of planning issues, particularly the provision of an adequate supply of land for housing2. In the case of Glasgow the co-operating authorities have adopted a tiered approach to the consideration of housing issues across the conurbation. This type of assessment has allowed the authorities to ensure an adequate supply to meet local housing demand and to take a sustainable approach to the location of allocations to meet the wider market demand. From time to time this approach has provided a sound justification for the release of land from the Green Belt despite a substantial supply of brownfield land. 1.10 The Government has proposed the establishment of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) between local authorities and business to take over the role of the Regional Development Agencies. These Partnerships are to cover functional economic areas instead of the wider administrative regions and it has been suggested that they could be given strategic planning powers as well. As functional economic areas could be expected fit well with strategic housing market areas, the Partnerships could provide a reasonable mechanism for co-operation on the housing matters previously dealt with by Regional Assemblies. However the effectiveness of the LEPs in housing matters will depend on the extent to which the LEP areas reflect strategic housing market areas. The West of England Partnership, which is reported to be applying for approval as a LEP, does not include all of the local authorities in the identified housing market area. Furthermore the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, which is also reported to be applying for LEP status, does not include the important suburban parts of the strategic housing market area. In a similar way the LEP for West Yorkshire would have to include those parts of N Yorkshire, which act as part of the West Yorkshire housing market area. Without the inclusion of such areas, strategic planning for housing will be impaired. 1.11 Conclusions — The scale of the administrative regions did not reflect the nature of the housing markets within them. — The abolition of the regional spatial strategies need not jeopardise the effective consideration of housing matters provided cooperation is required across complete housing market areas. — If LEPs are to be given strategic planning powers, particularly for housing, their areas should encompass complete housing market area.

Demand Methodology 2.1 Whether it is at the regional level or the strategic housing market level, there is a general acceptance that the assessment of future housing requirements should be based on assumptions about natural increase, migration flows and household formation rates. This approach is required to provide a sound evidence base for planning policies and proposals. It was the approach adopted by county structure plans and then by regional spatial strategies. The benchmark for this type of assessment is the Office of National Statistics (ONS) trend— based projections of population and households for each local authority area. These projections incorporate assumptions on migration trends within the UK and from international sources. They provided a foundation for most of the RSS assessments, despite the fact that they applied relatively short-term trends to generate long-term projections. Evidence for the South West EIP indicated that officers had advised the South West Regional Assembly that the ONS assumptions could not be challenged technically. 2.2 In 2006 the Government established the National Housing and Planning Advisory Unit (NHPAU) in order to provide the planning process with a better appreciation of the scale of housing requirements. The NHPAU produced a new series of projections of future housing requirements, which took the ONS projections 1 http://www.southwesteip.co.uk/home/ 2 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/212607/0084258.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w8 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

a stage further by including allowances for matters such as the backlog of unmet need. As a result the NHPAU requirements implied a higher level of housing provision than the levels suggested by the ONS projections. 2.3 The ONS projections and the NHPAU requirements indicated a need for significantly higher levels of housing provision in the English regions than that proposed in the draft RSSs, particularly in southern England. Many local authorities in the southern regions rejected such findings and adopted a “policy-based” approach, which provided a significant input to the preparation of the respective regional spatial strategies. These “policy- based” assessments of housing requirements were derived from the housing capacity deemed consistent with the existing local plan policies. Several commentators have since pointed out that the same authorities subsequently identified further capacity. 2.4 Conclusions — It is important that whatever system is adopted to replace regional spatial strategies incorporates a requirement to facilitate an open debate on estimates of housing requirements. — Experience at EIPs suggests that a requirement should be imposed on the system replacing RSS to openly benchmark the housing market assessment against the most up-to-date ONS projections.

Top-Down and Imposed Targets? 3.1 On the assumption that the replacement system for the housing assessment in a RSS is wider than a local plan, it is likely that each cooperating local authority will be given a “target” as part of the wider distribution. In the case of the Glasgow housing market, the cooperating authorities have established a decision making structure in order to decide on matters such as the distribution of housing development. 3.2 In many ways the Glasgow approach is similar to that adopted for the housing component of County Structure Plans and the Regional Spatial Strategies. A draft assessment is made of the housing requirement and distribution, which is put out to consultation. This consultation allows a wide range of stakeholders, including the house-building industry, to challenge any of the assumptions and findings. In England the EIP process allowed major issues to be debated in a structured manner. The housing issues inevitably featured in the EIP debates. The EIP panels were obliged to set out an argued case for any change. It is difficult to describe this process as anything other than open to change. 3.3 The Government response to Panel Reports was to go beyond the recommendations and it generated massive reaction. In the face of legal action the Proposed Changes were never approved. It would have been better to have accepted the Panel Reports and required an early review to take into consideration evidence of higher levels of housing need. It was only at this stage that the process could have been described as top-down and imposed. In many ways Government anxiety over the level of house building led it into actions, which debased the RSS system. 3.4 Conclusions — It is important that the replacement system is required to establish an open decision making process. — Major stakeholders and the public should have an opportunity to challenge any assumptions and findings. — Any residual issues should be subject to a public independent inquiry.

Incentives 4.1 While one of the functions of strategic planning is to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing, there is also an obligation to ensure that the distribution of housing reflects the principles of sustainable development. It is also important that the distribution of housing reflects the climate change imperative to reduce the level of CO2 emissions by reducing the length of travel and encouraging the use of public transport. A distribution based on the suggested incentive scheme is unlikely to achieve these wider objectives. Experience at EIPs demonstrates that some of the rural authorities on the edge of the housing market areas would be prepared to promote development in unsustainable locations, which could only generate longer distance commuting by car. 4.2 An incentive scheme, which merely encouraged all authorities to maximise the level of development, could therefore be regarded as potentially conflicting with wider national policy. It is important that the incentive scheme should work within the replacement system. 4.3 Conclusion — The incentive approach should work within the findings of the replacement housing strategy system.

Other Matters 5.1 The regional spatial strategies covered a wide range of matters, but not all of them required regional scale policies. In many cases the framework of a functional economic area/housing market area would provide the necessary geographical framework. Should the LEP framework be implemented the new organisations cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w9

could be charged with dealing with a wide range of the matters previously dealt with through regional spatial strategies. The following points set out an appreciation of the requirements for a range of matters: — Employment issues tend to nest within travel to work areas, which largely coincide with functional economic areas and housing market areas. The Bristol issues were largely separate from the adjoining Swindon, Gloucester/Cheltenham and Taunton HMAs. — Retailing issues in the South West also coincided with the housing market areas. Although the catchment areas of centres such as Bristol and Plymouth extended beyond their housing market areas, most of the retail planning issues were contained within the housing market area eg should the Cribbs Causeway centre be expanded to reflect the proposed suburban growth. — The Waste Planning Authorities in the South West were the county councils and the Unitary Authorities around Bristol. Although the work of these authorities was co-ordinated by a regional committee most of the issues related to the main urban areas. There seems to be no reason why a LEP type body covering a functional economic area/housing market area should not be able to provide a strategic framework for this matter. — The Minerals Planning Authorities were also the counties and the unitaries, but the policy framework for minerals required a wider geographical context than a functional economic area/ housing market area. The future planning for this matter might well require a wider cooperative framework. — Flooding is mainly a river basin issue. In many cases river basins fell within the regional boundaries, but there were notable examples, such as the Severn where a number of regions were involved. There is no reason however why a LEP should not deal with many of the flooding issues in its area if it were charged with the responsibility for strategic planning. Such a responsibility would require it to take flooding risk into account in identifying areas for development. — Renewable energy issues range from the location of wind farms to the insulation standards for housing. While some wind farm issues might require cooperation across LEP boundaries, the majority of issues could be dealt with within a functional economic area. — Natural Environment issues are largely dependent on the geographical distribution of the feature involved. Many of the RSS policies on the natural environment were derived form national policy designations such as National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There is no reason why a LEP body should not deal satisfactorily with such issues with a normal requirement for cooperation across boundaries when natural features require it. 5.2 The attention of the Committee is drawn once again to the cooperation of local authorities in the Glasgow area. The body is known as the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority.3 The geographical area concerned could be described as a functional economic area and it is also regarded as a strategic housing area. In the terms of the proposals put forward by the Government this area would fulfil the suggested requirements for a LEP area. The Strategic Development Planning Authority provides a working demonstration that a wide range of planning matters can be dealt with effectively at the sub-regional level. 5.3. Conclusion — There is no reason why a Local Economic Partnership could not deal satisfactorily with the wide range of planning issues formerly covered by regional spatial strategies.

Green Belt Protection 6.1 Part of the political justification for the abolition of regional spatial strategies was the removal of requirements to release land from the Green Belt. Even in areas such as the North East around the Tyne and Wear conurbation it was not possible to rule out the need for additional greenfield land despite the availability of a significant supply of brownfield land. In the case of the Housing market around Bristol, the Panel was convinced that, even after taking an optimistic assessment of urban capacity, there was a strategic requirement for Greenfield release. Given national policies on sustainability and climate change the Panel concluded that the releases should be located so as to minimise longer distance commuting. As a result the Panel supported the RSS proposals for releases at the edge of the built-up area on the inner urban edge of the Green Belt. 6.2 While the Green Belt debate has been clouded by the controversial Proposed Changes brought forward by the Government, the Committee should note that a number of independent EIP Panels supported releases from the Green Belt in order to ensure an adequate supply of housing. 6.3 Conclusion — It is important that whatever approach replaces regional spatial strategies should not be predicated on the protection of the Green Belt.

Data Handling 7.1 The Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan Team inherited the background work for the Strathclyde Region Structure Plan and have maintained and developed it. 3 www.gcvsdpa.gov.uk/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w10 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

7.2 On this basis the bodies established to take responsibility for the preparation of strategic guidance on behalf of local authorities in England should be required to provide the technical capacity to allow the effective inheriting and updating of the data and research collated by the now abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards. In addition to Scottish practice the Committee should also consider the establishment of city region authorities in Germany. The Federal Government has encouraged the establishment of city region organisations to deal among other things with strategic planning.4 The nature of the organisations varies from formal city region authorities, such as the Verband Region Stuttgart,5 to looser cooperative arrangements. 7.3 This type of sub-regional cooperation could apply to many parts of England, but the nature of the South East region suggests that a wider cooperative structure might be necessary to accommodate the particular arrangements in the London area. Until recently the GLA and the two adjoining regions cooperated through the Inter-regional Forum, which was an advisory mechanism to consider common issues. In a previous era the SERPLAN mechanism was adopted to reflect the wider interactions around London. It covered parts of the East of England administrative region. The Paris region is the best equivalent in Europe and strategic planning for that complete region is the responsibility of the Ile de France Region.6 7.4 Conclusions — There is international recognition of the need for strategic planning mechanisms to gather the data, carry out research and prepare strategic plans for city regions. — In England sub-regional technical capacity should be established to take responsibility for inheriting and updating the data and research collated by the now abolished Regional local Authority Leaders’ Boards. — In the London area consideration should be given to a body covering the wider London region. August 2010

Supplementary written evidence from Jim Parke (ARSS 05A) NOTE IN RESPONSE TO CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES Proposed LEPs 1. The letter7 of the 29 June 2010 from the Communities and Local Government Secretary and the Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary to Councils and Businesses across England invites them to put together proposals for the new economic development partnerships by the 6 September 2010. The emerging picture8 of up to 60 often small LEP partnerships being proposed includes a number based on traditional County Council boundaries with the County Council in partnership with their Districts. There are a number of potential problems with this approach for strategic planning purposes. 2. From our experience the irrelevance of the County boundaries for sub regional and housing market area analysis. For example: — the commuting across the North Yorkshire boundary into “Teeside”; — The County Durham and Northumberland County commuting relationship with the “Tyneside” core conurbation; — The relationship of part of Wiltshire County with Bath and Bristol—commuting from the Trowbridge area; — The Wiltshire relationship with the “Southampton/Portsmouth” conurbation—commuting from Salisbury; — The Plymouth relationship with the eastern parts of Cornwall—Saltash, Torpoint and Liskeard in the former Caradon District; and — The Warwickshire relationship with the West Midlands conurbation. 3. In addition, it is also worth drawing to the attention of the Committee our experience of the availability of technical resources held by the Counties despite the withdrawal of their Structure Plan responsibilities. At a time of financial stringency these resources could be reallocated to the new sub-regional organisations in order to facilitate the updating of the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards. For example the resources of Gloucestershire CC, Durham CC, Devon CC and Warwickshire CC.

Conclusions — The emerging Local Enterprise Partnerships, many of which are being proposed based on traditional County boundary areas, are too small to be able to take a proper strategic view. 4 http://www.bmvbs.de/Anlage/original_1034851/Concepts-and-Strategies-of-Spatial-Development-in-Germany.pdf 5 http://www.region-stuttgart.org/vrs/main.jsp?navid=65 6 http://www.iau-idf.fr/?home 7 http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/regional/docs/10–1026-final-letter-local-enterprise-partnerships.pdf 8 http://www.lgcplus.com/5018558.blog cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w11

— From our experience in the South West and elsewhere the extent of the Housing Market Areas are greater than the grouping of Metropolitan Authorities and individual Urban Authorities. — The existing County Councils may well have technical planning resources that could be reallocated to the new sub-regional bodies to allow them to inherit the work of the Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards and carry out further data collection and research September 2010

Written evidence from Steve Tremlett (ARSS 06) This submission is an edited extract from my recent MA Urban & Regional Planning dissertation titled “The Institutional Structures of Waste Planning.” Part of the dissertation considered the effectiveness of regional planning under the Labour Government and the impact of the Coalition’s abolition of Regional Planning Bodies and RPBs on the planning for waste management facilities. Key findings were as follows: — There is a need for a strategic level to effectively plan for waste management. Abolition of RSSs has created a large policy vacuum. — The elevation of RSSs as part of the development plan had a positive effect in increasing the speed of delivery of waste facilities — The focus on localism and local decision making may be problematic when applied to such an inherently controversial form of development as waste management. Political pressures are likely to restrict the delivery of new waste infrastructure. — Abolition of RSSs has removed the strategic targets and level of policy which could be used locally and by industry to demonstrate the need for new facilities — Waste streams have become increasingly specialised in order to maximise the recycling and recovery of materials, and an increasing number of facilities are consequently only required at a regional level. Planning for these facilities is most effectively carried out at regional level. — European countries which achieve high diversion from landfill have a strong emphasis on an influential regional tier that provides clear and unambiguous forward capacity planning.

Extract from Dissertation All those questioned for the research agreed there is a need for a strategic level to effectively plan for waste management. It generates administrative economies of scale, and allows for a better understanding of the wider picture of waste management amongst the counties, rather than just what is occurring within their borders (interview with former CLG officer). It also provides a context for each Waste Planning Authority (WPA) to work in, and a better understanding of the interrelationships between WPAs’ areas, and indeed adjacent regions (interview with regional planner). The elevation of RSSs as part of the development plan had a positive effect in increasing the speed of delivery of waste facilities (Bell, in “Waste Planning”, August 2010). The RSS also enabled local members to see the broader picture and the need for certain policies even where these policies may have been unpalatable locally. Without the regional tier, unpopular but necessary policies may become harder for local authorities to accept (interview with regional planner). This is a key comment given that one of the reasons given for the removal of the RSSs is that they contain unpopular policies. Waste streams have become increasingly specialised in order to maximise the recycling and recovery of materials, and an increasing number of facilities are consequently only required at a regional level, for example waste paper and glass reprocessing (interview with Strategic Waste Policy officer). Indeed, even some types of facility that previously attracted a sufficiently large quantity of waste to enable their provision at a County level, for example landfill, are now moving towards regional or sub-regional facilities. This is because the declining amounts of waste being sent to landfill combined with the economies of scale required to make a site viable mean that they will serve larger and larger areas, in effect becoming regionally significant facilities (interview with County Council Waste Planning Policy Manager). The waste management company Biffa (2010) state that their business model is already based on the regional scale for reprocessing and recovery facilities, and believe that will be the case for landfill provision in the future, especially given the increasing impact of policy drivers such as landfill tax. If facilities are serving a regional area, it makes sense to plan for them at the same spatial scale. SLR Consulting (2005) examined the institutional architecture in nine other European countries which currently vary significantly in how sustainably they manage their waste. They concluded that countries with success in achieving more sustainable waste management regimes generally have a clear, consistent policy statements from central government that provide certainty through the planning system. Partnership working between national, regional and local government is promoted with a strong emphasis on an influential regional tier that provides clear and unambiguous forward capacity planning. This is contrasted in the report with the situation in the UK which is characterised by a lack of direction and leadership from central Government, with a reliance on market based policy tools such as LATS. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w12 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Regional planning of future capacity needs can also facilitate cooperation at the lower tier towards sharing the burden of new infrastructure, and the study recommended giving a clear mandate for Regional Planning Authorities in the UK, noting that a further benefit of this is to distance local politicians from unpopular decisions (SLR Consulting, 2005:64). The Coalition Government is criticised for the speed of removal of the regional tier, with Chalmers (contribution to forum at www.pas.gov.uk, 8.6.10) arguing that “removing it asap without recognising how it forms a critical part of the whole planning process is at best naïve”, and suggesting that the new Government may be too focussed on housing numbers. It was also suggested that the previous structure of waste planning “has been hampered by the broader political hostility to regional planning in many areas, perhaps driven principally by dislike of the regional housing allocations” (interview with former CLG officer). The abolition of RSSs before any alternative systems have been implemented is also criticised, with an anonymous forum contributor stating that “the real problem here is… the complete lack of any strategic level alternative.” (contribution to forum at www.pas.gov.uk, 8.6.10). The “Open Source Planning” Green Paper (Conservative Party, 2009) which does not make any reference to waste planning which increases suspicion that it has been broadly overlooked.

Effectiveness of RTABs There was a broad consensus that RTABs have played a beneficial role in facilitating effective waste planning, however a number of issues were identified which restricted their effectiveness. It has been difficult to create a truly technocratic group with a politically neutral environment has failed as political influences have come to the fore when controversial issues have been discussed. It was argued that any collection of local authorities will inevitably be political to some extent. The original concept of collaborative governance has not been successfully achieved with little interest from industry for ongoing engagement and consequently local authority officers dominating groupings. For example, the effectiveness of the South East RTAB (SERTAB) has been restricted by the dominance of local authority planning officers in the group. The government’s intention in creating RTABs was for a broad range of stakeholders to be represented, however in the South East representatives from the waste industry have tended only to get involved when it suits them. It was questioned whether industry is able to lead a planning process rather than respond to it, hence the limited involvement (interview with County Council Planning Policy Manager). The process of agreeing on a way forward for difficult strategic decisions was problematic as officers are at times wary of offering views that “may not be well received back at the ranch”. The principal of what is trying to be achieved is understood but difficulties can arise when detailed discussions occur. The example was given of the apportionment of residual waste from London for landfilling in surrounding counties. In this instance there was agreement that apportioning waste in this manner is appropriate, however the consensus unravelled once discussions reached the stage of allocating figures for individual WPAs’ apportionments (interview with County Council Planning Policy Manager). However an alternative view from the West Midlands RTAB was that members’ engagement has been motivated by self-interest on occasions, “but the ethos of the group has prevailed and they have quickly taken the broader view or moved on quickly and been replaced”, suggesting different experiences in the different RTABs across the country. Despite these issues RTABs have performed a valuable role in developing effective waste planning policy, as they have proved to be an effective forum for the technical work, especially data collection and analysis, which is essential to planning effectively. A Regional Planner argued that “what it did do was enable evidence to be collated and policy discussed and developed collectively, without one authority dominating or influencing due to certain political views, for example being anti-incineration. The democratic accountability came through the Assembly as all policy decisions were made by members through Regional Planning Committee, Executive Committee and full Assembly”. At this stage it remains unclear exactly what future holds for RTABs. One local authority SERTAB member believed that as much the groups work had been led by the South East England Partnership Board, the fact that that organisation has been abolished means there is now a need for the RTAB to take stock and consider its future role. It was felt that there remains a useful role to play, however to continue there must be a reassessment of the scope and purpose of the group. A West Midlands RTAB member was also of the opinion that RTABs have been a success and should continue. In terms of their future role, the view was not whether they are able to work with the new Government, as RTABs have thus far worked effectively in all regions regardless of political composition, but will they be allowed and continue and work with them. The inference here is that a decision to abolish RTABs would be political and not a reflection of the effectiveness of the groups. It was argued that the continuation of RTABs will be essential under the new administration if agreed data and analysis to be available to WPAs, as good quality data is an essential requirement of assessing the need for, and therefore adequately planning for, waste management facilities (interview with former CLG officer). The West Midlands RTAB member felt that there had been some success so far in the aim of producing good quality data, as bringing together a wide range of stakeholders “has been effective in brokering sensible cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w13

estimates of demand unlike the RAWP9 which has been industry dominated and had a reputation for always overestimating need”.

Future of Strategic Waste Planning There is agreement that there will be a need for discussions on waste planning to continue at a strategic level at a scale between the counties and national government. The revocation of the RSSs has created “a massive vacuum in [waste planning] policy” (interview with Strategic Waste Policy officer), with the limited interim guidance issued by the Government being described as “hopelessly vague… no-one knows what the national planning policy is now”. (Webb, 2010) Without a regional tier of policy making, planning for regionally significant facilities will be difficult, as although decisions could be made locally at officer level, the local democratic process can override recommendations for political reasons. Given the inherent unpopularity of waste facilities, this situation is likely to lead to inadequate planning for the required capacity (interview with County Council Planning Policy Manager). There is evidence that the motivation for the rapid removal of RSSs is to alleviate the burden of the housing targets they contained, as discussed above, and has involved little consideration of the effect of this action on other aspects of strategic planning. The focus on localism and local decision making may be problematic when applied to such an inherently controversial form of development as waste management which has an increasing requirement for regionally significant facilities. In addition the abolition of RSSs will remove the strategic targets and level of policy which could be used locally and by industry to demonstrate the need for new facilities, particularly those serving a catchment regional or sub-regional catchment area (interview with Regional Planner). Without regional policy, planning applications for regionally significant facilities will be easier for authorities to reject (interview with County Council Head of Planning), jeopardising the delivery of new waste management capacity which is needed to achieve Landfill Directive targets. RTABs could see their role enhanced as the abolition of RPBs would leave them as the only remaining regional level institution (interview with County Council Head of Planning). However, RTABs are solely a technical body with no policy making responsibilities, and as discussed above, will be reliant on decisions being implemented through local policies. However, the indication from CLG that the role of RTABs will, in due course, be transferred to local authorities casts doubt on whether this is possible without some form of structural reorganisation. As one of the reasons for the establishment of RTABs in the first place was that individual authorities were unlikely to have the resources to carry out the required data collection and analysis individually they are likely to have to form voluntary groupings along the lines of the RTABs in order to continue this essential work. This could be argued as a reversion to the situation in the mid–1990s until establishment of statutory RSSs in the 2004 Act, where regional groupings of officers, through RTABs, “offered a view on agreed common assessments of waste arisings, future need and capacity arrangements to their constituent WPAs, together with a view on the spatial pattern required to deliver it” (interview with former CLG officer). Whilst there are clear benefits in groupings such as this, the lack of regional policy to support the technical work performed by RTABs or their replacements will be a hindrance. There are already tensions in reaching consensus on controversial strategic issues, and without statutory regional policy to deliver these objectives local authorities may not have the discipline to carry them out. In other words, without support from policies that form part of the statutory development plan the difficult decisions recommended at officer level may fail to be implemented when considered by elected representatives. In addition, “voluntary collaboration can be hard to achieve and can disintegrate following a change of political leadership” (TCPA, 2010:7), which casts doubt on the stability of any new sub-regional groupings. A collective refusal by authorities to deal suitably with site allocations would expose the UK to EU penalties under the Waste Framework Directive. There is therefore a requirement for an effective conflict resolution system as any new grouping would be relying on a number of WPAs to implement their recommendations without clear policy support. Clear government guidance to ensure that WPAs engage with each other effectively in order to deliver the strategic facilities that are necessary would be desirable. The lack of a single regional point of contact may also be a problem as there will be no regional voice to respond or input to policy in other areas. In addition industry may find it harder to effectively engage with the planning process on a strategic level as operators would have to communicate directly with each WPA instead of having a single regional body to liaise with (interview with Regional Planner).

Recommendations The Coalition Government needs to acts swiftly to provide a strategic level replacement for RPBs at a level above counties. It is clear that adequately planning for waste management increasingly requires coordination at this level. The removal of RPBs and revocation of RSSs with no clear indication of what will replace them is damaging to the aim of moving towards sustainable waste management. 9 Regional Aggregate Working Party, the equivalent grouping in minerals planning. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w14 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

The policy vacuum has caused uncertainty and the removal of strategic level waste polices from the statutory development plan will result in more decisions being subject to political forces at county level. Several possible scenarios for a strategic replacement appear possible based on the research carried out for this report. Table two identifies these together with potential risks and opportunities: Table 3 POSSIBLE SCENARIOS FOR NEW STRATEGIC WASTE PLANNING ARRANGEMENTS Scenario Opportunities Risks

Voluntary groupings of WPAs at a More spatially coherent groupings Reliance on individual WPAs to sub-regional level to continue which better reflect the nature of devise policies at the local level to technical work performed by waste movements and implement group decisions may be RTABs. interdependencies between areas, problematic. Lack of regional allowing more effective spatial policy to support need for new planning. Essential data collection facilities. work would continue. Groups of WPAs produce statutory More spatially coherent groupings Vulnerable to changes in political development plans and policies which better reflect the nature of administration in constituent covering sub-regional areas waste movements and authorities. Difficulties in agreeing interdependencies between areas distribution of facilities amongst Regional technical work is backed WPAs. Difficulties in coordinating up by policy to deliver the required work between a number of groups capacity and distribution of new of officers. Need for effective facilities conflict resolution. RTABs continue in their present Existing established working Lack of regional policy support for form to provide strategic technical relationships at regional level RTABs recommendations may support to WPAs between officers can continue. hinder their implementation WPAs benefit from strategic level data to help preparation of DPDs

In the absence of a formal regional planning tier the Coalition Government must quickly engage with WPAs to develop an effective strategic coordinating system for waste planning, together with clear instructions to local authorities on the need for cooperation on difficult issues.

References SLR Consulting (2005), “Delivering Key Waste Management Infrastructure: Lessons Learned from Europe”, CIWM; Webb, S (2010) cited in Planning Daily, 16.7.10 www.planningresource.co.uk/bulletins/Planning-Resource- Daily-Bulletin/News/1016027/Regions-defence-steps/?DCMP=EMC-DailyBulletin August 2010

Written evidence from Paul Cheshire, LSE (ARSS 07) Main Points 1. The present system of housing supply, as articulated via our planning system, is close to collapse. The responsiveness of house construction to demand has been falling for at least 40 years and houses have been falling in quality (especially in terms of space) and rising in terms of price relative to incomes. Real house prices have risen by a factor of 4.5 since 1955; the price of housing land has risen by a factor of 12 in real terms over the same period. 2. While the RSS system did not address the underlying problems and caused significant resentment, especially in those areas where demand for housing was greatest, its abolition before the introduction and testing of the New Homes Bonus was a serious error which will further reduce house construction. 3. There is no reliable evidence base to judge the level at which a New Homes Bonus needs to be set to ensure a flexibly responsive supply of new housing. 4. While the evidence does suggest incentives can be useful,l it is highly likely that they would need to be both substantially higher than the level so far discussed and would need to be shown to be in place in order to become credible. If they are maintained then their credibility, and so impact, should increase somewhat over time. But we would still have a short term crisis of housing availability and price. 5. There remains a difficult issue as to what body they should be paid if they are to be most effective. Costs of new development are mainly felt at a spatial scale far smaller than the average District, so if paid to Districts incentives may do little to assuage NIMBYist pressures. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w15

6. There are other solutions available which would be more effective in relieving the unresponsiveness of housing supply to demand. Without radical reform there is likely to be a further uncontrolled, destabilising and very inequitable boom in house prices within a few years as soon as the economy starts to recover.

1. The Background The evidence shows (for example Barker 2003, 2004; Cheshire, 2009, or Hilber and Vermeulen 2010) that the interaction between our planning system and planning policies (as they have developed over the past two generations) and our system of local government finance have created a near catastrophic situation for housing (and commercial) development; and that this situation would get not just progressively worse but probably violently worse without quite radical reform. Not only will housing become more unaffordable, but transmitted wealth inequality will worsen, macroeconomic and monetary management will become more difficult and ultimately significant damage will be done to economic efficiency and to our international competitiveness. This is aside from the social problems resulting from an increasingly sharp division into the “housing-haves” and the “housing have-nots” with the distributional consequences that carries. There are four features of our planning and local government finance system which together make the supply of new development ever less responsive to demand: 1. We directly constrain the supply of land (for each category of development) both via the insistence on 60% of new housing being on brownfield land and by containment policies—most obviously via Greenbelts. 2. Our system of development control, with associated S106 and the implications arising from building on smaller sites, is highly complex and imposes large and rising compliance costs as well as restricting competition in the development industry. 3. Our system of local government finance has given no incentive to local communities to permit development of any kind. 4. The negative impact of these features is re-enforced by an insider-outsider problem—those who bear the costs of development (local residents/voters) control decision making whilst potential beneficiaries—would-be house buyers—are excluded from decision making. Over the two generations we have been constraining the supply of land for urban development the real price of houses has increased by a factor of 4.5 and that of housing land by a factor of 12 (see Figure 1). More unresponsive supply means that not only do prices trend inexorably upwards relative to incomes but that short run changes in demand require ever larger changes in prices to accommodate them. The outcome is that Britain has some of the most unaffordable housing and unstable housing markets in the world. A recent study showed that measured from peak to trough, house prices in England were more volatile for the country as a whole than in any housing market in the USA (Cheshire, 2009). While the real price of housing has increased 4.5 times in Britain, in Switzerland it has not increased at all since 1970. New houses in The Netherlands are 38% larger but 45% cheaper per square metre than in the UK.

Figure 1 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w16 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Source: Cheshire, 2009 Despite radical diagnosis of the problems in the successive Barker Reports, the post- Barker reforms were focused on process and did not radically address the serious imbalances and inconsistencies in our planning and local tax systems. The top down RSS process did impose obligations on Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to provide for additional housing but was slow and cumbersome and targets could be met while still not allowing the building of significant numbers of houses of the type people wanted to buy and in locations people wished to live in—primarily greener locations in southern England with adequate living and garden space.

2. The New Homes Bonus and Abolition of the RSS Process Against this background it is understandable why there should be more radical measures introduced to try to redress the overwhelming bias in our system towards NIMBYism. The New Homes Bonus attempts to reduce or even eliminate the fiscal penalty presently imposed on LAs who allow development (because they assume responsibilities for local services for new residents but in effect the existing Council Tax system is a national tax and yields no commensurate and direct fiscal reward to support the additional services). There are however serious and perhaps near catastrophic failings in what has been done and how the reforms have been implemented: I. The changes have been introduced in the wrong order. Before sweeping away the RSS system— almost the only pressure to get houses built in areas of strong demand—the new incentives should have been implemented first and demonstrated to be available, appropriately directed and adequate before eliminating the RSS system. II. Given the other pressures opposing new housing development—including the current crisis in public spending—there is a serious danger the new incentives will not be perceived as credible for quite a long time; and equally there is a probability they will be inadequate. III. There is an underlying problem of how and to whom New Home Bonus incentives should be paid if the “insider-outsider” problem is to be adequately addressed as the discussion of the controversy in Chalfont St Peter (below) illustrates. These points are expanded on below.

I. Sequence of Changes Prior to the change in government there had been a target of 240,000 net additions to housing stock per year. This had been identified as the number needed to even maintain housing affordability. Whatever one may think of the RSS top down system this target was based on detailed research but even so was perhaps optimistic since it is not just housing numbers but types and locations of houses that determine the extent to which new constructions satisfies demand (and thus influences prices and affordability). The target was set against a background in which house building had been lower in each successive housing market boom since 1973 (when completions of new houses were some 350,000). As Table 1 below shows, actual construction has fallen far below the 240,000 target and with the downturn of 2009, starts in 2008–09 were at a lower level than at any time since the 1920s. Given the pressures for NIMBYism the existing crisis in house construction and supply has now been seriously added to as LPAs reduce their aspirations and targets. According to research from planning consultants Tetlow King some 85,000 houses have been eliminated from plans just since May 2010, mainly in the high demand regions of the South West and East. The House Builders’ Federation expect house building this year to fall below even last year’s total (Inside Housing, 19 July 2010). Table 1 RECENT CONSTRUCTION 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 Total in 2007–08 Total in 2008–09

Starts 25,820 19,720 155,880 90,430 Completions 29,050 31,010 166,990 133,710 Net Additions N/A N/A 207,000 166,570

II. Are the incentives credible and sufficient? The answer to these questions is that no one knows for certain. There simply is no evidence base against which to judge how large incentives would have to be to neutralise the pressures for NIMBYism outlined above. There is evidence from other contexts showing that incentives can have some impact on planning decisions. For example Cheshire and Hilber (2008) were able to estimate the reduction of office building/ increase in office costs consequent on the introduction of the Uniform Business Rate (which eliminated all tax incentives to LPAs for allowing office development). In the US it has been shown that Impact Fees, payable to local communities, increase the willingness to allow development. No research has quantified the impact of payments to LPAs in Britain in the context of housing development so there is no evidence base on which to cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w17

judge how large incentives would need to be set to ensure house building responded to market demand and household needs. My informed judgement, however, is that the level at which the New Homes Bonus has been set will be inadequate to offset the biases against housing development, especially in higher demand areas where additional housing is most needed and most opposed. The expectation that the level of New Homes Bonus is too low to have a real impact on housing supply is re-inforced by the circumstances of its introduction. While the crisis in public finances and cuts in government spending might make LAs keener to find resources wherever they can, new housing development brings costs (to service additional citizens in ones area) and there is likely to be scepticism as to how rapidly and at what level New Homes Bonus will be paid.

III. To Whom and at what Spatial Scale should Incentives be Set? As was noted above one of the forces generating opposition to new development from existing inhabitants is the ‘insider-outsider’ problem. Costs of new development are significant for a relatively small number of households but are very local and so directly affect local voters; benefits in the form of more jobs during construction and slightly lower house prices/greater housing availability are small per person but affect large numbers of households (or would-be households) spread over a wide area. The beneficiaries are therefore largely disenfranchised or very weakly represented in the planning decision-making process. This bias has probably been made worse by the 60% brownfield target for reasons indicated below. The problem is well illustrated in the recent case in Chalfont St Peter. This is a small suburban community of about 4,000 people in the Chiltern District of Buckinghamshire. The Chiltern District has about 90,000 inhabitants. The proposal that was agreed by the Chiltern Planning committee was in accordance with previous plans under the RSS process and involves the construction of some 200 houses on what is officially brownfield land—the grounds of a former convent. This has caused uproar in the local community. The problems of the planning system are concentrated in this case. The “brownfield” land in question was in fact of significant amenity value to the local residents who surround it. 200 new houses will significantly increase the size of the local community, disadvantaging residents in terms of congestion of local facilities and public services. Even if a New Homes Bonus were paid, the revenues—approximately £350,000 per year for six years if Council Tax on the new homes were the average for all houses in Chiltern District—would be paid not to those who bear the costs—the 4,000 local residents—but to Chiltern District. Thus it would not effectively compensate those who experience most of the costs of new development who would no doubt continue vigorously to oppose the plans. This highlights not only the question of to whom/what body should the New Homes Bonus be paid if it is to be most effective but also the understandable motivation of NIMBYism. The residents experience a cost and also suffer a significant loss of amenity in the form of very pleasant open space which is in effect a park for Chalfont St Peter. This is not just a loss of amenity but also creates a significant financial loss. As has been rigorously demonstrated the value of local green space is capitalised into the price of houses. The price of existing houses in Chalfont St Peter will fall not so much because of the local increase in housing stock (there is huge pent up demand for houses in any suburban or ex-urban location in the London area) but because the value of local amenities will be damaged. Furthermore research now demonstrates that the value to residents of open space falls rapidly with distance from their houses. Open space more than one kilometre from ones house has no impact on its value (reflecting the fact that there is no amenity value to people from open space they cannot easily access). This was the finding of Cheshire and Sheppard (1995) but has been further demonstrated since then in independent studies undertaken in Minneapolis-St Paul, Maryland and Baltimore. This means that most costs of development really are very localised. It also means that unless it is of particular environmental, habitat or scenic quality, Greenbelt land has low amenity value since it is mainly not easily accessible to many people. Ebenezer Howard, in his vision of a green city, was on to something when he showed a narrow green parkland belt, with public access, immediately surrounding his model city: the origins of our now very extensive Greenbelts which in total occupy one and a half times as much space as all urban areas combined.

3. Other Solutions to Our Planning/Housing Problem The New Homes Bonus may help at the margin with housing supply but is unlikely to even offset for the abolition of regional and local targets set in the RSS process and will not begin to tackle the fundamental under supply of housing (and other categories of urban development). There are three more radical and market/incentive oriented proposed solutions that have emerged: I. Use the price differentials that the restrictions on the supply of land for different uses in different locations have created as market signals which would be “material considerations” to trigger development permission where the environmental, social or amenity value of the land in its present use could not justify the observed premiums. This suggestion (see Cheshire and Sheppard, 2005) ultimately relies on the belief that there is an ample supply of land available for which no reasonable case could be made that its social, environmental or amenity values—even combined—exceeded the observed premium over its market price in its current use. This assumption as well as the suggested approach is in line with the logic and conclusions of the recent Land Use Futures report. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w18 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

II. The second suggestion is that LPAs should be allowed to auction off development rights to land they have identified for development; III. The third solution, associated with Tim Leunig, is that LPAs should make an open offer to buy land not presently identified in development plans at some price significantly above its market value in agriculture. They should then buy sufficient parcels of the land offered to them where they thought there were good planning arguments to allow development. LAs would then auction on the land to developers—presumably with outline planning permission—and retain the revenues realised. Any of these suggestions would in my judgement be more likely to succeed than either the RSS targets or the New Homes Bonus. What is certain is that unless something as radical as these is adopted, then when the economy recovers in a few years time the housing market will take off in another even more explosive and destabilising boom which will render housing even more unaffordable than it has been for the past decade. Without radical action here is a real danger that the supply of new housing will all but dry up.

References Anderson, S T and West S E (2006) Open space, residential property values, and spatial context, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 36, 773–89. Barker, K (2003) Review of Housing Supply: Securing our Future Housing Needs: Interim Report—Analysis, London: HMSO. Barker, K (2004) Review of Housing Supply: Final Report—Recommendations, London: HMSO. Cheshire, P C (2009) Urban Containment, Housing Affordability and Price Stability—Irreconcilable Goals, SERC Policy Paper No 4, September. Cheshire, P C and Sheppard, S (1995) On the Price of Land and the Value of Amenities, Economica, 62, 247–267. Cheshire, P C and S Sheppard (2005) The Introduction of Price Signals into Land Use Planning Decision- making: a proposal, Urban Studies, 42, 647–63. Cheshire, P C and C A L Hilber (2008) Office Space Supply Restrictions in Britain: The Political Economy of Market Revenge, Economic Journal, 118, (June) F185–F221. Hilber, C A L and W Vermeulen (2010) The effects of supply constraints on housing costs: Empirical evidence for England and assessment of policy implications, Final Report to National Housing and planning Advice Unit, August. August 2010

Written evidence from Blaby District Council (ARSS 08) Implications for House Building Blaby District Council welcomes the opportunity to have greater control over the development of its area. The Council considers that it is best placed to understand the needs and desires of its communities and that housing requirements imposed from a National or Regional level may not fully appreciate local circumstances, desires and constraints that exist within Blaby District. Regionally imposed targets have not given Local Communities adequate opportunity to become engaged in the process of developing housing targets. Notwithstanding this broad support, the Council wishes to highlight some concerns associated with the “immediate” revocation (and subsequent abolition) of the Regional Plans—particularly in relation to housing delivery. 1. The revocation of housing provision figures (within Regional Plans (RSS)), coupled with the retention of a requirement to provide a five year supply of housing (as defined in Planning Policy Statement 3) and the presumption in favour of residential development where a five year supply cannot be demonstrated (paragraph 71 of Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3)) may result in uncertainty. 2. The “Question and Answer” guidance issued by CLG on 25 June 2010 (accompanying CLG announcement revoking Regional Plans) identified that Local Authorities may use “option one” figures as a housing target in the interim period before more robust evidence is gathered. There is some ambiguity as to whether “option one” figures refer to the level of development sought by Local Planning Authorities as part of the submission to the Regional Plan or the level of development included in the draft Regional Plan (considered at Examination). The latter level of growth being that supported by the section 4(4) Authority (Leicestershire County Council). This should be clarified. 3. Government announcements have indicated that Local Authorities have the ability to determine their own housing requirements. This has raised considerable expectations amongst Communities that the level of growth contained within the RSS (which is perceived by many as too high) could be reduced. Notwithstanding this, the guidance from CLG indicates that any alternative figure must be robust as it can be tested at examination. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w19

The extant Planning Policy Statement three indicates the sources of data that should be used to inform housing need. It is possible that the identified need arising from such sources could exceed the targets in the previously abolished RSS (even if they are derived “locally”), this could result in animosity from Local Communities if they perceive that even greater numbers are being imposed. 4. Blaby District Council has struggled to meet its housing targets in recent years. It is likely that the main factors influencing slow housing delivery are the international economic downturn and credit crunch rather than the failings of the Planning system. It is possible that too much emphasis could be placed on the role of RSS targets in suppressing housing supply. There is concern that revocation of the RSS may further reduce housing delivery as developers are cautious about submitting schemes in the absence of clear housing requirements and guidance. 5. The Regional Plan not only contains policies relating to housing numbers, but also sets out important strategic guidance relating to distribution of development, employment, flooding, transport, climate change and renewable energy. The revocation of RSS has resulted in a detailed policy vacuum on these topic areas.

Implications for Localism There needs to be clarity regarding the “incentives” (New homes bonus (NHB)) to encourage new housing development: — Whilst the level of incentives to be allocated appears to be based on a multiplier of the Council tax achieved from new housing development, it is unclear whether monies will be given to the communities/ neighbourhoods that are directly affected by development (for example the Parish/Town Council whose area is affected by the proposal); whether the money is to be paid to the Local Planning Authority, or; the money is to be distributed in the same way as the current Council tax with the majority going to the Upper tier authority. It is apparent that the direct “local” benefits are reduced in the latter options. — There needs to be further clarity as to how the NHB can be spent. It is understood that it will not be “ring-fenced” and could be absorbed into the wider Local Authority budgets. This may suppress the overall Council tax requirements per capita, but may not be of any direct benefit to local communities affected by development. — It is unclear if the NHB payments will be paid at the grant of planning permission, start of construction or completion of new dwellings. It is also unclear if payments would continue for a period of six years from formal announcement of the scheme or a rolling six year programme. One of the primary reasons for revoking Regional Plans was to return decision making to local councils (including on housing numbers). As mentioned above, the housing aspirations of local citizens, neighbourhoods and communities may not match those that are being identified as part of the gathering of “reliable evidence”. If the housing numbers sought by the local community are significantly below those identified by evidence it could raise false expectations, particularly communities that are subsequently incapable of being defended at Planning appeals and examinations. September 2010

Written evidence from Bedfordshire Councils Planning Consortium (ARSS 10) There is a mantra that Government, and Local Authorities would be well advised to underpin everything they do if we are not to lurch from crisis to crisis “There are finite resources, which need managing effectively, infinite spending is not an option” We welcome the removal of the housing targets with the revocation of the RSSs, as this has resulted in development in areas like Milton Keynes that will, like the developments of the 1960’s, cast a long shadow due to their density, build and architectural quality, and failure to address research based human requirements of home and community. We would refer to-the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee March 2006—Sustainable Housing. A Follow Up Report—Conclusions and Recommendations 35. We remain deeply “concerned that ODP M is determined to build new homes first, and then worry later, if at all, about how the supporting infrastructure can be provided The communities that are created as a result of such a short sighted policy will be anything but sustainable”, 48. The need to build new homes is seen as an absolute imperative and is used by the Government as a mandate to sweep aside any concerns that people may have about the environmental impacts of those plans. We find it deeply worrying that there is no appetite within the OPDM to take on the building sector and guarantee that these homes will be built to sufficiently high energy efficiency and environmental standards. What we find reprehensible is the clear signal from Government that it really does not matter that these homes are going to be built before supporting infrastructure is in place. And we reject the implication that the people .for whom these new communities are intended will be so grateful to have a home, that they will be prepared to put up with substandard communities rather than sustainable communities. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w20 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Whilst there were elements of cross boundary regional planning that were valued by communities, the imposition of unelected Regional Assemblies/Delivery Vehicles and the housing target culture of the last 10 years undermined this. We recall well how identified key growth areas were driven ahead of the regional assembly planning process, even to the point of setting up government development agencies with development control power. We recall how when it was felt the RA were not providing the targets wanted how the NHPAU was set up and immediately after the EE Plan was published, it was required to review, with a view to increasing the housing targets both during the lifetime and after the plan period, and to test the NHPAU vastly increased housing targets that this body put forward. The last Government in a simplistic way used developers to try and build its way out of an affordable homes crisis and rising house prices boom, whose causes were multi faceted, including Right to Buy (and the inability of councils to use receipts to provide affordable homes until 2008), the unsustainable lending/credit boom, uncontrolled immigration, change from industrial to service industry/small business, a perception that everyone has a right to own their homes etc. Instead of taking the opportunity of an expanding economy to deal with the issue by dealing effectively with those underlying causes and setting in place long term measures that would ensure the delivery, and more importantly the retention of affordable housing and perhaps most importantly ensuring that infrastructure and jobs were in place to support development. In comparison with European countries we are a small island. It is unsustainable to keep building at a cost to food security, environment and climate change—a more root and branch solution needs to found. We hope this Government will take advantage of the current financial position and credit squeeze to do what the previous government(s) should have done, Below we set out briefly suggestions for consideration:

1. Planning for Communities by Communities (town or rural) We were encouraged by this Government's espoused intent of incentivising Local Planning Authorities to plan and build with the involvement and support of communities. Whilst there will always be those who want no development, most would be happy to be involved in planning development that fits with the local community and meets the needs and aspirations of residents in town or village. Many of our members live in rural communities and would support small affordable developments that are appropriately and sensitively planned in terms of location and design, to be part of the community and remain affordable—unlike the tack on council estates of the 50/60s, and now the 21st First century. However there is much in the existing planning legislation that disadvantages ppropriate and sustainable development that is supported by co-ordinated infrastructure requirements eg PPS25 with its requirement for a rolling five year land supply. We are extremely concerned that the DCLG letter of the 24 June in respect of LEPs having a role in planning and housing as well as infrastructure and jobs is just a downsizing of the RSS/RES model, and that the espoused localism is just espousal, with no substance. We are also concerned that LPAs are being required to put forward outline proposals for LEPs by the 6 September before the-White Paper or draft Localism Bill has been published in order that they can make informed choices. However we are of the view that local Community planned housing and economic development should be supported (not led) by cross boundary, and cross regional infrastructure planning that is driven by bottom up community planning. Particularly as the mindset of many planning officers and councillors remains focussed on housing targets, ignoring the fact that many authorities are in infrastructure deficit.

2. LPA audit and assessment of existing empty residential and employment sites We would like to see up to date registers kept by Local Planning Authorities of empty residential and employment sites and assessed plans to bring them back into use. In addition for the Government to give this a higher priority with incentives provided to LPAs as well as increasing existing powers to address this situation. A large number of authorities do little more than wait till a privately or publicly owned property is seriously affecting the surrounding area—in particular with employment sites where, following assessment in respect of predicted employment site requirements, a change of use could be considered. There are too many examples in towns, cities and indeed rural communities of owners, public OT private, allowing property to fall into disrepair, with the subsequent social consequences. Developers obviously prefer green field or cleared sites for development—but it is quite nonsensical that areas of towns, cities and villages fall into dereliction, sometimes deliberately, before decisions are made, if indeed any decision is made.

3. Revocation of the Right to Buy Legislation to ensure affordable homes remain affordable We applaud the last Government in 2008 allowing receipts from the sale of social housing to build more— however this is far too little and too late. Whilst the principle behind Right to Buy may have been laudable, we have the situation now, where there is a crisis in affordability, and social housing being lost to the rental and private home market sector—with an impossibility for LPAs to replace and increasing pressure on land. In addition we have long had the problem in respect of social housing for life. In some cases this may be appropriate, in others it is clearly not. We consider it is flawed to espouse-that everyone has a right to own their own home—however a right to a decent habitable home is appropriate. We support social housing whether cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w21

rented or part owned for those who can not afford private rented or owned homes, but these homes must remain available as such. We are of the view that Right to Buy should be revoked as unsustainable. We are also of the view that there should be encouragement of the culture of rental market over the 1980s culture of ownership, to give populations greater freedom to move freely in response to changing personal and economic situations.

4. Legislation on minimum standards and regulations of existing private and social rented accommodation accompanied by a “whistle blowing” mechanism for tenants In the last 15 years the need for affordable homes has been accompanied by an increase in sub standard rental accommodation, where in many cases landlords/agents maximising their profit has led to the sort of housing conditions in some areas that are worse than Victorian times. In addition pressure on LPAs budgets and increasing use of housing associations has also led to a deterioration of social housing stock. We consider it reprehensible that Government after Government has failed to address the-deteriorating situation, and vulnerable tenants are not in a position to take action.

5. Building standards code, and Sustainable Homes Code to be made mandatory and enforced—noting that only 30% new builds currently meet building regulations The consequences of the lack of priority in planning for sustainable design, architecture and building regulation monitoring during construction during the boom years will leave a long tail as buildings do not stand the test of time. In too many cases housing developments and indeed commercial buildings have been erected quickly and cheaply en masse and a matter of 20 years often shows the poor construction and design. The perverse incentive of the profit motive, unless regulated and enforced, will continue this trend and long term planning for sustainability and climate change will be lost.

6. Government incentives and disincentives and increased LPA powers in respect of the second/holiday home market Desirable holiday and retirement locations have their particular problems. On one hand we have communities blighted and indeed disappearing due to the prices commanded by the second home market, and on the other by the economic benefits of tourism during what is often a short season, in addition to the cost disincentive of business outside tourism setting up in these areas. This is all compounded by increased health and social costs of the retirement market. We would consider that action needs to be taken to address this situation in particular in restrictions placed on community new builds.

7. Stringent and enforced reviewable immigration controls, and transitional arrangements for all new EU countries is required to address the uncontrolled immigration legacy of the last decade or so in the short term. Robust longer term immigration policy in terms of work permits, length of stay, and other measures is required, to prevent the current problems recurring, balancing the needs of service and commercial industry, with the realities the economy and space 8. Increased financial regulation and separation of the banking and investment industry As this Government will know well, the main causes of the “credit crunch” were the short-term incentives in both lending and investment areas of banking which led to the sub prime market and its failure, and bundling of bad debt into global investment packages. We would wish to see much stronger regulation in respect of lending, and separation of the banking and investment arms of banks. September 2010

Writtten evidence from Mr & Mrs D Thorpe (ARSS 11) We would appreciate it if you could bring this matter up during your committee meeting. Too many people including ourselves have found ourselves homeless due to the planning laws. We speak on behalf of the individuals & families that this has affected which is astonishingly quite a large amount that the planning laws be relaxed so that these wonderful & Historical buildings can be allowed to be rebuilt to aid the housing shortage.

Abolition of Regional Spatial Stratagies — The current process and planning rules are designed to prevent redundant or derelict farm buildings to be recovered and put into use for housing. This is particularly true in small areas of Green Belt between towns. — These buildings are of local historical interest having played an important part in the industrial development of an area. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w22 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— Amend the rules to allow disused farm buildings to be rebuilt/converted using a specific volume of salvaged materials, eg local period bricks. — Currently there are an enormous number of individuals losing their planning permission because of the current very restrictive rules typically because during the work, sections of the buildings have collapsed. For the “Home on the farm scheme” to succeed a more flexible approach needs to be undertaken. — A problem with old buildings is the lack of footings leading to instability. — In some cases it is safer and more economical to demolish and rebuild using the existing materials and original plans. The result to the eye is a period building brought back into use as housing which blends in with the country scene. — If the law is relaxed the rebuilding/renovation of these buildings to their former glory, these buildings will provide housing for many families in need of housing in many cases providing much needed social housing. — In the Green Belt the visual impact would be identical to the building that was there before, hundreds of years ago and would not have any materially greater impact than the present openness. As a matter of fact by allowing these historical barns/buildings to be restored to their former glory it can only enhance the Green Belt.

Brief History of our Difficulties — We purchased a barn with planning permission in 2004 to convert to a family home for ourselves. — The council set down conditions which proved costly to meet. As a result it took time due to lack of finances to meet them. The storms of 2007 hit before the final condition had been submitted. — The planning department were notified verbally and gave advice how to proceed. — Work began as per the verbal agreement when enforcement officers turned up and stopped work. — Planning officers denied that storm damage had occurred or giving advice, the planning permission was removed. — After reapplying to rebuild the barn via a full planning application and via a Lawful development certificate (at their suggestion) both were refused and we are in effect homeless relying currently the goodwill and charity of the family. — Financially we are not in a position to employ solicitors or barristers to fight our cause. So I am having to research and prepare another planning application myself. During this research I have been amazed to find the lack of consistency in decisions across the country and the fact that decisions are really at the whim of local planners. In my case one issue is the setting of a Precedent. — I’m sure my views accord with many people who have found themselves in the same position as myself who would benefit from the relaxation of the planning straight jacket and allow what are “Historical” buildings to be rebuilt, aid the housing shortage and minimize the erosion of land for building purposes. September 2010

Written evidence form Tring Town Council (Hertfordshire, Borough of Dacorum) (ARSS 12) Tring Town Council resolved at the meeting of its Planning Committee on 6 September 2010 to welcome the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies as this would enable local determination of housing strategy. September 2010

Written evidence from Pentland Homes Ltd (ARSS 13) These representations are submitted on behalf of Pentland Homes Ltd in response to the Secretary of State’s revocation of Regional Strategies and the forthcoming Select Committee Inquiry in to those proposals. Pentland Homes are a privately owned house building company based in South East England. Their portfolio includes significant strategic land which the company are committed to promoting through emerging Local Development Framework’s. Pentland Homes are concerned that the Secretary of State’s arbitrary decision to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies, in the absence of an alternative mechanism, has created a planning vacuum which Local Planning Authorities are likely to exploit and frustrate much needed housing provision. This concern is already apparent in many Authorities, including the Growth Area of Ashford which has previously benefited from significant Central Government Forward Funding of major infrastructure improvements. The Leader of Ashford Borough Council, Councillor Paul Bartlett (Conservative) has recently indicated an intention to reduce housing provision and review the Core Strategy adopted in July 2008. Similarly, the Leader of Canterbury City Council, Councillor John Gilby (Conservative), has signalled a political intention to reduce housing provision in the emerging Core Strategy. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w23

These two Local Authorities are indicative of the impact of the Secretary of State’s decision which will inevitably result in significant abortive costs to developers and significant delay in the delivery of housing. The Secretary of State has indicated that Local Authorities will be incentivised to encourage housing delivery. However, details of financial incentives have not been published and in the light of the forthcoming spending review, are unlikely to be sufficiently attractive to outweigh local opposition to additional housing development. As a result, developers are reluctant to commit further, potentially abortive expenditure promoting strategic development and investing in infrastructure provision in a climate of planning uncertainty, political reluctance and economic constraints. The housing building industry is faced with continuing reluctance from mortgage providers to finance house purchase, particularly by first time buyers despite an acknowledged short fall in housing provision, including “social housing”. In summary, the house building industry creates significant employment opportunities and many companies are already under severe financial pressure as a result of the economic downturn. The Secretary of State’s abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies, in the absence of either an alternative mechanism for determining housing provision or details of mechanisms for incentivisation of Local Planning Authorities, will inevitably cause uncertainty, non delivery of housing provision and abortive expenditure. I trust the above is self explanatory and should be grateful if you keep me advised of progress regarding the Select Committee Inquiry. Should you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. September 2010

Written evidence from McCarthy & Stone (ARSS 14) Summary — Despite the rapidly ageing population, very few older people will be able to live in housing that is designed and located to specifically meet their needs in later life. Only 100,000 private properties (owner-occupied) in the UK are currently classified as retirement, sheltered or extra care housing, providing homes for just 1% of the UK’s population of older people. — Although Regional Spatial Strategies were tasked with addressing the impact of ageing populations on regional infrastructure requirements, in reality they failed to deliver a better choice in housing for older people at the local level. This is due to a combination of lack of central government direction with a lack of proactive, strategic planning by local authorities for the needs of their older communities. — Replacing RSSs with “localism” could help to improve a community’s understanding and assessment of the need for provision of housing for older people. However, it must be delivered hand-in-hand with clear direction from central Government within a revised Planning Policy Framework. — The chronic undersupply of diverse, high quality specialist housing is because there is no positive and proactive planning regime in place for retirement housing and there is no formal, or consistent, method which local authorities use to assess the future need for different housing types within their development plans. — It is essential, therefore, that Communities and Local Government states a commitment to a presumption in favour of suitable, sustainable housing for older people and that the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development includes an enhanced incentive for specialised housing schemes for older people. This would be a far more effective way of encouraging the private sector to deliver new and better forms of specialist retirement housing going forward.

Introduction By 2013, 32% of households will be headed by someone aged over 65 and 75% of older people will be owner-occupiers. But only 100,000 private properties in the UK are currently classified as retirement, sheltered or extra care housing. It is the everyday tasks of climbing stairs, maintaining a house and garden, cleaning and cooking and going out that pose the greatest challenge of all the “Activities of Daily Living” in later life. The location and design of housing has a huge impact on an older person’s ability to live independently, on informal care requirements and on the levels of respite care needed by older people. These impacts give rise to significant cost burdens to the public purse. McCarthy & Stone is the UK’s leading provider of specialist retirement housing. Established in 1963, the company specialises in the design, construction and management of purpose built accommodation for sale to older people. McCarthy & Stone provides 70% of all retirement, extra care and sheltered housing for homeowners. Our developments offer companionship, independence, good access to local services and shops, security, a 24 hour care line and domestic and personal care, and are highly sustainable forms of housing. 80% cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w24 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

of our residents moved from family-size homes when they purchased McCarthy & Stone flats, releasing under- occupied housing stock onto the market. As the leading private sector provider in this sector, McCarthy & Stone chairs the HBF Retirement Housing Group and is a member of the newly formed Housing and Ageing Alliance. The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development A more effective planning policy framework for housing for older people will be essential for delivering homes for older people in the future. The publication of the first ever National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society “Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods” under the previous Government in February 2008 marked a significant step in the right direction. The National Strategy recognised the role of the private sector and the importance of providing homes for older owner occupiers, in addition to social tenants. To deliver more homes for older owner occupiers, the Strategy made a commitment to “a new emphasis on the role of planning in addressing the housing needs of older people within regional spatial strategies, local development frameworks and sustainable community strategies”. Some Regional Spatial Strategies did attempt to assess the implications of their ageing populations on future infrastructure requirements. However, the charity Care and Repair England, in a 2008 survey of Regional Housing Strategies, argued that “Given the fact that the ageing of the population is the major driving force in household growth in most areas, we do not consider that any of the strategies sufficiently address population ageing.” The abolition of Regional Strategies will provide a clear signal of the importance attached to the development and application of local spatial plans, in the form of Local Development Frameworks, Core Strategies and other Development Plan Documents. The current PPS3 simply does not go far enough when it states: “Local Planning Authorities should plan for a mix of housing on the basis of the different types of households that are likely to require housing over the plan period. This will include having particular regard to: .... —The accommodation requirements of specific groups, in particular, families with children, older and disabled people.” In the Conservative Housing Green Paper, “Strong Foundations”, published April 2009, it was suggested that provided a community can agree on the size and type of housing development that it wants, it will get a mandatory presumption in favour of the development from the local planning authority. The planning system proposed by the Conservatives before the election would be underpinned by a predisposition in favour of sustainable development. In our view this offers a genuine opportunity for local communities, many of whom have rapidly ageing populations, to plan strategically for better, more sustainable housing for local older people. But, with so many competing interests for scarce land and with the additional financial constraints of delivering specialist and extra-care housing, “localism” alone will not address the housing needs of owner occupiers in later life, who need the right living conditions to keep increasing health and domestic care levels to a minimum. To date local authorities, even though they may have a local Housing Strategy for Older People in place, do not plan for private sector housing or care options. We cannot see how, without some central government guidance, there will be any guarantee that this situation will change or how local authorities will find the resources or motivation to address the needs of older people in their strategic plans. It is essential, therefore, that the department of Communities and Local Government states a commitment to a presumption in favour of suitable, sustainable housing for older people. This would be a far more effective way of ensuring that local authorities encourage the private sector to deliver new and better forms of specialist retirement housing going forward, thus helping to meet the housing needs and aspirations of the ageing population. The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing. Will the proposed incentives be adequate or appropriate? McCarthy & Stone supports the principle of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development but fears that such incentives will not work unless they are set at a high level and/or supported by a strong planning policy presumption in favour of housing—in particular a presumption in favour of housing designed to meet identified needs, including affordable housing and specialist housing for older people. Whilst details are yet to be issued with regard to the intended incentive scheme (“new homes bonus scheme”), it is McCarthy & Stone’s understanding that the scheme is likely to be based upon principles that for every new house granted planning consent, the local authority in question will receive a bonus of 100% equivalent council tax each year for a six year period and that in the case of affordable housing, the bonus will be 125% of council tax per home, per year over the same period. The previous Government commissioned an “Innovation Panel” to consider what further reform is needed to ensure that new build specialist housing meets the needs and aspirations of older people of the future. The report entitled “HAPPI—Housing our Ageing Population: Panel for Innovation”, published in December 2009, cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w25

advised that “The time has come for a national effort to build the homes that will meet our needs and aspirations as we all grow older” and that “we should all plan ahead positively, creating demand for better choice through a greater range of housing opportunities”. The Panel recommended that:— “Central Government prioritises the building of new homes for our ageing population as a key component of its housing, health and care policies”. If we are to meet the existing and increasing housing needs of the ageing population then the proposed bonus scheme should treat specialist housing for older people in the same way that it is likely to treat affordable housing—ie there should be an additional incentive to local communities to accept new purpose designed housing schemes for local older people, recognising the wide-ranging social and economic benefits that accrue from this type of specialist housing including, in particular, the release of existing under-occupied family houses. (Currently some 37% of all households in the UK under-occupy, but with half of these (3.3 million homes) in the 50–69 age group). Without such an additional incentive and a presumption in favour of suitable, sustainable housing for older people, local planning authorities are likely to continue to fail to give due consideration to the community benefits that accrue from providing better housing for the local older population and will not therefore, help facilitate better housing choice for this important, growing sector of the population. See the comments. September 2010

Written evidence from Star Planning and Development (ARSS 15) Summary By reason of the current revocation and proposed abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies: — There is a need for a framework at national and sub area level for the provision of housing to at least provide a metric for monitoring housing provision if only to assist with the distribution of financial incentives and to potentially act as a “stick” in default of a locally derived and robust housing provision; — There is the inherent potential for conflicts between local planning authorities wanting growth or financial purposes versus the local community who may remain resistant to new development; and — As a consequence of the abrupt policy vacuum caused, there will inevitably be delay in the preparation of Local Development Frameworks (or Local Plans).

Housing Provision 1. The proposed abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) is not a new idea and there has been a period of at least 12 months for the current Government, when in opposition, to devise robust alternative arrangements. However, such arrangements were not devised and are still not in place other than the proposal to encourage Councils to accept housing growth via financial incentives. 2. The Select Committee will receive more detailed evidence on this matter but, based on Star Planning and Development’s experience, it is clear that local planning authorities are revisiting previously accepted policies concerning housing provision and this is resulting in delays to the preparation of Local Development Framework/Local Plans (a minimum of six months and perhaps up to 18 months) and refusing schemes which might otherwise have been approved (whether on application or appeal). 3. As part of this submission, Annex 1 comprises a letter is attached dated 8 October 2009 to Bob Neil MP covering the concerns of Star Planning and Development following his presentation to a RTPI sponsored event in Manchester during the Conservative Party Conference. From a cursory inspection of the letter’s contents the reader will note that some of the issues now identified by the Select Committee were highlighted to Mr Neil in October 2009 and an approach suggested which could potentially have avoided the current malaise and uncertainty in the planning system caused by the blunt approach of revoking RSSs. Further, the suggested approach would ensure generally that the process of distributing housing growth would be democratic and major decisions locally based albeit with a “stick” to ensure that the wider housing needs of the country are met through the planning system. No response was forthcoming from Mr Neil. 4. An area of particular concern is that there is an established link between house prices, housing supply, economic growth and social well-being which was demonstrated by Kate Barker’s Review of Housing Supply. Without some form of national context or framework for the provision of new dwellings, how can there be a reasonable degree of certainty that the housing needs of the country would be being met in a co-ordinated manner, including the wider issue of infrastructure providers providing the necessary capacity and services?

Financial Incentives 5. The financial incentives being advocated by the Government as the preferred approach to encourage additional housing do have some merits if allied to disincentives for those authorities failing to provide their “fair share” of country’s new dwelling requirement. However, there are two specific concerns which arise: cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w26 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

(a) Will there need to be a benchmark against which the housing provisions and financial incentives will be tested? If this is the case, what will the benchmark be and how will it be established? A clear framework to allocate the available funds needs to be established and, logically, there must be a “target” housing provision, whether nationally, regionally or locally, against which the payment of financial incentives can be measured. The only other alternative is a metric based on the number of new homes provided within each administrative area. Accordingly, some of the rural areas, especially those in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, would materially “loose out” because of the very tight controls on new house building. (b) The tension (or as the Government refer to the matter an “honest debate) between an authority which is perhaps seeking to maximise the financial benefits associated with new housing versus the local community who may be against any new development. The so called NIMBY to YIMBY argument raised by Mr Neil last year. Many local communities welcomed the revocation of RSSs because they perceived the potential threat of new development was removed (Star Planning and Development currently has such experiences). However, given the financial incentives being suggested by the Government, together with the potential for new development to fund wider community benefits via a reformed Community Infrastructure Levy, pursuing growth may well be attractive to a significant number of authorities. Accordingly, the growth originally envisaged in a particular location identified the in revoked RSSs would potentially only be delayed. It should be noted that the RSS locations were generally based on robust evidence bases and new studies are unlikely to come to different conclusions. When it is again suggested by an authority that growth should occur at a previously identified RSS location there will be an undermining of the community’s perception of the Government’s original “promise” about abolishing the undemocratic planning system inherent in the RSS process.

Other Policies 6. Star Planning and Development has sought to clarify with the Department for Communities and Local Government why the Regional Strategies (RSs) were revoked and the exchange of e-mails is attached as Annex 2. Clearly, the Secretary of State’s decision was politically based and could be justified by reference to Collation Agreement. However, other than this political dimension, there appears to be no specific or sound technical reasons why all or parts of the various RSs were withdrawn, including both RSS and Regional Economic Strategy elements. 7. The revocation of, in particular, RSSs has left a significant policy vacuum in terms of employment and housing land provision and targets for mineral extraction which might be considered to be the more contentious matters. However, RSSs included important environmental and sustainability polices and targets such as overarching affordable housing targets, the basis for co-ordinating transport provision, a clear framework for cross-boundary working between individual authorities and general sustainability matters and green infrastructure provision. There is now a policy vacuum associated with these important matters. Little thought appears to have been given by the Secretary of State to the provision in the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 which allows for “any parts” of an RS to be revoked. A more selective approach could have been adopted to retain the less politically contentious aspects of RSS policies. 8. It may have been politically expedient to revoke the contentious parts of the RSSs but it remains unclear why they were revoked in full. Unless the vacuum for the less contentious policies is expediently filled by the National Planning Statement, all that will now happen is that Local Development Frameworks/Local Plans will inevitably become significantly longer and more detailed than originally envisaged. This level of detail will add to the timescale to produce these documents. In this regard, sight must not be lost that the preparation of any planning policy document has to comply with wider requirements concerning sustainability and environmental assessments, the preparation of a sound evidence base and ensuring a democratic basis for drafting policies. It is generally these matters which cause the delay in the process rather than the actually writing of the policy document itself.

Conclusion 9. As with any significant change to the planning system, the revocation and future abolition of RSSs has and will continue to result in Local Development Frameworks/Local Plans being delayed with the need for the significant policy vacuum to be filled at local level. The inevitable frustrations associated with this delay will more than likely result in further tinkering in about two years time to try and speed up the development plan system. Further, the likely disappointment of the community in the planning system because the abolition of the RSS will not stop growth pressures combine with authorities wanting growth to secure the Government’s financial incentives has the potential for significant conflicts to arise which may not be capable of successful mediation. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w27

Written evidence from West Midlands Regional Sustainability Forum (ARSS 16) In summary we are concerned that there could be a policy vacuum. We could see uncoordinated planning especially at boundaries. There is much more to the RSS than housing. While not fully democratic they did engage a range of partners. The RSS consultation and examination process was open transparent and allowed many views to be aired. We would wish to respond to the decision to abolish the Regional Spatial Strategies inquiry. While much of the focus will be on the provision of housing we would wish to stress that this is throwing out many other policies and evidence based work which covers a whole spectrum of local and regional planning and the coordination of that evidence and the data behind it. The areas with which we are most concerned would include Biodiversity, Climate Change, (both adaptation and mitigation), resource use and waste, transport, air quality, minerals, general infrastructure, flooding and renewables. The establishment of various regional bodies enabled the evidence to be collated and shared across the region in a manner which enabled planning inspectors determine after full examination a vision for the future of the region to deal with land use issues over the medium to long term. We are very concerned that the loss of this coordination will lead to a lack of data and information which can be shared when policy decisions are made and the land uses that occur as a result. The Regional Assemblies were not fully democratic BUT they did engage a wide range of bodies and views in a way that might not have been to everyone’s liking BUT did at least ensure that there was a much more grounded understanding of the reasons as to why decisions had to be taken to enable us all to deal with longer term land use planning issues. We are concerned that moving forward these decisions will be made without this information and that there will be a lack of policy coordination especially at the “boundaries”. As not only an organisation which took up a seat on the Assembly BUT one which engaged actively in the RSS process we also tried to enable as many community groups as possible to engage and make their views heard. Indeed as a result of this many local communities did actively engage in the process. By doing do they not only made their views know in consultations BUT also took up the opportunity to speak at the public examination. We do wonder what opportunities there will be moving forward whether through the Core Strategies or the Local Enterprise Partnerships. It is also important to note that strategic planning did not begin in 1997, but has been a vital part of our system for over half a century, indeed the West Midlands have benefitted from this since the 1950s. We would argue that it vital to have a level of strategic planning between local councils and national government to ensure proper coordination across council boundaries. The hasty abolition of regional planning could leave a vacuum in terms of the policy needed to give the certainty to take major investment decisions that will help get us out of recession. Communities need some level of strategic thinking beyond the local level to deliver many of the things they want, such as hospitals, transport links, waste management and flood protection. The most pressing issues facing the nation, for example, such as the housing crisis, economic recovery, climate change and biodiversity loss, cannot be dealt with solely at a local level. The RSSs were useful in that they provided the much needed direction on how national targets were to be met and a body of knowledge that often underpinned a local authority’s decision making. In putting forward an application for a particular development they could successfully argue that such a scheme is needed if regional targets are to be met. Strategic planning has helped ensure local authorities make consistent decisions on development across their boundaries, including affordable housing, public transport and waste provision. These developments need a high level of cross-authority working and the Government will need to outline a credible alternative to fill this void. In recent years there have been ongoing reviews of the West Midlands RSS where we all had to address important strategic decision making and engage in a process where we were not going to get everything that we wanted. This was a hard learning process for many BUT mutual respect and relationships were developed along with a wider understanding of what need to be done. One area where we seemed to be progressing well was on green infrastructure especially in the Black Country. This could all now be lost. In terms of moving forward we would urge that whatever structures emerge that they are open transparent and inclusive. Plans to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development should reflect appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the planning process still provides protection for irreplaceable natural habitats like ancient woodland. We are concerned that incentivising housing could lead to houses built where there is least cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w28 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

resistance and where house builders can afford to provide sweeteners for development rather than in the areas that are most sustainable and best protect the environment and the countryside. We are also unclear how incentivisation will protect environmental and landscape assets or provide for enhancement of those assets where development happens' which is a slightly broader approach. Local community house building incentives should be coupled with similar local incentives to improve peoples’ quality of life, such as creating new native woods. Environmental improvements should be planned and coordinated at a “landscape scale”. The positive benefits of sub national level environmental planning and delivery should be carried forward into the new localism model. The Local Enterprise Partnerships should not be given any planning powers once held by regional and local government as it risks undermining the notion of a planning system that is democratically accountable and able to integrate environmental, social and economic concerns. All sub-regional data and information needs to be banked and widely available to all parties. There is an urgent need to consider at what level future data will be collected, especially where it is appropriate at a level between the sub-regional and national level (eg journey to work areas). The concept of landscape scale has become increasingly important in environmental policy and data on this will need to be maintained at that level. September 2010

Written evidence from Dr Helen Chadwick (ARSS 18) Introduction In addition to any implications for housing delivery the abolition of regional spatial strategies will have profound implications for the delivery of targets on renewable energy and climate change. There are a number of significant factors, many linked with housing delivery. There is a huge drive for increasing renewable energy delivery: — Renewable energy targets have been hugely ramped up following the recent EU directive on renewables. — Up to 35% of electricity generation from will need to come from renewable electricity technologies, with onshore wind a sizable part of this total. — Currently about 6.6% is delivered. The policy framework is confused and the abolition of RSS adds to the confusion: — Currently national policy is guided by PPS1 and PPS22 both these documents are under review. — There is new draft National Guidance for the now defunct IPC. — PPS22 calls for Regional targets as part of RSS. — PPS1 calls for local studies to identify carbon savings as part of the development process. — A change in emphasis toward localism will impact dramatically on planning decision making. — Local policy is patchy, with many LDFs have little or no policy relating to renewable energy. In general, RSS provides the only coherent policy on renewable energy. Policies are evidenced based and have gone through considerable public consultation to reach a consensus.

Implications for Delivery of New Renewable Energy Development Renewable energy developments are often difficult and contentious projects. They often need to be sited in the countryside. This often leads to a certain level of antagonism. Most often the decision on acceptance or rejection of any project relies on the careful balancing of the impacts locally against the national need. A commonly aired statement by local group is that they support renewable energy,but do not feel that a local site is the most appropriate. Any planning decision relies on fairly subjective value judgements, but a solid policy basis nationally and locally can allow much of the decision making to be clearly related to the site. There are no ideal sites for renewable projects, all of them will have significant impacts locally, particularly in relation to visual impact. But technologies can be accommodated in a wide variety of locations and landscapes, if well designed National policy clearly is supportive of renewable energy and the new EU Renewables directive calls for an enormous increase in the amount of energy from renewables, with a target of 15% of all UK energy coming from renewable sources by 2020. This is an enormous challenge and could require an increase of renewably generated grid connected electricity from around 6% to 34%. No one technology can deliver on this scale and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w29

on-shore wind energy, one of the most contentious technologies, will form an important part of the delivery against this targets.

Prior to the general election all of the main national planning policy documents dealling with renewables came under review. PPS22 and Climate change Supplement of PPS1 were due to be amalgamated and a consultation was commenced. New national guidance as part of the new IPC was also put out for consultation. The IPC has now been stood down and the new draft national guidance has no weight. There has not yet been any clarification of the positions re PPS 22 and PPS1.

Local policy in many area is still in formation. Many areas are still operating saved policies from local plans, some of which are over 10 years old. Many local plan policies pre-date any significant interest in renewable installations, which has increased significantly since 2005. Where LDF core strategies have been formulated and adopted, they have been informed by evidence required for PPS1, in relation to carbon-dioxide emissions. On the whole these have been used to inform the policies relating to on building and settlement scale renewable energy, rather than larger grid-connected stand alone installations. Many Local Planning Authorities struggle to meet the staff resource requirement to fully implement such complex study areas.

PPS22 relies heavily on the delivery of sub-national policy via regional renewable targets and policy through RSS. The requirements of PPS1 for evidence for LDFs is not sufficient to meet the requirements for PPS22. This mismatch was the reason behind the review of those documents. Carbon emissions and renewable energy are closely linked with new development and the renewal of urban areas. There is a need for a coherent approach, otherwise expensive and inappropriate low carbon solutions may be chosen. These could damage the emerging markets. As we move into a new low carbon future spatial planning policy has to try to flexible enough to allow a number of different approaches to low carbon development, whilst maintaining and protecting valued and invaluable ameities across our countryside and communities. This will be an immensely challenging process, made more difficult by the lack of clear knowledge of which low carbon technologies will be the leaders in tomorrow's low carbon society.

Regional studies have provided information on resource and accessible capacity as part of the evidence base for RSS targets. Those targets have also gone through specific consultations and been scrutinised in EiP across England. So, whist any process or target can be flawed the RSS policies indicate some level of consensus across an area. Certainly in the East Midlands, it is clear that regional evidence, targets and policy have formed the backbone against which certain appeals have been played out. Clear regional policy has allowed the Planning Inspector to move rapidly to the specific site based material considerations when making decisions.

The new localism agenda brings a different aspect to the decision making process. On- shore wind is very contentious. Some local people would often prefer not to have any on-shore wind in their area. It is not yet clear whether this local view should be given more weight in decision making proceedings. If so, then renewable applications could be seriously affected.

Conclusions

The abolition of RSS has seriously affected the policy clarity around delivery of renewable energy installations. The shortcomings in local and national policy are likely to leave developers and LPAs in some confusion around decision making. The lack of regional policy or targets is likely to take some time to resolve into coherent national or local policy.

Renewable developments are likely to slow as a result. This will have serious implications for our ability to meet the 2020 targets.

Well evidenced, clear and flexible policies are essential to ensure good spatial outcomes in this rapidly evolving policy areas. The lack of such a framework nationally or locally is a major concern.

In some areas RSS is the only policy for delivery of local renewables and it would be helpful if RSS evidence and targets could be upheld in a way that local planning authorities can access as local and national policy is improved. In addition many smaller districts need support to deliver their own evidence base and fully engage stakeholders, particularly English Heritage and English Nature. It is also clear that there is a need for a more coherent approach to local constraints that will clarify and support local delivery of renewable energy. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w30 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from Gazeley UK Ltd (ARSS 19) Summary — The logistics sector plays a crucial role within the UK economy and on the basis of international comparison it is highly efficient and successful. — Gazeley UK Ltd is a major development player within the British logistics sector. — The logistics sector requires a continuing supply of very large buildings of up to one million sq ft in floor area on individual sites of five acres and above, or parks of up to about 500 acres. The buildings are operated by or on behalf of retailers, manufacturers or third party hauliers. These units serve regional or national markets and typically draw on labour forces from a number of local authority areas. The logistics sector depends on the national highway and rail networks and a variety of measures, some funded by developers, to upgrade these systems. — Gazeley’s experience is that individual local planning authorities acting alone are frequently unable, reluctant or unwilling to address the provision of major logistics facilities which serve a regional or national function, within their areas. The characteristics of the logistics sector are such that they can only be considered from a planning policy perspective on a broad canvas. — There have been good examples within recent Regional Spatial Strategies where the needs of the logistics sector were being addressed in a comprehensive manner. — The abolition of RSS’s can be seen already to be slowing and making more difficult the procurement of major new logistics developments. — There is a strong overriding need for appropriate planning policies at a sub national or regional level to address the unique requirements of the logistics sector. This would assist major stakeholders and decision makers within this key commercial sector which makes a vital contribution to the national economy.

1. Gazeley—a leader in UK logistics development 1.1 Gazeley UK Ltd is one of the major commercial property developers in the world, focussing particularly on the needs of the logistics sector. Over the last 23 years Gazeley has completed 60 m sq ft (6 m sq metres) of floorspace across the globe for a variety of occupiers engaged in retail, distribution and manufacturing activities. Our customers comprise leading UK, American, German, French, Italian, Spanish and Japanese companies. 1.2 Gazeley has offices and associated activities in most major countries in continental Europe. Through our ultimate parent company, Dubai World, we have related businesses engaged in logistics development throughout the world, notably in the Middle East and China. 1.3 In the UK our flag ship developments include Magna Parks in Lutterworth, Leicestershire and Milton Keynes—the former, comprising 8m sq ft (743, 000sq metres) of completed floorspace and accommodating c.6,500 jobs is the largest dedicated logistics facility in Europe. 1.4 Whilst most buildings developed by Gazeley are occupied for distribution related activities, some units accommodate large scale manufacturing or processing companies.

2. Significance of the logistics sector 2.1 Over the last 20 years the logistics sector has undergone fundamental technological and organisational changes which parallel changes in the nature of retailing and in the way that goods are sourced and handled. In contrast to the manufacturing sector the logistics sector has experienced steadily rising employment levels. There continues to be strong occupier demand for new buildings as supply chain requirements constantly change. Take up of strategic sized warehouses (ie over 100,000 sq ft) in the UK during the first half of 2010 was 10.2m sq ft (948,000 sq metres). Development activity for the logistics sector takes place in all regions but with a particular focus on the East and West Midlands, the South East, Yorkshire/Humberside and the North West. 2.2 Retail distribution in the UK is widely regarded as the most efficient in the world. This enables retailers to offer competitive pricing, to provide rapid response times and wide stock ranges to customers and to minimise inventories. The logistics sector is critical to the success of UK plc. 2.3 The UK logistics sector turns over £7 billion per annum and employs 2.3 million people—equivalent to about one in 12 of the country’s workforce. Over 200,000 companies are engaged in logistics.

3. Characteristics of logistics developments 3.1 In order to achieve continuous improvements in productivity and cope with greatly expanded product choices, the average size of a strategic scale warehouse in the UK has increased to c.290,000 sq ft (27,000 sq m). Depending on the nature of the occupier’s business, such buildings may serve a national, regional or sub regional function for distribution of goods. Depending on individual company operations goods may pass through standalone warehouses from supplier to retailer or via more complex hub and spoke networks. In recent cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w31

years there has been an increased focus on port related warehouse operations. Provision of rail accessibility is also increasingly important. 3.2 The buildings which Gazeley develops range between 100,000—1,000,000 sq ft (9,300 sq m–93,000 sq. m.) in floor area, with heights of up to c 60 ft (20m). These units have extensive lorry and car parking areas and ancillary features such a vehicle washing units, buildings for vehicle maintenance, product re-cycling, renewable energy plants, flood storage areas and in some case railway sidings with associated external stacking areas. Such large developments require extensive landscaping on an appropriate scale to screen and soften the visual appearance. Other more sophisticated units may function as data centres in which computers store and handle vast quantities of financial and other commercial records. Individual plots range upwards from about five acres to a large Magna Park project of over 500 acres. 3.3 The units almost invariably operate on a 24/7 basis and attract significant vehicle movements. The buildings typically employ between 200–700 people in a variety of skill areas. The work force is likely to be attracted from within a 30 minute drive time and therefore will reside in a number of different local authority areas. 3.4 The operations frequently require sophisticated handling equipment the costs of which may exceed those of the buildings themselves. The completed capital value of such completed units typically ranges from about £15 million–£80 million. 3.5 The development requirements of the logistics sector can therefore be seen to be highly significant.

4. What are the strategic planning issues for the logistics sector? 4.1 In relation to logistics it is critical that the planning system can facilitate provision of the right quantity, of the right type of development, in the right locations taking into account all other policy considerations. 4.2 The development needs of the logistics sector are critically determined by location: the location of markets i.e. where the largest population centres are to be found; the location and access to key transport routes ie the principle motorways, trunk roads, railways and container ports; and the location of a suitable labour force. In view of these requirements, major logistics developments can only occur in a limited number of places. 4.3 Almost inevitably major developments for the logistics sector raise issues that impact more than one individual local authority area. These needs must be considered on a wider basis. 4.4 A good example of the way in which the needs of the logistics sector have been addressed in a regional spatial strategy may be seen in the RSS for the East Midlands approved in March 2009. The East Midlands accommodates a larger share of the logistics sector than any other individual region. 4.5 Policy 21 of the East Midlands RSS, a copy of which is attached, was based on research commissioned by the East Midlands Regional Development Agency into the characteristics of, future demand and potential locations for strategic distribution warehousing. The RSS identified a need for 308 hectares (761 acres) of rail connected distribution sites and 76 hectares (188 acres) of non rail linked sites in the region. It also targeted an additional 30 freight trains per day to carry goods in the region. The policy identifies five general locations within the region where strategic warehousing should be directed and identifies the appropriate highway and rail requirements together with other relevant planning policy considerations. A strong policy consideration is to encourage transfer of freight to those limited parts of the rail network which for reasons of adequate height clearance are capable of accommodating trains loaded with large containers. 4.6 Steps have been taken by the various stakeholders to bring forward proposals to fulfil this policy but the demise of the RSS is already casting doubts as to what will be implemented.

5. The Need for a Regional Perspective 5.1 Local planning authorities have been accustomed to the need to have regard for the strategic or regional planning perspective when producing their own development plans. This is essential since issues raised by the type of developments described above, have implications beyond the boundaries of the individual council. An individual local authority could not normally be expected to have the necessary resources available to research this specialist sector. 5.2 Similarly it is essential to consider the regional dimension when planning applications are submitted for major developments which raise wide strategic considerations. This is especially important since many local development documents are woefully out of date or have failed properly to address the wider needs of the logistics sector. 5.2 Gazeley has been a regular contributor to the production of regional spatial strategies (RSS’s), (and indeed with the structure plans and regional planning guidance which proceeded them), to ensure that the approved documents recognise the significance and needs of the development sector of which we are a part. We note with some satisfaction that RSS’s in those parts of the country where we have been most active such as the East Midlands, West Midlands and Eastern England, do now recognise the key planning issues facing the logistics sector. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w32 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

6. Consequences of abolition of regional spatial strategies 6.1 No detailed planning policy advice exists at the national level in respect of the specific needs of the logistics sector. With the abolition of RSS’s a policy vacuum therefore now exists. 6.2 Major logistics developments are not easy to navigate through the planning system at the best of times and the absence of relevant policy can already be seen to be making this process considerably more difficult. Without a regional policy focus, some local planning authorities with whom Gazeley deals are now displaying an entirely parochial view, as was the case before the adoption of suitable regional policy. We have experienced the response that since a strategic distribution warehouse project does not meet a strictly “local need” in terms of employment or function, then provision does not have to be made in a local development document. If this attitude continues to be replicated by the majority of local authorities, then the supply of facilities which meet wider needs will be blocked off. 6.3 Inevitably there will be an adverse impact on the national economy and overall efficiency if new infrastructure to meet the needs of the various supply chains within the UK is prevented. 6.4 Gazeley is most concerned that a policy vacuum at the regional level has been created following the abolition of regional spatial strategies.

7. Requirement for a wider planning perspective 7.1 In our view there is a clear need for a sub national or regional perspective on the delivery of future major logistics. Gazeley would not wish to be unduly prescriptive as to how such policy guidance is produced. The over riding need is for policy which is relevant, up to date and able to give a clear lead to local decision makers and other key stakeholders in this sector. The very largest rail connected logistics projects are likely to be considered by the Infrastructure Planning Commission for whom we believe high level regional policy guidance on this topic is important. 7.2 Such policy must attempt to quantify the approximate amount of floorspace which each region will need to accommodate. 7.3 At least for those regions which are key to the logistics sector, the policy should identify those general areas where future requirements will need to be accommodated, taking into account their relative locational advantages. 7.4 The policy should identify what key transport infrastructure is required in the case of each identified area of search and the manner in which this is to be delivered. This should deal as appropriate with the necessary highway and rail improvements. 7.5 Finally the policy should indicate the other key planning and environmental requirements, such as the use of renewable energy, which must be achieved. 7.6 Without such policy provision it is our firm belief, based on our experience of the situation prior to the existence of RSS’s and upon what we have observed in recent months, that progress to deliver modern logistics requirements will become increasingly hampered. September 2010

Written evidence from RIBA (ARSS 20) Introduction The Royal Institute of British Architects champions better buildings, communities and the environment through architecture and our members. The 40,000-strong professional institute is committed to serving the public interest through good design, and represents 85% of registered architects in the UK as well as a significant number of international members.

Summary The RIBA welcomes the coalition government’s focus on local communities and the decision to put them at the heart of planning decisions. However, this must not impact upon the quantity and quality of housing during this critical shortage of housing. The abolition of regional spatial strategies means aspects covered by the strategies such as regional house building targets need to be replaced by new policy initiatives to ensure housing and other essential developments are delivered. The RIBA’s believes that: — The abolition of regional housing targets must be followed up with a rigorous plan to ensure enough homes are built to house the growing number of households across the UK. — The match-funded council tax incentives currently outlined in the New Homes Bonus will not be enough to solve the problem posed by the current severe housing shortage. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w33

— Local Enterprise Partnerships will provide a good platform for delivering housing, they should use research, planning and design expertise to deliver the right quantity and quality of homes. Recommendations for the delivery of new housing through a locally-led system: — Local Enterprise Partnerships should carry out an assessment to identify need and opportunity for (and therefore strategically plan) transport; energy infrastructure; significant housing developments; waste, refuse and recycling; significant economic developments (eg superstores or major retail parks; and flood defences. — Incentives need to be improved upon. To identify need, Strategic Housing Market Assessments should be used to understand, analyse and communicate the definitive demand for housing in each Local Enterprise Partnership or Local Authority.

Local or larger than local? It is essential to have structures and mechanisms in place which enable the delivery of the infrastructure necessary to support new development and economic growth. The Regional Development Agencies, through their Regional Spatical Strategies, currently play an important role in delivering strategic planning objectives and we believe that alternative methods of delivery need to be established once the RDAs are abolished.. Many local authorities do not currently have the skills or expertise to deliver strategic planning and economic development priorities.10

Role of Planning for LEPs If Local Authorities are to be real leaders in development, they will need to work with a range of partners, including neighbouring Local Authorities. They will need to take a strategic approach to planning policy and ensure the adequate delivery of the housing and infrastructure required to support development. We believe that Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) would seem to be the natural place for strategic planning decisions to reside. At present we are considering that LEPs should carry out an assessment to identify need and opportunity for (and therefore strategically plan) the following: — Transport. — Energy infrastructure. — Significant housing developments. — Waste, refuse and recycling. — Significant economic developments (eg superstores or major retail parks). — Flood defences. These are the minimum requirements for LEPs to be useful, and the most appropriate areas to take on critical functions that might otherwise be lost through the abolition of regional development agencies. Given these minimum requirements, it would make sense for their remit to extend further and take up other elements previously governed at local authority level, in order to facilitate delivery of its economic strategy: — Create a joint Spatial Plan for the authorities involved in the LEP, covering the issues listed above. — Pool some local authorities’ planning resource to deal more efficiently with those economically and socially important schemes. — Run Design Reviews11 which review those significant schemes (using national planning guidance, and local authority guidance specific to that location). — Have a single design guide aligning local authority design criteria and policy, to relate to the types of development listed above.

Adequate Delivery of New Homes A local community needs to have a say in how their neighbourhood is built and developed. We also need to ensure that the UK is building enough homes. The RIBA recommends that either Local Authorities or at a “larger than local” level Local Enterprise Partnerships all undertake a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to inform on what the local community needs. The Assessment could include a consultation exercise, as a method of collecting input from local residents, and its results should also be widely communicated to evidence and demonstrate why house building is needed. The Assessment should include: — Community consultation. — Local house price analysis over time. 10 For example, a recent Training in Development Economics report sponsored by a number of bodies including the CLG, HCA, RTPI and RICS, concluded that planners and councillors need more training in the economics of the development process. 11 A panel of professionals including architects, landscape architects and others to assess design quality of proposed schemes to support the Local Authority, the applicant and the architects to get the best scheme for the area. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w34 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— The number of homes built annually over time. — An account of social housing waiting lists (how they have grown or declined over time, and analysis of households and compositions). — An account of intermediate housing applicants (as above). — Local migration patterns analysed against economic development and house prices. The Strategic Housing Market Assessments would demonstrate the local housing need in an area, rather than relying on unsubstantiated top-down targets, and would help make LEPs make sound, well-evidenced decisions about what homes need to be built and of what type, to suit local households.

Delivering Better Quality Development Seeking to increase the quantity of housing being delivered should not come at the cost of quality. Regional Design Review panels, currently funded by the RDAs, operate across most regions. They assess large schemes and have played an important role in maintaining the standard of significant new developments and ensuring that design considerations are taken into account pre-application. The abolition of the RDAs will mean that the future funding of these panels is uncertain. We suggest that design review should continue to be conducted. This could be provided at a LEP level or, as it does already in many areas, at a Local Authority level. September 2010

Written evidence from English Rural Action Ltd (ARSS 20) Summary We have considered the first topic, — the implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development, with particular reference to the Sedgemoor area. We conclude that the revocation of the draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy may invite our local community to reconsider the implications of setting RSS led local housing targets. The dangers of over- development are not being faced up-to and LPA’s do not yet consider fully how to define stainable need and site locations which will enhance our towns and villages and cause least damage to food producing landscape.

Our campaign group ERA ltd is based in Sedgemoor and is part of the Save Our Green Spaces forum, a wide affiliation of groups that includes a common aim of preventing over-development and preserving quality of life within sustainable planning objectives. eg Housing near to employment and efficient transport links, energy efficiency in new builds that are created for need, rather than just desire, that compromises food production land that is becoming more relevant to the well being of UK and the world as a whole.

Effects of Revocation of Draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy 1. Loss of certainty We acknowledge that the revocation of the draft South West Regional Strategy and of its predecessor, RPG 10, has removed future certainty about housing numbers and allocations. When the Treasury derived draft South West Regional Strategy numbers were revoked it meant that the essential re-think following the disastrous Barker Report was at last possible. Please see attached research¹ re the 2004 warnings that were sent to the ODPM that warned of the economic crash that would follow the Treasury led planning disaster of 2005.

2. Removal of draft SWRSS housing targets on Sedgemoor 2.1 This has not resulted in any significant reduction of the housing targets! Such targets were derived in an economic climate of some 3.2% operating within a climate of growth based upon a free open-market that has failed. Having now considered the Local core strategy and local development framework without the draft RSS in place, It is concluded that the issues and reasons for our over-development led economic crash are too complicated for the LPA to fully appreciate! This is evident by the retention of near RSS excessive housing numbers.

3. Questioning of NEED for bulk new build housing 3.1 We have all along questioned the need for this number of houses which appears to have been based on a 20-year growth forecast of 3.2% per annum and on blanket Central Government statistics rather than on local population trends and optimistic job forecasts. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w35

3.2 We also query the “waiting list” figures which we think are not accurate and simply try to justify more new-build development for the sake of construction: We strongly recommend that all Local Authorities should state with open data how many people on each waiting list are in need and cannot be accommodated in existing housing stock, and how many are already in adequate accommodation but have put themselves on the list to exploit more housing options from their Local Authority.

3.3 There also must be a better way of providing houses for those in need than allowing 70% of unneeded open market houses to be built to fund the 30% of new build “affordable” homes which may prove to be needed.

3.4 We have also noted that there are currently more houses for sale nationwide than there is demand for them. We suspect members of the Committee will be aware like us of their local newspaper’s pages and pages of properties each week, for sale or to let, at “affordable” prices or to meet the needs of wealthier people— without imposing more new build on food growing green land.

3.5 We note too that in our area, and countrywide, there are significant numbers of homes empty for the last six months or longer which could be brought back into use, using Local Authority powers if necessary, before any more of our countryside and food producing land is lost to construction.

3.6 We are aware of our construction industry being the biggest in Europe, the second biggest employer in England and also a big net contributor to GDP. Nevertheless we think this circumstance should not lead the Government or Local Authorities blindly to permit unnecessary new build open market housing schemes just to support the industry, whose skills ought better to be applied to refurbishing and “greening” our existing housing stock or to “Obama” style infrastructure projects during this time of recession.

4. Post-RSS opportunity for genuinely sustainable rates of house building

Sedgemoor District Council have failed to produce a sustainable, level of new house building in preparing a Core Strategy, having conducted various public consultations. We feel that the Local Authorities, under the aegis of the Coalition’s Localism and Decentralisation proposals, need to be encouraged to listen to their communities’ wishes in designing the future of the area. Rather than being vested interest led, and moving farther away from settlement improvement by consolidation and the reality of employment. See research attached in terms of our submission to full council at the LDF CS².

5. Conclusion

The advantage of revocation of the draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy has not been understood in Sedgemoor District. It will not reduce food growing land take up loss within Sedgemoor and the increasing in-balance of population increase by way of new builds to employment opportunity deficit and facility over- burden.

Recommendations — It is recommend that a fresh assessment of genuine housing need be defined and availability of existing housing stock (both social and private) is carried out by each Local Authority. — That the emphasis of house building for the sake of creating open free market economic movement that has just failed, is reviewed. That the Treasury cause via the Barker Report is removed from any future close relationship with Town and Country Planning policy. Instead that the Construction industry is provided with an opportunity/incentive to provide for sustainable housing need and re- design/rebuild out dated existing stock. This to jointly provide energy efficiency gains reducing our high level of energy generation need, while respecting and providing for Biodiversity within designs and location. — That a review of the present and future value of all food producing farm land and our nations food security is studied in relation to the policy of building for desire and aspiration. That a realistic study into the true western worlds economic outlook is taken on board. This in the changed world employment stage and before any future housing is allocated in the faint hope that mass employment will just “turn up one day”! The UK has now to face un-fair foreign completion in terms of the overheads disparity spectrum, will this change in 20 or 50 years? September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w36 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from CBI Minerals Group (ARSS 23) Summary — The CBI Minerals Group represents the minerals extraction industry within the United Kingdom including all major non-energy minerals and coal. — The Group supports the revocation of RSSs, but it is essential that the primacy of maintaining an adequate and steady supply of all minerals is reaffirmed by Government. — The Group welcomes the recognition that mineral planning authorities will have responsibility for continuing to plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals to support economic growth and that they should do this within the longstanding arrangements for minerals planning. — It is essential that future arrangements for minerals planning also take account of indigenous supplies of non-aggregate minerals ensuring a steady and adequate supply of these nationally important natural resources. — It is essential that the Government urgently prepares robust arrangements to replace RSS framework.

Background The CBI Minerals Group represents the minerals extraction industry within the United Kingdom including all major non-energy minerals and coal. The Group represents some 400 mineral extraction companies either directly through being members of the Group or indirectly through member trade associations. The membership of the Group is contained in Annex 1. The UK Minerals Industry produces about 350 million tonnes of minerals per annum, directly contributes £5 billion a year to the economy, and is essential to provide the raw materials on which many important industries depend. Minerals are essential for development, and sustainable development is only achievable by ensuring an adequate and steady supply of minerals. Adequate supplies are crucial for the success of key development projects such as the 2012 Olympics and Crossrail and for meeting the Government’s aims for investment in new infrastructure such as the new generation of nuclear power stations and high speed rail. The CBI Minerals Group welcomes the opportunity to make this submission to the Inquiry by the Communities and Local Government Committee.

Maintaining a Steady and Adequate Supply of Minerals The CBI Minerals Group supports the revocation of RSSs, but it is essential that the primacy of maintaining an adequate and steady supply of all minerals is reaffirmed by Government. The CBIMG therefore welcomes the recognition in the Chief Planner’s letter of 6 July announcing the revocation of Regional Strategies, that mineral planning authorities will have responsibility for continuing to plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals to support economic growth and that they should do this within the longstanding arrangements for minerals planning with the assistance of the technical advice provided by the Aggregate Working Parties. We also welcome the undertaking given that the Government will work with the minerals industry and local government to agree how minerals planning arrangements should operate in the longer term. We will fully cooperate with this work. It is essential that future arrangements for minerals planning also take account of indigenous supplies of non-aggregate minerals ensuring a steady and adequate supply of these nationally important natural resources.12 They are essential raw materials for sustaining the country’s industrial base and the economy as a whole. The safeguarding of mineral resources and the mineral distribution infrastructure such as railheads, wharfage and other handling facilities is essential to ensure the continued sustainable supply of these raw materials to where they are needed. Unlike other forms of development, minerals can only be worked where they occur in economically viable quantities. It is essential that future arrangements provide for the inter-community movements of minerals. For example; the continued development in the south east of the country is wholly dependent on imported rock from the midlands and the south west and the glass industry is dependent on high quality silica sand that occurs only in a very few locations in the country. RSS’s were intended to provide a focused strategic spatial framework with statutory status within which mineral planning authorities were required to prepare the Local Minerals Development Frameworks. There is already evidence on the ground that the abolition of RSS’s has given a “green light” to some mineral planning authorities to go it alone and some have used the uncertainties to further delay, and in some instances halt, the preparation of their Mineral Framework Documents adding yet further inertia to the system. It is essential that 12 Non-aggregate minerals extracted in England on which industry depends include gypsum, fluorspar, industrial grade silica sands, limestone, salt, potash ball clay, Etruria marl, fire clay, china clay and coal. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w37

the Government urgently prepares robust arrangements for maintaining a steady and adequate supply of all minerals to replace this strategic spatial framework. The Minerals Group will cooperate fully in this work.

Annex 1

MEMBERS OF THE CBI MINERALS GROUP

Aggregate Industries Ltd (Holcim Group) Alliance Environment and Planning Ltd HJ Banks Mining British Aggregates Association British Ceramic Confederation British Geological Survey (observer status only) British Gypsum Ltd (BPB United Kingdom Limited) Cemex UK Ltd Confederation of UK Coal Producers The Crown Estate Entec UK Limited Gerald Eve GVA Grimley LLP Hanson UK (HeidelbergCement Group) Imerys Knights Solicitors Lafarge Mills & Reeve Solicitors Mining Association of UK Mineral Industry Research Organisation (MIRO) MJCA Consultants Nabarro Solicitors Mineral Products Association Silbelco UK Ltd SLR Consulting Ltd Stephens Scown Solicitors Tarmac Ltd (Anglo American) UK Coal Ltd Wardell Armstrong September 2010

Written evidence from Save Our Green Spaces (ARSS 24)

Background: — Save Our Green Spaces is an organisation set up to inform the local residents of the consequences that the South West Regional Spatial Strategy (SWRSS) would have on the lives of people living and working on the eastern fringes of Bristol. — It was felt that the Top-down RSS numbers had been introduced, and were about to be imposed on residents with ineffective consultation. The limited consultation was very poorly advertised resulting in the vast majority of the public being unaware of its existence and its implications. — Discussions with the local authority at that time resulted in “stone walling”. — Following the creation of the www.saveourgreenspaces.org website it became apparent that similar groups had been set up across the whole of South West England to raise awareness of the impending imposition of the SWRSS. An affiliation of groups was then created in the south-west to bring groups together to create a wider voice and to reduce duplication. — This culminated in the submission of some 37,000 letters of objection to the SWRSS from the south west region, widely reported as the largest response ever received. — Without the creation of SOGS we are sure the public would not have been aware of the SWRSS and it would therefore have been brought into force by the previous government. — With the abolition of the RSSs the country now has an opportunity to build on the concept of local community involvement. — Local groups will undoubtedly have specific points to raise and will feed into this inquiry direct. I have concentrated on general points. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w38 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Specific Points within the Inquiry I will now go through the individual terms of reference: The Committee has decided to undertake an inquiry into the revocation and abolition of regional spatial strategies. The Committee will be focussing particularly on the implications for house building, especially:

The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development 1.1 Within the South West we feel that house building target should revert to a proven needs based system overseen by local authorities in consultation with local communities. This will lead to a better more balanced society where housing, work and leisure are in harmony. By taking this approach urban and rural ghettos and future slums will not be created. An example of a built ghetto (future slum) is the imposed development at Siston Hill, Warmley nearr Kingswood, Bristol. This development is already showing signs of social deprivation, having only been completed in the last few years. All parties, locals, parish council, local authority were against the development, warning that it would not work. Central government dictated that it should go ahead. 1.2 The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets can only be positive.

The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing 2.1 Local communities will not require much incentivisation to accept new housing development. In the many consultations held by groups around the South West, the issue is generally not simply the question over the need for housing but the numbers of houses that are proposed without the supporting employment, community facilities and infrastructure etc. 2.2 Most if not all communities in the South West suffer from a lack of good quality social housing. Social housing can be both housing association owned and privately owned. We will all know of many examples of where our children of less well off local people have to move away from the area they grew up or families are located. This has led to a fragmentation of the social fabric and the gradual erosion of the ‘community’. Incentivisation should take the form of raised proportion of good quality social housing spread through out developments. It should take the form of financial support for local authorities, parish councils or community groups. The properties so built should be kept as social housing so that investment purchasing doesn’t take them out of the social house pool within a few years of their construction.

The Committee understands that the Government intends to announce further details of its plans for incentives “shortly”, and would welcome comments on the adequacy and appropriateness of those incentives when the details are available 3.1 This would be most welcome and we as a group would be keen to participate in any discussions. The Committee will also be considering:

The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg. waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, &c.) 4.1 This is vitally important and should be on the statute books, via the Decentralisation and Localism Bill as indicated in the Queen’s speech. South Gloucestershire local authority have already moved in this direction and have a consultation process in place for most of their activities affecting communities (although it could be improved). 4.2 Some matters will require a simple correspondence consultation, but there should be provision for proposals with greater impact requiring local referendums eg waste handling, renewable energy installations. 4.3 If this process is handled successfully there will be less need for campaign groups to highlight issues affecting local communities.

The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co-operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function 5.1 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) may fulfil a planning role but they must be independent and not controlled by developers and therefore have hidden agendas. Their operation should be fully transparent and open to scrutiny by local communities. The planning websites are already highlighting that LEPs may be a way to get development underway. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w39

How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries 6.1 All data should be published or made freely available via a website. The validity and integrity of the data should be highlighted. Any data that is out of date should be identified as such so that it can not be used to form unfounded conclusions. A clear example of this is the population growth forecasts. 6.2 Teams could be set up to manage and update this data for the benefit of all. This includes local authorities, parish councils and local community groups. Again if there is openness there will be less need for campaign groups to challenge the data.

Conclusion South West SOGS are not against house building. The SWRSS suffered from over complication, lack of consultation and forced agendas. Local communities know what local communities need and want. South West SOGS is now beginning to get calls for help and advice from across the whole of England. It is apparent that the comments above equally apply to all the RSSs. September 2010

Written evidence from SSE (ARSS 25) SSE (Scottish and Southern Energy) is grateful to have this opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee’s inquiry into the abolition of regional spatial strategies, and in particular the potential impact of this on achieving the renewable energy targets that have been set out in UK planning policy. As the UK’s largest generator of renewable electricity, SSE is keen to ensure that reforms to the planning system do not become an impediment to the Government’s ambitions of tackling climate change and ensuring secure energy supplies.

Key Points The submission focuses specifically on the potential impact of the abolition of regional spatial strategies on generating renewable energy. The key points include: 1. A need for local spatial plans (drawn up in conformity with national policy) to recognise the importance and urgency for bringing forward renewable energy projects in order to tackle climate change and secure energy supplies. 2. Continued support for incentivising local communities to accept appropriate forms of renewable energy including business rates to be retained by Local Authorities for onshore wind projects. 3. SSE and indeed the vast majority of other developers already provide generous and effective community funds, so there appears to be little need for mandatory requirements. 4. SSE awaits the opportunity to comment on intended arrangements to be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies—cooperation will need to take into account the need for encouraging renewable energy. 5. A need for clarity over the potential role of Local Enterprise Partnerships in planning process.

A need for local spatial plans (drawn up in conformity with national policy) to recognise the importance and urgency for bringing forward renewable energy projects in order to tackle climate change and secure energy supplies It is recognised that one of the key policies of Regional Strategies was to “tackle challenges posed by climate change”.13 Despite the revocation of the Regional Strategies, it is essential that this key aim continues to play a prominent role in the formation and implementation of local spatial plans (that are to be drawn up in conformity with national policy). To support this process, it is important that National Policy Statements are designated as soon as is possible with a strong statement on national need. This takes into account the requirements of the UK Renewable Energy Strategy and Low Carbon Transition Plan 2009 and also policies specific to planning and climate change that are contained within a supplement to PPS1. Local spatial plans should only be considered to be sound if they adequately address the need for appropriate renewable energy solutions in their respective areas. There is an opportunity for a formalised process by which key aspects of the National Policy Statements are transposed into the local spatial plans. 13 “Policy Statement on Regional Strategies”, Department for Communities and Local Government and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (February 2010), Section 2.2. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w40 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Continued support for incentivising local communities to accept appropriate forms of renewable energy including business rates to be retained by local authorities for onshore wind projects

The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP’s statement on Revoking Regional Strategies states that “imposed central targets will be replaced with powerful incentives so that people see the benefits of building.”14 SSE has supported the process of incentivising local communities to accept appropriate forms of renewable energy and continues to do so, but it is important that if targets are to be removed, appropriate forms of incentivising local communities are considered. In particular, SSE supports business rates to be retained by Local Authorities.

Our preferred mechanism would be for local authorities who already collect the liabilities and make the planning decisions to manage the funds on behalf of the community. This would be the simplest mechanism and would avoid any bureaucratic and regulatory issues with the definition of community with local authorities being best placed to decide appropriate use of the funds. Providing business rates to local authorities would allow them to see some of the economic benefits of onshore wind development, ensuring their incentives are well-aligned in planning activities.

SSE and indeed the vast majority of other developers already provide generous and effective community funds, so there appears to be little need for mandatory requirements

SSE believes strongly that community funds should not be mandatory. Non-statutory guidelines would be much more constructive alternative to mandatory legislation for ensuring best practice across the Industry. Community funds should not be mandated due to: (1) Needless bureaucracy—Mandatory funds have a significant bureaucratic issue of regulation. There would be a requirement for a regulatory body, which would also have to be decided, monitoring all renewable energy projects from the start of planning continuing through to its decommissioning sometime in the future. This additional cost of regulation, would inevitably be passed onto consumers, and would be unwelcome at a time when there is already pressure on bills. (2) Loss of community engagement—Any attempt to mandate a minimum level of benefit to a community would no longer be seen as an incentive to communities, as the actions of the developer would no longer be viewed as a genuine demonstration of good will. This may have the opposite effect on community support, with communities potentially seeing the renewable project as a burden. If best practice guideline were brought in, which SSE met or exceeded this would be seen as a genuine effort of community engagement. (3) Lack of innovation—Renewable energy developers would lose the incentive to innovate in how it engages communities in attempts to provide benefits to communities. Any additional funds would have a negative public perception due to the compensatory image of the mandatory funds. Indeed, in many cases developers could chose not to engage beyond the mandatory level which could, potentially, reduce the overall value to the community.

SSE awaits the opportunity to comment on intended arrangements to be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies— cooperation will need to take into account the need for encouraging renewable energy

The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP’s statement on Revoking Regional Strategies states that “the abolition of Regional Strategies will require legislation in the “Localism Bill” which [the Government will be] introducing this session.”15 It will be important for this Bill to include measures to ensure cooperation between local planning authorities on matters relating to renewable energy and for all local planning authorities address the need for appropriate renewable energy solutions in their respective areas. Furthermore, there should be a clear and unambiguous process for decision-making particular for when proposed renewable energy projects straddle or are close in proximity to local planning authority borders.

SSE will await the opportunity to comment on intended arrangements to be put in place to ensure this cooperation, which is likely to be included as part of the Localism Bill.

A need for clarity over the potential role of Local Enterprise Partnerships in planning process

The invitation to submit evidence to the Inquiry into the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies refers to a suggestion being made that Local Enterprise Partnerships (a potential replacement for the abolished Regional Development Agencies) may fulfil a planning function. It will be important for this potential planning function to be clarified and justified in the context of the current decision-making process before SSE can comment further. 14 “Communities and Local Government—Revoking Regional Strategies”—Statement by Eric Pickles, http://www.communities.gov.uk/statements/newsroom/regionalstrategies (Published 6 July 2010). 15 “Communities and Local Government—Revoking Regional Strategies”—Statement by Eric Pickles, http://www.communities.gov.uk/statements/newsroom/regionalstrategies (Published 6 July 2010). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w41

In Summary SSE understands why there has been so much attention focused on reforming decision-making powers to deliver necessary infrastructure. While recognising the Government’s desire to put decision-making powers back into the hands of local councils, it is important to ensure that reforms to the planning system do not become an impediment to the Government’s ambitions of tackling climate change and ensuring secure energy supplies. SSE therefore supports a clear and unambiguous planning process, with local spatial plans giving due consideration to the need for renewable energy (in conforming with national policy). September 2010

Written evidence from Robert Hitchins Limited (ARSS 26) Summary — The abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies and with them regional house building targets without the putting into place of any clear transitional arrangements is unfortunate and will inevitably reduce the levels of housing development, in contrast to the Government’s stated objective of increasing house building levels. This is as a result of: — delays as local planning authorities adjust to the “localism” agenda; — reduced locally set housing targets; — disruption to projects/planning applications already in the planning pipeline; and — lack of cross border coordination. — Local communities will not accept new development on the basis of some form of financial incentive. Virtually all larger scale housing developments already bring about substantial benefits to the receiving community, which does little if anything to reduce levels of objection. Indeed objectors often accuse local planning authorities of giving undue weight to such benefits. It is not difficult to see objectors viewing any proposed governmental incentivisation scheme in exactly the same way. — There is an urgent need to reinstate a strategic level of planning to ensure that cross boundary issues, including the collection and dissemination of research are fully addressed. Local Enterprise Partnerships may, depending on the responsibilities given to them, be a means of achieving this.

1. Background 1.1 The Robert Hitchins Group was founded in 1958. It has its headquarters on the outskirts of Cheltenham. The company is one of the most active developers in the Gloucestershire area and has constructed around 15,000 houses and 1,700,000 ft2 of commercial property and manages around 2,000,000 ft2 of commercial property. Although no longer a house builder the company does bring significant quantities of serviced consented housing land to the market which the Company has promoted through the development plan and development control systems and thus provides a vital component in the land supply chain and the house building industry.

2. The Implications of the Abolition of Regional House Building Targets for Levels of Housing Development 2.1 The abolition of regional house building targets will inevitably reduce the levels of housing development. This is as a result of: — delays as local planning authorities adjust to the “localism” agenda; — reduced locally set housing targets; — disruption to projects/planning applications already in the planning pipeline; and — lack of cross border coordination.

Delays as local planning authorities adjust to the “localism” agenda 2.2 Within our area of operation there are already a number of examples of delays to Local Development Frameworks brought about as a direct result of the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategy. — Gloucester, Cheltenham, Tewkesbury—Joint Core Strategy: “In May and July, the new Government announced major changes to the planning system which give more power to communities. The South West Regional Spatial Strategy—which set targets for housing and jobs—was scrapped and councils must now establish their own needs locally. The Government also committed to protecting the natural environment and promoting renewable energy for example. These are important changes so the JCS team is monitoring all further Government announcements while reviewing its own work and timetables.” http://www.gct-jcs.org/Home.aspx cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w42 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy: “Before the Government announcement it was proposed that the SWJCS could be presented to the three South Worcestershire Councils for approval n the autumn this year with submission to the Secretary of State in January 011. This is now unrealistic as we will require additional time to consider how he SWJCS should be revised.” Letter to Parish and Town Councils and for publication on websites 15 June 2010 http://www.worcester.gov.uk/fileadmin/assets/pdf/Environment/planning/ldf/others/swjcs_ update.pdf — Wiltshire Joint Core Strategy: “In the light of the CLG letter and in anticipation of the “Localism Bill”, Wiltshire Council intends to continue to develop the evidence base and the work commenced during the “Wiltshire 2026” consultation. However, it is important to recognise that in this period of policy upheaval, the process of building a sound Wiltshire Core Strategy is likely to take longer than originally perceived.” http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/environmentandplanning/planninganddevelopment/planningpolicy/ wiltshirecorestrategy.htm — South Wiltshire Core Strategy: “Wiltshire Council will review housing figures across the county following the Government’s decision to abolish binding, planning strategies. As a result of the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS), the council’s South Wiltshire Core Strategy proceedings will be suspended. The core strategy outlined the spatial vision, key objectives and overall principles for development in the former Salisbury District Council area. Full Council agreed to submit the South Wiltshire Core Strategy to the Secretary of State in November last year and it was subject to formal Examination in Public (EIP) for six weeks during the spring. However, before the inspector issued his final report, the Communities and Local Government (CLG) Secretary Eric Pickles revoked the RSS which was key to the development of the council’s South Wiltshire Core Strategy. Wiltshire Council and the inspector agreed that proceedings should now be suspended while the council carries out a full review of housing and employment needs in South Wiltshire.” http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/latestnews.htm?aid=106041

Reduced locally set housing targets 2.3 As indeed there is already an example of a reduced locally set housing target: — Cotswold District Council: “In the light of the Government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and the subsequent CLG letter (a material consideration) to return decision making powers on housing and planning to local councils, decisions on housing supply rests with the LPAs (Letter from the Rt. Hon Eric Pickles MP to Chief Planning Officers, 27 May 2010). As the RSS for the South West will no longer form the basis for calculating housing supply, the District Council has decided that the RSS (July 2008) requirement of 345 dwellings pa will be replaced by 300 dwellings pa. The latter requirement was proposed in the Draft RSS (June 2006) following extensive joint work by the local authorities. This is broadly in line with the average build rate 1991–2010 (291pa), and the Structure Plan Third Alteration proposal (280pa), which, although ultimately not adopted, was tested at EiP.” http://www.cotswold.gov.uk/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=12488

Disruption to projects already in the planning pipeline 2.4 We have direct experience of an application for outline planning permission for 175 homes on a site the officers considered “is generally suitable for housing and the proposed development would enable an inherently sustainable development to take place” being refused. The reasoning including: “In returning decision making powers on housing and planning to local councils it is highly likely that any new supply targets will be significantly lower than those set out in the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Preferred Options” http://www.e-wychavon.org.uk/modern.gov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=3135&T=1 2.5 This is just one example of a Local Authority acting to disrupt projects. What however, is going to be significantly more damaging to the future housing supply is the fact that the abolition of the RSS combined with the absence of any transitional arrangements has led companies such as ours to halt investment in projects that are in the pipeline because the road ahead is totally uncertain. This is already a risky business and we can not justify continuing to invest large sums in projects that rely for their success on a planning system that does not yet exist and for which there is little or no guidance as to its future shape save for various “on the hoof” Ministerial statements. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w43

2.6 This “parking” of projects in this manner is widespread, these projects have lost momentum and a few months delay now will lead to years of delay in the future; this is our experience and the experience of other companies engaged with the planning system and it will lead to very significant “black-holes” in the land supply and housing supply chains for many years to come. It has to be understood that most housing projects take years of planning to come to fruition, to obtain a planning permission and to finally provide homes and this loss in momentum now occurring will be severely damaging to the progress and delivery of these projects.

Cross border co-ordination 2.7 The Gloucestershire County Council’s latest household projections for Gloucester City indicate that household growth in the City will greatly outstrip its capacity to accommodate its growth within its boundaries. The administrative area of Gloucester City is tightly hemmed in by the Districts of Stroud and Tewkesbury to the extent that the majority of growth in the City is now taking place or was (before the abolition of the RSS) planned to take place outside of its administrative boundaries. In the absence of the strategic tier of planning there are no effective mechanisms to secure the cross boundary solution required in such situations. In short it is difficult to see why one district would locally decide to accommodate another’s needs. This point is picked up again in section 5 below. 3. The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing. 3.1 It is naïve to assume that any local community will accept new development on the basis of some form of financial incentive particularly one that is likely to be severely constrained by what the Country can afford. 3.2 It should be remembered that virtually all larger scale housing developments already bring about substantial benefits to the receiving community, for example new and improved schools, new job opportunities, enhanced and new social, recreational and community facilities and affordable housing. This however does little if anything to reduce levels of objection and indeed objectors often accuse local planning authorities of giving undue weight to such benefits. It is not difficult to see objectors viewing any proposed governmental incentivisation scheme in exactly the same way. 3.3 Our direct and long experience in this field and in particular with consultation with the local community is that local people, in the majority of cases, object to the principle of the development itself and no amount of collaborative working with them in redesigning/altering the scheme to mitigate their professed concerns will remove the in principle objection. The payment to the Local Authority of an incentive to grant the planning permission therefore, will not be translated into local community acceptance, but the converse, namely a greater resistance because the local community will regard the receiving of the incentive as the Local Authority “selling out” the community’s wishes. 3.4 Moreover, incentives for the receiving community are proposed to be paid to the local authorities (county/ district councils) and phased over the period of the development, and as such any direct tangible benefit to the local community is likely to be significantly diluted. 4. The Committee understands that the Government intends to announce further details of its plans for incentives “shortly”, and would welcome comments on the adequacy and appropriateness of those incentives when the details are available. 4.1 The much trailed six times council tax, even if the country can afford that rate, would hardly amount to a significant sum insofar as a local authority is concerned. It is of course significantly less than is often already made available to local authorities through S106 for improved and new infrastructure (including social and community infrastructure) which has absolutely no influence on those who are opposed to development. 5. The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg, waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, &c.); 5.1 There is an urgent need to reinstate a strategic level of planning on these matters and in doing so it would seem eminently sensible, given the sort of problems highlighted in paragraph 2.7 above, that the same strategic approach be taken in respect of housing and employment land. It should also be borne in mind that planning cannot be separated into discreet topic areas and housing and employment are inextricably linked to the topics listed in 5 above. In short a “joined up” approach is essential. 6. the adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co- operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function; and 6.1 There has always been a duty for local authorities to deliver and perform and evidence of abject failure to do so. It is therefore difficult to see that this in itself would ensure co-operation. 6.2 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) could be part of the solution depending on the nature of the planning function they might fulfil. If the LEPs are to have a planning function it must be sufficient to address cross boundary issues whatever the planning topic and provide a bridge between national policy statements and localism where needed. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w44 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

7. How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries. 7.1 The internet would seem the obvious means by which such information should be disseminated. It should however be available to all and not just the local authorities. 7.2 In terms of collecting/updating research on matters that cross local authority boundaries this again could be a responsibility of the LEPs. September 2010

Written evidence from the Community Law Partnership (ARSS 27) “LOCALISM” AND GYPSY AND TRAVELLER SITES: A HISTORY OF FAILURE Submission of Community Law Partnership to the Communities and Local Government Committee on the revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies and on “localism”.

Summary — The revocation of RSSs is unlawful especially given the failure to implement any change as yet to the current planning circular, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Circular 01/2006 (hereafter Circular 01/06) Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites. — Attempts to place reliance on local authorities in ensuring that sufficient Gypsy and Traveller sites are produced has failed in the past. — There is a need for some central overseeing authority or else adequate site provision will not be achieved.

Introduction In terms of the answer to unauthorised encampments and unauthorised developments, it appears that all main political parties are in agreement that the answer lies in ensuring that there is adequate authorised site provision, both permanent and transit. In this context the first acts of the Coalition Government seem inclined to make it more unlikely that sites will be provided. The first step of the Coalition Government was to reduce to nil the Gypsy and Traveller Sites Grant. A grant of 100% had been available to local authorities for provision of new sites or new pitches. Obviously this provided a great incentive to local authorities and had resulted in a slow increase in pitch numbers. Equally obviously the removal of this grant is likely to result in a return to zero provision of new pitches. Secondly, the Coalition Government has, as of 6 July 2010, revoked RSSs. RSSs were a fundamental part of Circular 01/06 and had ensured that pitch targets were set for each local authority. At the time of the General Election, though there had been the most unfortunate delays in the process, local authorities were beginning to move in a direction of identification of locations to achieve these pitch targets. We understand that the house builder, Cala Homes have commenced legal action against Communities and Local Government (CLG) with regard to the revocation of RSSs and we join with Cala Homes in their arguments. Since this is an ongoing court case, we will not enter into any further details here. At the very least the revocation should not have taken place until a new planning policy was in place. We accept that it was a Conservative Party manifesto pledge that Regional Assemblies would be abolished (and thus RSSs with them). However, it must be accepted that an enormous amount of work went into identifying the need for Gypsy and Traveller sites at local level via Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments and it is absolutely ridiculous (as well as a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water) to now squander all that information and all that hard work. Caravan Sites Act (CSA) 1968. The CSA 1968 introduced a duty on certain local authorities to provide sites for Gypsies and Travellers (bought into force in 1970). This duty was eventually repealed by a previous Conservative Government in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. On the one hand it is true to say that the some 350 local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites that currently exist, would probably not have been in place (in the vast majority of cases) without the existence of that duty. On the other hand it is also true to say that the failure of successive central governments to ensure that local authorities complied with this duty meant that insufficient sites were built during this period of time leading to the current situation where there is completely inadequate provision of sites. In many ways this was a period of time when there was a certain amount of “localism” in that certain local authorities were meant to be providing the sites and, on the other hand, a potential for “central control” in that the Government could (albeit that they never did) have stepped in to ensure that recalcitrant local authorities complied with the duty. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w45

The Policy from 1994 to 2006 The Department of the Environment Circular 01/94 (Welsh Office Circular 02/94) Gypsy Sites and Planning (in combination with the repeal of the duty to provide sites) put the emphasis on the provision of private sites. However it did not provide a system by which private individuals could realistically bring such sites into existence. In a sense this period of time is the perfect example of “localism” and also the perfect example of how, if local authorities are left to their own devices, then there will be complete stagnation in the provision of sites. Whatever the merits of “localism” in other areas, history shows that localism will not ensure the provision of sites. The statistics completely back this up. Research has shown that, in this period of time, some 90% of planning applications to local authority planning committees by Gypsies and Travellers were unsuccessful (Confined, Constrained and Condemned, Friends, Families and Travellers (FFT), 1996). In a later study by FFT (Planning Appeals Gypsies and Travellers, January 1998) it was shown that only 34% of appeals to Planning Inspectors by Gypsies and Travellers against unsuccessful applications were successful.

The Need for Sites In the 9th report Local Authority Gypsy/Traveller Sites in England (2003), it was estimated that between 1,000–2,000 permanent and 2,000–2,500 transit pitches were required by 2007 just to keep up with the current Gypsy and Traveller population. The subsequent figures produced by RSSs showed that, in the short intervening period of time, those figures had greatly increased.

The Period from 2006 to Date The introduction of some central control of the process in the form of Housing Act 2004 and ODPM Circular 01/06 led to a slow but sure increase in the provision of sites. Certain Conservative MPs have claimed that this Circular produced a bias in favour of Gypsies and Travellers but, if this had been the case, then presumably the problem of site provision would have been resolved by now. CLG has made indications that they may increase enforcement powers and even criminalise all trespass. This a classic case of putting the cart in front of the horse. The fault (stretching right back to 1960) lies with central government in failing to oversee the actions (or rather inactions) of local authorities and with local authorities in failing to ensure adequate site provision. The slow improvement in the wake of Circular 01/06 is shown by research by Doctor Jo Richardson and Ros Lishman of the De Montfort University for Lord Avebury (Impact of Circular 01/06: Supply of New Gypsy/Traveller Sites, 29 March 2007). In this study a total of 129 appeal decisions were reviewed, 75 being before 1 February 2006 (the implementation date for the Circular) and 54 being after that date. Between the two periods the number of allowed appeals increased by 20% and the number of dismissed appeals decreased by 20%. Before 1 February 2006, the majority of temporary allowed appeals were for two years. In contrast, after 1 February 2006, all but two temporary appeal decisions were for three years. CLG’s own evidence (available from the CLG website) indicates that in the year ending December 2009, local authorities determined 217 applications for Gypsy and Traveller pitches, 50% of which were granted. This is a figure that is unprecedented in terms of the period prior to the introduction of ODPM Circular 01/06.

Summary The history of the attempt to ensure adequate provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites (which can be dated from the introduction of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960) has shown that, without some form of central control and central oversight, site provision will not be achieved. Though central government failed to step in sufficiently in the period between 1970 and 1994 when there was a duty on certain local authorities to provide sites, it appears that the fact that there was a duty was sufficient to ensure the provision of the 350 or so sites that now are in place. Nevertheless, history also shows that the “problem” of site provision would have been resolved if there had been some central oversight. In conclusion we would recommend: 1. The return of the duty on local authorities to provide sites in similar terms to that contained in the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (this is not a denial of localism—it is local authorities who will be providing these sites); 2. The introduction of strong central oversight of the site provision process—there is no reason why these powers could not be given directly to CLG rather than to any other body.

September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w46 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from Community and Regional Planning Services (ARSS 28) Introduction 1. Community and Regional Planning Services is pleased to submit this evidence. Our evidence is not confidential. 2. Community and Regional Planning Services is an independent planning consultancy operating throughout England and offering a full range of planning advice and resources to both public and private clients at national, sub-national and local levels. We specialise in “third party” work for small businesses, parish, town and community councils, amenity groups and private individuals. We have particular experience in responding to development plans including strategic plans, and have represented clients at a number of Examinations-in- Public. We also undertake studies, research and policy advice for NGOs and statutory agencies. We provide training in the planning system through seminars and workshops. Through all our work runs the thread of a high level of environmental awareness and commitment together with community sensitivity. 3. We do not purport to represent any particular clients or other interests in responding to the Committee’s Call for Evidence, but do so from the perspective of our lengthy experience across a wide range of land-use planning issues. 4. We are not specifically requesting to give oral evidence.

Summary This Evidence: — finds that the abolition of RSSs, though welcomed in many ways, leaves a gap in strategic planning which needs to be filled for certain land-use planning topics; — points out the pitfalls of financial incentives to local authorities for housebuilding and suggests that these should meet certain criteria; — suggests strategic planning based principally on travel-to-work areas for cities and large towns; and — calls for LEPs (if these are to have a strategic planning role) to have an environmental and social remit as well as an economic one, and fully and transparently to engage with the public and special-interest sectors.

Evidence The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development. 1. Community and Regional Planning Services accepts the need to ensure that the planning system should be able to facilitate the provision of sufficient housing to meet the needs of households, and also of industry and commerce in ensuring that they can find a sufficient local supply of skilled and professional workforce. 2. A particularly acute need is for the supply of “affordable” housing (using the definition in Annex B of PPS3, June 2010). This applies to both urban and rural areas—although the nature and scale of the affordable housing needs in those two types of area are different. 3. That said, mere housing numbers were given too great an emphasis in the RSSs. Many of these proved to be undeliverable and insufficient importance was given to meeting local needs as opposed to regionally- aggregated requirements. It was likely, therefore, that had the RSSs been fully implemented (which itself depended on market conditions and the capacity of the construction industry to deliver), there would have been serious misalignment between where the housing was to have been built and the location of employment, leading to unsustainable travel patterns. 4. The short-term consequences of the abolition of RSSs appear, so far, to be varied. Some local authorities have called a halt to their LDF Core Strategies (where these have not already been adopted) with the intention of revising downwards their housing supply by stripping out regionally-imposed provision and concentrating on meeting local needs. Others have sought to continue an expansionist policy by retaining or even increasing their proposed provision. It is too early to tell whether current sub-optimal construction rates result from the economic downturn or from the change from regional planning. 5. Whilst the loss of RSSs will not be lamented in many places, their abolition does leave a gap in sub- national planning policy. Local planning authority boundaries are relatively arbitrary when it comes to land use. The housing needs of many cities and towns are partially met over the border in neighbouring authorities, as indeed is employment too. However imperfectly, the RSSs (and their sub-regional policies, where these existed) sought to reconcile and to plan for these cross-boundary issues, and some level of strategic planning is essential. We consider this matter in more detail under the Committee’s third and fourth Questions, below. The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w47

6. The danger of financial incentives for housebuilding is that the incentives may bear little relationship either to local housing needs or to environmental constraints. If the incentives are there for any local authority willing to embrace them, we may end up with a very uneven distribution of new housing, possibly in quite the wrong places in respect of employment and proximity to other services such as schools, colleges, hospitals, major leisure facilities and transport networks. 7. Whilst some local authorities are very conscious of environmental constraints in their areas (nationally- and locally-valued landscapes, wildlife sites and habitat, areas of heritage interest, woodland, Green Belt, flood plain etc), others may be tempted to take a more cavalier approach to environmental issues if money is at stake and to approve housing proposals or development plan allocations that would otherwise be unacceptable in normal planning terms. Incentives may have the further effect, not unlike RSSs, or promoting mere numbers of dwelling units rather than encouraging quality and a high standard of design. 8. It is insufficient for the Government to say that incentives would only be given for housing provided in accordance with the development plan. Local planning authorities will bear in mind any incentive scheme when drawing up their development plans and so that is likely to be self-fulfilling. 9. The general availability of incentives may also have the perverse effect or rewarding local authorities where housebuilding is proceeding (or likely to proceed) anyway. Housebuilders have many unimplemented permissions across the country where only market conditions (including the availability of mortgage finance) rather than any aspect of the planning system are holding back construction. In addition, developers hold considerable landbanks and options on land which they pursue for allocation through the development plan system. 10. That is not to say that housing incentives have no role but they must be subject to: — assessments of local need; — a proper spatial relationship to employment, local services and transport networks; and — environmental constraints. 11. The greatest value that incentives can have is in the provision of affordable housing. A mistake of the past has been in expecting most affordable housing to be delivered on the back of market housing developments. Market housing does have a role, although forecasts of how much affordable housing a particular market housing development can deliver and still remain viable are often exaggerated. 12. Direct grants to housing associations (and equivalent bodies) are likely to be much more effective in meeting affordable housing needs. This approach would be less subject to the variations in market conditions that afflict housing for general sale and would concentrate scarce financial resources where they are most needed. The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate co-operation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, &c.) 13. The abolition of RSSs, and the sub-regional strategies that many of them contained, has left a gap in strategic planning. That said, RSSs probably tried to provide too much policy, extending beyond what was strictly necessary to deal with cross-boundary issues. This stemmed from a regional agenda which extended beyond the realms of town and country planning and which is no longer being pursued by the present Government. 14. So it is necessary to consider what land-use planning issues cannot be left merely to be handled locally. It would be unwise to leap to a solution to the strategic planning problem without first understanding both what exists “in the field” and what needs to be planned at a sub-national (but supra-local) scale. We identify (or otherwise comment on) some of these in the Appendix to this Evidence. 15. Another reason for having a strategic level of planning is to arbitrate between differing local aspirations. (We do not here mean local disagreements within the same authority, eg between a town and a peripheral village: these should be able to be handled locally.) Where an urban authority wishes to expand its built-up area across the boundary into a neighbouring rural authority and bilateral agreement cannot be reached, then strategic planning can look at the options and recommend the best planning solution—which may in this example involve a combination of a review of proposed development levels, some cross-boundary urban expansion and a greater emphasis on urban regeneration. 16. The different drivers justifying strategic planning mentioned in the previous two paragraphs would each point to a different geographical coverage or scale of plan, although few justify a regional plan. But if one considers that the two greatest influences on built development are housing and employment, then we advocate strategic plans based loosely on travel-to-work areas centred on cities and the large towns. In this way the housing and employment (and shopping and leisure) development needs of those urban areas can be considered across an area which is not constrained by local authority boundaries. 17. These strategic planning areas may be quite large in the case of the larger cities, covering most of their metropolitan hinterlands. For smaller cities and the larger towns the areas would be correspondingly smaller. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w48 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

More remote rural areas, not under the strong influence of a city or large town, would be excluded: they should not be “swept up” into an urban-based strategic plan merely to provide 100% coverage. 18. There have been some suggestions that we should revert to structure plans based on the historic counties, as was the case prior to 2004. We reject this. The boundaries of the counties (where these still exist: some have been split into separate unitary authorities) no longer represent isolated economic or housing areas. This is true even for counties which retain a strong sense of local identity. 19. Where the housing/economic strategic planning areas do not fit well with the needs of other spatial planning topics, then there would be nothing to stop separate non-statutory plans being developed for those matters on different geographical scales, with their findings incorporated into the housing/economic strategic plans. 20. Whatever the shape of sub-national plans, and whether they attempt to cover all land-use planning topics or whether separate plans are devised for different topics, it is essential that the bodies responsible include, at both “board” and working levels, a variety of relevant stakeholders, such as representatives of environmental and community bodies, as well as local authority and economic development interests. For all the faults and expense of the former Regional Assemblies, they did achieve stakeholder representation of some 30% and we are convinced that their work benefited from this. 21. All sub-national plans should be prepared transparently with the widest possible public participation in the development of options and full consultation on the proposed plans themselves. The evidence base should be made publicly available. 22. We would go further and call for public consultation on the proposed sub-national planning arrangements themselves for each area. These should not be decided merely by local authorities and economic (or other) interests “behind closed doors”. The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co-operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function. 23. Local Enterprise Partnerships may indeed be appropriate bodies to exercise the strategic planning function, if they meet the criteria set out in our paragraphs 20–22 above. However, in the absence of Government guidance for setting up these bodies, there is a danger that almost random proposals will emerge across the country, of different shapes and sizes and not necessarily based on useful planning areas but driven by certain local authorities (or even prominent individuals!) wanting to “steal a march”. 24. We do not advocate statutory or even mandatory strategic planning bodies, although they are to be strongly recommended for the reasons outlined above. But Government guidance is urgently needed in order to set out their objectives. Local authorities and others can then come together and devise the best local solution to meet their needs, consistent with those objectives. 25. We emphasise again that the LEPs or other cross-boundary bodies established for strategic planning must integrate the environmental and social aspects of planning and not concentrate merely on the economic. Town and country planning is all about mediating between competing interests and resources. 26. The LEPs or other cross-boundary bodies need not be expensive to run. They would be resourced largely by the participating local authorities and we would in most cases expect little in the way of permanent staffing other than, perhaps, a small secretariat. It is accepted, however, that the strategic planning bodies for major metropolitan areas will need greater resources. Any contributions to running expenses from other parties, eg the business or development sectors, should be on the clear understanding that this would be on a neutral basis with no planning benefits accruing to contributors. 27. If the strategic planning organisations remained non-statutory, then the outcome of their studies and planning work could not be binding even on the participating local authorities, although we would expect those participating authorities to uphold and support their own strategic plans. Strategic plans would be a “material consideration” in the determination of planning applications where relevant, and we would expect them to influence local development plans. 28. A good maxim is not to burden the strategic planning level with what can properly be decided locally, but to recognise at the same time that cross-boundary issues cannot be decided unilaterally. How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries. 29. Recent data collected from the former RSS and sub-regional planning process should be retained by a nominated local authority on behalf of each LEP or new strategic planning area and should remain accessible (preferably online) to all who need it. 30. However, the relevance of such data will decrease over time and its updating and any necessary new studies will need to be commissioned by the strategic planning bodies, especially in advance of their drawing up new plans. Again, all such studies and reports should without exception be in the public domain, readily accessible online and in many cases open to public comment, consultation and scrutiny. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w49

Abbreviations AONB Area ofOutstandingNaturalBeauty LDF LocalDevelopmentFramework LEP LocalEconomicPartnership PPG PlanningPolicyGuidance (Note) PPS PlanningPolicyStatement RSS RegionalSpatialStrategy RTS RegionalTransportStrategy SSSI Site ofSpecialScientificInterest

APPENDIX Selected land-use planning topics and their suitability for some form of strategic planning

Housing The housing needs of any one local authority may have to be met in an adjacent authority, if all internal potential and regeneration options have been exhausted. Large cities that have extensive public transport networks have a history of commuting from suburbs likely to be located in other authorities’ areas. Strategic co-ordination of housing provision in such areas is essential.

Employment There are two reasons why employment planning should be considered strategically. One is to avoid unnecessary and wasteful competition between local authorities in the provision of large employment sites. Secondly, a balance should be sought which aligns employment and housing provision, both in timing and location, in an attempt to reduce commuting distances.

Environmental Landscape The landscape does not respect local authority boundaries. Besides National Parks and AONBs, there are more locally-valued landscapes, some of historical importance, which cross boundaries and which need protection and a “greater-than-local” level of planning to retain their integrity.

Wildlife interest and habitat Again, some of the larger sites of wildlife interest such as SSSIs and those benefiting from European designations cross local authority boundaries. In order to retain their integrity and to facilitate enhancement projects, woodland, heathland and other habitat—where this is more than of very local importance—need co- operative planning and protection.

Green infrastructure Some “green infrastructure” (eg a country park) is provided for the use of people besides those residing in the local authority area in which the facility is located. This “higher level” provision has to be planned on a larger-than-local scale: existing provision needs recording and analysing and plans put in place to remedy any deficiencies. National, regional and sub-regional cycle and recreational walking routes (including the new Coastal Access) also cross authority boundaries. Whilst these have never been “planned” by regional organisations such as Regional Assemblies, sub-regional strategies need to take account of their existence and to integrate proposals for access land with such routes.

Green Belt Green Belts exist to pursue the criteria specified in PPG2, para 1.5. Almost all of them cross local authority boundaries since, by definition, Green Belts are a strategic land-use planning tool. In order to avoid isolated local areas of Green Belt (for which the objectives can be met in other ways, eg strategic gaps, green wedges etc), Green Belts need to be contiguous and consistent with those identified in adjacent authorities. RSSs had a history of specifying where strategic Green Belt reviews should be conducted and, as with regional housing targets, this was highly unpopular. Any releases of—or increases in—Green Belt land should be left to the local authorities concerned but for consistency need to brought to the attention of the strategic planning process.

Flood risk Flood risk is a particularly important topic which requires planning on a strategic scale, especially in respect of built development which could either cause or be susceptible to flooding. Upstream development can cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w50 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

exacerbate and accelerate run-off which could put land and buildings at risk downstream. Alternatively, flood- plain development downstream can impede water flow and lead to increased upstream flood risk. None of this respects local authority boundaries: strategic planning is essential here. Whilst the Environment Agency may be responsible for flood protection—and it does comment on some planning applications—ultimately it is a local authority’s decision whether or not to grant planning permission for built developments which may increase flood risk.

Transport networks Whilst motorways and trunk roads are the responsibility of the Highways Agency, other roads are the responsibility of the local highways authority—county councils in two-tier areas or unitary authorities. Network capacity is a major factor in planning the size, nature and location major developments. This is not something that can merely be handled locally since the principal access to a particular major development may be through another highways authority area and may indeed have implications for road capacity over a much wider area. It is worth adding here that RSSs contained a “Regional Transport Strategy” (RTS) which proved to be little more than a “wish list” of regional and sub-regional transport projects. Since the Highways Agency and Network Rail have their own criteria and procedures for evaluating and bringing forward improvement schemes, the RTS was considered by many to be of little value. However, there is a vital link between proposed strategic road and rail improvement projects and large built developments. Such improvement schemes may facilitate development and in turn large developments may contribute towards such schemes.

Energy Regional targets for renewable energy have never worked since they were introduced. Attempts were made to assess such targets on the basis of the perceived potential energy source available area by area, but other factors have intercepted any hope of achieving them. It is suggested that renewable energy is taken out of strategic land-use planning and other, separate procedures be used to plan provision. It is not a matter that needs to be strategically planned and sites which cross local authority boundaries can be subject to bilateral agreements.

Minerals Minerals can only be extracted where they are found and, although local sources are preferred where these are available, minerals are often transported considerable distances to their destination uses. This makes them an unsuitable topic for strategic planning on the scale which we consider appropriate for other purposes. Minerals were probably one of the few topics where regional-scale planning worked (although even then some products were scarce in some regions and so had to be planned nationally): it is suggested that this should continue, albeit in a low-key and inexpensive way. This would then feed into local minerals development frameworks.

Waste Landfill operations, whilst they continue, albeit at a reducing scale, are a sub-regional resource and as such need to be planned accordingly. Similarly, energy-from-waste schemes need a waste supply from a wide area for viability. However, there may not be a good “fit” with the pattern of mainstream strategic planning that is advocated in this Evidence. A separate form of strategic waste planning should take place, again in a low-key and inexpensive way. This would then feed into local waste development frameworks. September 2010

Written evidence from Rail Freight Group (ARSS 29) Summary — Rail Freight Group is concerned that the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies will damage the rail freight sector’s ability to grow. — A greater use of rail freight is a key part of sustainable freight transport, but will require new terminals and interchanges to be developed. Regional planning has been helpful in making the case for such facilities where the benefits are measured regionally and nationally. — To avoid a planning vacuum, or a policy that prevents appropriate development of such facilities, there should be: — A strong National Policy Statement with clear guidance on the national and regional need for rail freight terminals; — A clear role for National Policy Statements in the planning process for schemes below the threshold level; — The “duty to co-operate” extended to clarify the areas which must be covered by such co- operation and the outputs which are expected; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w51

— Clarity on the legal status of documents produced by Local Enterprise Partnerships in consideration of planning applications; and — Incentives given to Local Authorities to plan for “unpopular” developments such as rail freight terminals in their areas, akin to the recent announcement of incentives for house building.

Introduction 1. Rail Freight Group (RFG) is pleased to submit evidence to the Inquiry by the Communities and Local Government Committee into the Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs). 2. RFG is the representative body for rail freight in the UK. Our aim is to grow the volume of rail freight where it is economically and environmentally sound to do so. We represent around 120 member companies operating in all sectors of rail freight, from train operators, ports and shipping lines to customers and suppliers. 3. Amongst our members are the operators and developers of rail freight terminals across the UK. These member companies are often deeply involved in the planning process, for major new sites and also for modifications and developments of smaller facilities. They have expressed their concern to us regarding the abolition of regional planning, and more generally with aspects of the proposed reforms. This submission seeks to capture these concerns. 4. We note that the primary focus of the Inquiry is the implications for house building of the decision to revoke RSSs. RFG has no opinion on this matter. This submission is therefore concerned with the impact on rail freight of this policy.

RSSs and Rail Freight 5. In order for rail freight to grow its share of the logistics market, new and expanded rail terminals and interchanges are needed. This ranges from smaller facilities through to major sites with rail linked warehousing. These facilities need to be located next to rail lines, and also have excellent road links. This tends to limit the number of locations which are suitable for such facilities. 6. Rail freight is acknowledged as offering significant benefits to the UK, through reduced carbon and other emissions, and by reducing road congestion. The benefits are measurable on a national and regional basis, but are less tangible at a local level where there may be specific disbenefits of road and rail traffic. The planning framework therefore needs to enable these national and regional benefits to be balanced against the local disbenefits which occur. 7. RSSs were a key document in setting out the framework under which such judgements could be made. They provided a long term framework for land use and transport planning which would then guide the preparation of local authority development plans and local transport plans. As they were statutory documents, they had significant status in the planning system. 8. In some regions, supporting documentation was also established, such as the Regional Freight Strategy produced by the West Midlands Regional Assembly. Such documents have been particularly helpful for developers of potential schemes, and for the rail freight industry overall, as well as for the local authorities within the region. 9. This was particularly important as there is no up to date national strategy for the development of rail freight terminals which a planning inspector could rely on. Under the Planning Act 2008, larger rail freight facilities will be included in the scope of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (until its abolition) and covered in the National Policy Statements (NPS) for National Networks. However this has not yet been produced. 10. Overall therefore the RSSs provided a coherent regional framework against which particular rail freight facilities could be assessed. With their abolition, there is now a vacuum of planning policy for rail freight, which will exist at least until the NPS is available, and beyond for smaller facilities.

The Proposals to replace RSSs 11. Government has suggested that a “duty to co-operate” should be placed on local authorities to cover matters formally included in the RSSs. It is unclear what such a duty will mean in practice. For example, if a group of local authorities decide jointly not to produce any transport planning guidance, would this be acceptable? It is unclear that the “duty to co-operate” will facilitate the development of appropriate sub regional strategies. 12. Local Enterprise Partnerships may have a role to play in considering regional strategies for transport. However, whilst they are being encouraged by central Government they are neither funded, nor steered by them, and we would therefore expect that the various Partnerships will vary significantly in scope and outputs. It is therefore doubtful that they could be relied upon fulfil a planning function. The current proposals for LEPs do not give full coverage across England. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w52 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

13. Any studies or plans produced by a Local Enterprise Partnership would not have the same legal status as an RSS. In planning terms therefore, it could not be given the same weight of consideration as, for example, a Local Development Plan. As such, its value for rail freight and transport schemes would be limited. 14. We consider that to facilitate the development of rail freight there must be strong guidance on a “greater than local” level to help planning inspectors assess the case for new facilities. We consider that, as a minimum, this will therefore require: (a) A strong National Policy Statement with clear guidance on the national and regional need for rail freight terminals; (b) A clear role for National Policy Statements in the planning process for schemes below the threshold level; (c) The “duty to co-operate” extended to clarify the areas which must be covered by such co-operation and the outputs which are expected; (d) Clarity on the legal status of documents produced by Local Enterprise Partnerships in consideration of planning applications; and (e) Incentives given to Local Authorities to plan for “unpopular” developments such as rail freight terminals in their areas, akin to the recent announcement of incentives for house building. September 2010

Written evidence from the English National Park Authorities Association (ENPAA) (ARSS 30) Summary 1. The English National Park Authorities Association (ENPAA) exists to support the policy making process by co-ordinating the views of the ten National Park Authorities across England. It is governed by the Chairs of the Authorities. Our submission represents the collective view of officers who are working within the policies established by the National Park Authorities (NPAs). 2. National Park Authorities exist to help the National Parks deliver two statutory purposes: — to protect and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas; and — to promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of these areas. 3. In furthering these purposes, NPAs have a duty to seek to foster the economic and social well being of their local communities. NPAs seek to achieve these purposes and duty in an integrated manner. Spatial planning is an absolutely essential mechanism in helping achieve this. As well as working with their local communities to realise their ambitions; developing policies and undertaking development management at a local level, the NPAs also engage at a strategic level. Such regional and sub-regional engagement has been critical to ensuring, for example: — that regional policy provides for flexibility in how housing policy is applied in National Parks; — that local authorities that border National Parks and AONBs consider carefully the implications of development that might be in the setting of these protected landscapes; and — supporting a strategic consideration to infrastructure within a framework that supports sustainable development. 4. The approach to housing delivery in National Parks is very different to elsewhere in the country and often relies on bespoke housing initiatives tailored to meet the very local needs of local communities. ENPAA does not wish, therefore, to comment on the implications of the abolition of RSS and regional targets for housing. We do, however, wish to respond to the three other questions that the Committee raise on sub-regional working, Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and data. 5. Our response highlights: — the need for LEPs to recognise the economic value of the natural environment, especially for sparsely populated areas; — the need to consider plans for growth, infrastructure and the natural environment within a coherent and integrated policy framework, rather than in silos, and recognise the environment as a key driver in the economy; — the importance of retaining landscape scale partnerships in the face of budget cuts; — the implications for planning at a local level when regional policies are no longer a material consideration; — the need for National Parks to be properly recognised within the Government’s National Policy Framework; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w53

— the need, if LEPs obtain planning powers, for NPAs to be invited to have a place on a LEP, and for safeguards to be in place to ensure that its activities when inside a National Park contribute towards National Park purposes; — the need for LEPs to consider the specific needs of rural areas; and — for arrangements to be put in place to ensure continued data collection at sub regional level (including cut to National Park boundaries), and for bodies to consider our future evidence needs given a drive towards more landscape scale activity in response to climate change. 6. Integrated approach—Whilst ENPAA does not comment on the merits of abolishing Regional Spatial Strategies, we do want to ensure that there is a coherent framework that will support (and not undermine) national park purposes. While the Local Enterprise Partnerships provide a mechanism for authorities to come together to discuss infrastructure and growth requirements, there are no parallel arrangements for the natural environment. We do not wish to see sub-regional policy developed in silos and would prefer that a holistic approach was adopted. Our early experience suggests, however, that in some regions the natural environment has taken a back seat and that structural changes risk exacerbating this unless sufficient checks and balances are introduced into new arrangements. 7. Landscape Scale Partnerships—NPAs are large areas covering many local authorities. As such, they have a strong track record of working with authorities across administrative boundaries. The National Park Management Plans that are produced (and are a statutory document) set out a place specific vision for the National Park (a vision on a landscape scale); are developed very much through bottom-up community engagement; and involve a wide range of partner organisations—including local authorities. NPAs value greatly the close working that is achieved with the local authorities within and neighbouring the National Parks and would urge that a landscape scale approach to partnership working be adopted through the operation of LEPs. 8. Policy—Government policy has been that spatial planning policies developed at a local level should not duplicate those covered in national or regional strategies. NPAs have, in common with other LPAs, applied this approach and it has been enforced by the Planning Inspectorate at Examinations in Public. The quick abolition of RSS does have two immediate consequences which are of concern to National Park Authorities. First policies in recently approved core strategies will not, indeed will have been prevented from, including policies supported by the NPA but included in the RSS. The abolition of the RSS means that these policies are no longer a material consideration for the NPA’s Plan. The second consequence of this is that NPAs, in reviewing their spatial planning policies are likely to need to add new policies that previously were addressed at regional or sub-regional levels. 9. National Policy Framework—we believe that it is essential that the Government’s proposed single National Policy Framework document includes proper consideration of National Parks. This should include the importance of NPAs as planning authorities; the well established “major development test”; and guidance to ensure the setting of protected landscapes is properly considered in decision making.

Local Enterprise Partnerships 10. We understand that the LEPs will be the main basis of sub-regional economic and infrastructure planning. There is also a possibility that the LEPs will have some planning functions. NPAs have engaged with their partner local authorities on the LEP process and supported some of the proposals. Government guidance provided that NPAs be offered a place on the Leaders Boards that were established under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, and we believe we have an important contribution to make. Various studies have shown the significance for the economy from sustaining a high quality environment. Some headline figures from recent studies include: — Data from 2008 shows the 10 English National Parks support over 54,500 FTE tourism related jobs (the total employed will be a lot higher) and is responsible for an estimated £3.5 billion of spend in deep rural areas. — A study by the East Midlands RDA found that the Peak District National Park contributed around £155 million to the region in economic output (or Gross Value Added) in 2007 and supports over 14,000 jobs across 2,800 businesses. Entrepreneurial activity is said to be strong in the National Park with VAT registrations considerably higher than the national average (eg 45 business registrations per 10,000 inhabitants in the NP, compared to 39 nationally and 35 in the East Midlands). — The same study in the Peak District included a survey of 300 businesses within the National Park in 2008. 56% of businesses felt that the landscape and the environment had a positive impact. 60% of all businesses said they would be seriously affected by a deterioration in the quality of the landscape, with 40% saying it would affect them to some extent. — Studies for the Exmoor NPA indicate that the two million visitors the National Park receives spend around £80 million every year within the local area. 11. NPAs believe that the natural environment can be an economic driver. This is a theme which has been identified in the Defra discussion document “An invitation to Shape the nature of England”. ENPAA welcomes this recognition but believes more may be required to ensure this is reflected in future planning arrangements. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w54 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

12. Whilst NPAs will want to engage with LEPs given our socio-economic duty and ambitions for sustainable rural communities, ENPAA currently has concerns over LEPs obtaining planning functions until the role of LEPS is fully tested and the rational for involvement in planning further explored. We would highlight in particular, the following: — LEPs bring together planning and key sectors of the economy. But they are ad hoc in terms of their establishment (based on past relationships and neighbouring authorities) and are therefore not going to provide a coherent spatial planning context. — If a LEP were to have planning responsibilities, it is unclear how the views of all local planning authorities (including of National Park Authorities) would be sought and acted upon? If the LEPs have planning powers, we believe NPAs as strategic planning authorities for their areas should be offered a seat (as they were on Leaders Boards). 13. In addition to the above, we will want to see to what extent LEPs will address the specific needs facing sparse rural communities and economies? A LEP will undoubtedly be made up of many communities and it is unclear how smaller/sparser communities will fare? ENPAA suggests that there should be a requirement for rural proofing.

Data 14. NPAs have benefitted from the data and research that has been prepared through regional planning bodies/Leaders Boards. The abolition of the RSS, coupled with spending cuts, means that the reasons for compiling such data will at first sight become less obvious. We would guard against rash decisions being made that will lead to trend data being lost. We hope that arrangements will be put in place to ensure such data can be compiled. NPAs collect, analyse and disseminate a range of data relating to the National Park when preparing National Park Management Plans. This information is generally made available to the public and other bodies to use. We would stress, however: — the importance of collecting data to national park boundaries rather than just administrative boundaries; and — the need to consider what new data sets are required as we increasingly move towards landscape scale approaches to managing land in response to climate change. September 2010

Written evidence from Janet Mackinnon MA (ARSS 31) Summary and Recommedations—A “Less Is More” Approach To Strategic Planning This memorandum recommends the establishment of local authority-led regional forums, possibly based on the former SERPLAN—South East Regional Planning Conference—model to replace the former Leaders’ Boards. The main purpose of these would be to advise the Secretary of State on the contents of Regional Planning Guidance (RPG). It also recommends the retention of Government Offices for the Regions to manage the RPG process and monitor the compliance of local plans with this and national policies. A “less is more” approach to strategic planning is called for at the present time, rather than the complete dismantling of regional policy infrastructure implied in the Coalition Government’s current proposals. Incentives should encourage location appropriate sustainable development and area regeneration in particular. A continuing role for House of Commons Regional Committees is also identified.

Introduction and context My name is Janet Mackinnon. I have worked in area regeneration for 25 years, with a particular interest in sustainable development, and have an MSc in Urban and Regional Planning Studies. Earlier this year, I submitted a memorandum to the House of Commons West Midlands Committee for their inquiry into “Planning for the Future”. My submission to the present inquiry by the Communities and Local Government Select Committee broadly covers those issues set out in the terms of reference: — Implications of the abolition of regional targets house building. — Proposals to incentivise local communities to accept new development. — Future management arrangements for matters formerly covered by RSSs. — Adequacy of proposals put forward by the Government, including role of LEPS. — Arrangements to ensure effective management and updating of strategic research. However, I would first like to put these issues in a wider context as set out below: A key plank of the previous New Labour administration’s approach to spatial and wider economic planning might best be described as “demographic determinism”: ie trend-based planning based on population-based growth was strongly encouraged. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w55

There is now increasing evidence that such an approach does not deliver sustainable development for the economy and society, as well as for the environment. Instead it encourages large-scale investment speculation, notably in the housing sector, as happened for much of the noughties. In a free market-based economy, it is not a proper function of government policy to seek to construct domestic economies of scale for a private construction sector, thereby potentially undermining not only the cost and general competiveness of this sector, but also other parts of the economy. Instead, there must be an adjustment to the current market conditions. Nevertheless, appropriate government intervention in spatial development and housing provision is clearly of the greatest importance, and I very much welcome this opportunity to contribute to the Communities and Local Government Committee’s present inquiry.

Implications of the abolition of regional targets house building It is important to stress that regional planning pre-dates New Labour, and existed—albeit with a rather “lighter touch”—during the Conservative governments of the 1980s and 90s. Moreover, many of us welcomed, in principle, the creation of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s predecessor, a Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when New Labour was elected in 1997. Unfortunately, the later “regionalism” agenda proved unwieldy, subject to excessive “quangoisation”, and the positive aspects of regional planning were subsumed by a central government fixation with house-building targets. The culmination of this fixation co-incided with the “Credit Crunch” which began in 2007—and notwithstanding this reality check—continued apparently unchecked through the subsequent financial crisis and economic recession, until the recent change of government. Needless to say the house-building targets set by the former administration have not been fulfilled, proof— it any were needed—that planned targets in themselves do not necessarily deliver outcomes, even in the former Soviet Union, and particularly in a market economy. Indeed, I would argue that unsustainable regional targets for housing development actively work against the delivery of house-building, and become instead a vehicle for large-scale speculative land-banking and planning applications which cannot be implemented due to unaffordable—for both the public and private sectors— infrastructure requirements. It should also be remembered that the previous government “Proposed Changes” to a number of RSSs, with the aim of increasing house-building targets, provoked successful legal challenges by some local authorities on grounds of the non-compliance of the revision/review process with the European Strategic Environmental Assessment Directives. This was, in effect, the “state of play” when the Coalition Government came into office and may have encouraged the rather precipitative response—which is also currently subject to legal action—to dismantling regional policy. Whatever the outcome of the latest challenge, it is undoubtedly the case that regional planning is more in need of reform than complete revocation, albeit that the withdrawal of undesirable and undeliverable house-building targets is in itself to be welcomed.

Proposals to incentivise local communities to accept new development The Treasury appears to have already called in to question whether funding would be available to the extent implied in DCLG’s proposals. However, some other basic caveats need to be set against such incentive schemes. Most communities do not completely identify their interests with those of local government, and, in some cases, regard these to be at odds with organisations whose bureaucratic targets may be perceived as detrimental, and in some cases disastrous, for their localities. Plans and programmes involving the large-scale demolition of housing and business premises illustrate this predicament very well. For it must be remembered that whilst the last government was extremely pious about the need for new housing, a great deal of money was spent on demolishing neighbourhoods which provided precisely the kind of affordable property, both residential and business, about which there continues to be so much political pontificating. Where there is local opposition to new development in green field areas, this may be precisely because communities are aware of the availability of major brown field sites not far away, where such development would be extremely welcome. This is particularly true of the West Midlands, whose major urban areas have a strategic backlog of unutilised employment land, as evidenced in the Planning Inspectorate Report on the proposed Regional Spatial Strategy Phase 2 Revision. DCLG should, therefore, focus on incentive schemes which encourage development of the right type and scale for a particular location, and which maximises regeneration opportunities, rather than attempt to bribe local communities to accept inappropriate proposals. There also needs to be a resurgence of community-based planning, given the preponderance of top-down bureaucratic programmes in recent years. The adoption of this approach by the former Greater London Council cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w56 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

in the 1980s ultimately enabled consensus to be reached on strategic transport planning and the acceptance of new development as a consequence of this. Future management arrangements for matters formerly covered by RSSs “Standing Conference” arrangements of the kind formerly used by local authorities in London and the South East, but with a wider membership, is suggested for areas covered by the RSSs. The main purpose of these forums would be to advise the Secretary of State on the contents of Regional Planning Guidance (RPG). It also recommends the retention of Government Offices for the Regions to manage the RPG process and monitor the compliance of local plans with this and national policies, as well as and where appropriate, House of Commons Regional Committees.

Adequacy of proposals put forward by the Government, including role of LEPS These appear to risk repeating the mistake of the previous Government’s proposals for Single Regional Strategies, led by Regional Development Agencies, in having an inherent conflict of interest between economic development and other planning objectives.

Arrangements to ensure effective management and updating of strategic research This is a particularly important issue for two main reasons: 1. It is essential that a high-quality research base is maintained and updated 2. Strategic research should not be confused with “playing to the music” To address the second matter first, much research of a strategic nature conducted during the New Labour administration by a range of organisations, including universities, private consultancies, and governmental bodies, might best be described as “playing to the music”: ie researchers knew very well what major public sector and commercial interests wanted to hear and delivered data interpretations accordingly. One consequence of this was that the need for economic adjustment—which many people, and notably the present Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills knew existed by the mid-noughties—was not acknowledged by government until, effectively, it was almost too late. This lesson must be learnt by those who made the mistakes. However, I am not yet convinced that this has happened, something which has important implications for managing the strategic planning research base, both at the central and local government levels. It should be noted that the latter also tends to have strong vested interests. I therefore tend to favour some new regional arrangement, possibly involving a partnership between the Government Regional Offices and the Standing Conferences already proposed. A key role of this would be to develop data sets for different growth scenarios and development options at the sub-national, regional and sub- regional levels to inform local planning, rather than impose Soviet-style targets on the latter. House of Commons Regional Select Committees might oversee this process, and provide organisations and people outside it with the opportunity of challenge. September 2010

Written evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (ARSS 32) The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) is delighted to submit the following response to the CLG Committee’s Inquiry into the abolition of regional spatial strategies. This response was drafted on behalf of JRF by Gemma Burgess, Sarah Monk and Christine Whitehead, CCHPR, University of Cambridge and Alison Bailey, Consultant Planner.

Introduction This consultation input draws on insights from recent work for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on locally incentivised planning,16 from the body of research conducted by the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research over many years17 and on the expertise of a former senior planner with the South East regional planning body. The context to this issue is one of continued housing supply shortages and a top down approach to setting targets for new housebuilding. Difficult decisions have to be made about where new housing should be located in order to meet housing need which were mediated by regional bodies and set out in the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS). The RSS abolition does not remove these problems and new ways are required to address them. 16 http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/planning-system-more-housing. 17 http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/outputs/index.asp. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w57

Summary — The removal of unrealistic regional housebuilding targets is probably necessary but a strategic approach is still necessary to encourage housing investment and to link housing development with other factors such as infrastructure provision over the long term and across local authority boundaries. — There are concerns that housing targets determined by individual local authorities will not add up to meet the needs of the country and will not provide the “right” type of housing in the “right” place as the spatial distribution of housing is crucial. — Many factors, other than targets, impact upon levels of housing development. In particular, the nature of local resistance to new housing must be better understood. Incentives will not work if existing local communities cannot see the benefits of new development. — A system without national and regional targets requires not just a combination of local targets and incentives, but also a system of penalties to ensure that local authorities do not opt out of their responsibilities. — Even with the incentives scheme, it has to be questioned whether additional tax benefits will be adequate to ensure sufficient affordable housing is built where it is most needed. — The current plans to ensure cooperation between local authorities are vague. Some could lack the capacity, resources and skills to tackle all of these responsibilities. Spontaneous collaborations between local authorities are likely to need resourcing. — There is a risk that skills and expertise will be lost if new arrangements are not quickly established. New forums for knowledge sharing must be developed. — A solid evidence base is even more important under localism, particularly since the Communities and Local Government (CLG) letter on RSS revocation indicates that the RSS evidence base remains a material consideration. Existing web sites should be retained and updated, at least for the foreseeable future. CLG must seek to ensure a more orderly transition—the guidance published so far is insufficient. — A central website could be developed collating all relevant data, research and guidance. An innovative use of online technology would enable local authorities to share resources and work together effectively.

Addressing the Specific Terms of Reference for Inquiry into the Abolition of RSS (a) Implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development Regional targets were seen as part of a top down approach to determining and allocating housing requirements. The regional layer provided important elements of the evidence base for housing requirements, linked them to other requirements eg transport and infrastructure, allocated housing targets between different local authorities in a region and monitored what was achieved. Whilst there were problems with this system, many of these tasks still need to be carried out. A solid evidence base is still required and a strategic approach has to be taken to link housing development with other factors such as infrastructure provision over the long term and across local authority boundaries. It would be wrong to characterise RSS housing targets as purely top down; there was considerable “bottom-up” input to the process and (at least in the South East) extensive public consultation. They were based on a broad range of evidence covering demography, affordability, climate change, bio-diversity and landscape, flood risk, water resources and water quality, transport, the relationship with other regions etc, as well as the critical relationship between housing and the economy. Many of these issues inherently cross administrative boundaries. New arrangements must deal with the relationship between housing and other policy drivers/constraints. Decisions about housing provision cannot and should not be made in isolation from decisions about infrastructure including transport, waste, energy, social infrastructure such as doctors and schools and decisions made by adjacent areas. It is crucial that new arrangements allow for a way of looking at housing in this wider context. The consequence of abolishing RSS on the development of Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) is also crucial. Despite the advice set out in the letter from CLG18 that local authorities should continue work on their LDFs, it appears that work is slowing/being halted in some areas. This is perhaps inevitable with no transitional arrangements and uncertainty about how incentives will work. CLG must seek to ensure a more orderly transition—the guidance published so far is insufficient. Adopted and emerging LDF policies were often reliant on RSS policies. This was exactly how the Development Plan system was designed to operate: LDF policies “nested” within the RSS and were encouraged not to repeat sound and robust strategic policies. Taking the South East Plan as an example, it was underpinned by an evidence base more comprehensive than that ever assembled for previous regional strategies. The policies in the Plan were tested and found to be robust by a Government appointed panel of independent inspectors; as 18 Steve Quartermain to Local Planning Authority Chief Planning Officers, 6 July 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w58 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

part of that process they were subject to a rigorous Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulation Assessment. This applies to housing provision but also more widely. For example, LDFs in the South East relied heavily on RSS targets for carbon reduction and renewable energy and national Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) refer to RSSs. As a result, there are now question marks against many LDF policies—not just those dealing with housing targets. The RSS also provided a framework for decisions about infrastructure provision. In the South East’s case the RSS included a policy requiring the phasing of development to be closely related to the provision of infrastructure, in recognition that the scale and pace of housing delivery is inextricably linked to the timely delivery of infrastructure. Without this framework, infrastructure provision may be less effective and failure to provide infrastructure acts as a barrier to sustainable housing provision. There are concerns that without some form of top-down framework housing targets determined by individual local authorities will not add up to the provision of sufficient housing to meet demand and in particular will not take account of the needs of migrants into the area (many authorities assume zero net migration). There is uncertainty as to whether the new system will provide sufficient housing of the “right” type in the “right” place. Yet, the spatial distribution of housing output is crucial. Allowing local authorities to determine their own targets may reduce resistance and conflict in the planning process, leading to more cooperation and therefore swifter development. However, local authorities may set lower targets and permit less housing development where there is local political pressure to do so, but this is often in areas with the worst affordability problems. Many factors, other than targets, impact upon levels of housing development. Research indicates that there are many other factors that shape construction levels that must be addressed, unrelated to housing targets. These include the availability and cost of credit to housebuilders and the buoyancy of the housing market which in turn depends on incomes and the mortgage market. Not enough is understood about why local communities are so resistant to new housing development. The well-housed have a strong voice in responding to planned new housing developments because already existing communities are coherent, but the community who would live in new housing does not yet exist, is disparate and cannot easily come together to have a voice. New ways must be found to engage people in the planning process so that those who cannot afford their first home, who are living in inadequate or over-crowded housing or remain on housing waiting lists, have a voice in the granting of permission to new development.

(b) Likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing What is critical about an incentives system is both that enough new homes are built overall and that they are the right types of property in the right places. This requires a sound evidence base and incentives of sufficient scale to encourage housing development in the most high-pressured areas. Details on the proposed incentive scheme are currently scant. There is no hard evidence about the likely response to financial incentives in different local political and economic environments. It is difficult to know whether the proposed level of incentives will be sufficient to encourage local authorities to permit enough new housing to meet need, particularly in political contexts where there is a strong anti-development lobby. A combination of local targets and incentives must be complemented by a system of penalties to ensure that some local authorities do not opt out of their responsibilities. There is a need for both sticks and carrots, and the “sticks” will need to be big enough and the “carrots” visible enough, not just to convince local authorities but also local communities. Incentives will not work if existing local communities cannot see and feel the benefits of new development. Local authorities will have to show that the extra funding will be used to meet local priorities that could not otherwise be met and that it is of sufficient scale to offset costs to the community. There are also unanswered questions as to whether the incentives system will add to the overall pot of funding available and whether incentives will be sufficient in particular to provide gypsy and traveller accommodation. Section 106 (S106) has been a tried and tested way of making a new development acceptable and negating its externalities to the local community. It seems counter-productive to suggest replacing a system that is so closely tied to individual local developments with a tariff system that is not tied to specific developments in the same way. It would be better to develop local authority skills in securing contributions and developing a mixed system of tariffs and S106 where appropriate that can be used successfully by all local authorities. In a context of localism, local authorities should promote their use of S106 to demonstrate to their communities what a new housing development will contribute to the area. S106 has been responsible for community benefits such as open space, education, highways, public transport and other infrastructure19 as well as over 60% of all new affordable housing. 19 Crook et al, 2010, The Incidence, Value and Delivery of Planning Obligations in England in 2007–08, CLG, London. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w59

A simple and effective way to facilitate higher housebuilding levels would be a presumption in favour of development alongside an incentives system. Such a presumption needs to be based on clear and tested local policies to ensure that development is sustainable.

In the current circumstances a major government housing initiative as part of restructuring the economy could be a means of supporting change. This is particularly important because the housing market is in uncharted waters, with continuing uncertainty about the economy, the availability of development finance and public investment. The scale and nature of recent changes in the housing market could fundamentally alter the way that the house-building sector operates, what it delivers and where. Indeed, in an environment where the viability of many proposals has been severely compromised there is a danger that local authorities may accept new proposals put forward by developers because they are the only ones on offer. The proposed incentives scheme needs to provide a means of safeguarding against this without becoming an argument used by the anti- development lobby.

It is very unlikely that an incentives system alone will be enough to support all housing development required, in particular, there will need to be continued additional investment in affordable housing. But the affordable housing sector could be more innovative both in how funds are raised and in the low cost home ownership (LCHO) products that are available. As part of the restructuring, simpler and better targeted LCHO products should be developed as the current products are too complex and often unaffordable.20

(c) Arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by RSS

There are many policy areas where co-ordinated policy action between local authorities (inter and/or intra- regionally) and others is required (strategic transport, habitats regulations, waste, water, minerals). The RSS and associated delivery mechanisms were the main means by which this was achieved.

The RSS enabled local authorities to consult across areas and it set out what each district was expected to achieve. It also provided information for the development industry. The RSS shared the “burden” of new development targets between local authorities. There will still need to be negotiation between different local authorities. Without the RSS we risk losing strategic decisions across boundaries and strategic monitoring. We also risk losing research at a strategic level, important in determining what is required to ensure competitiveness and a decent home for all.

The loss of regional bodies means a reduction in the number of professionals with skills in analysis and monitoring. In many areas it is already too late: the skills and expertise were lost when the regional teams were abolished. Some local authorities lack the capacity, resources and skills to tackle all of these responsibilities and will need to rely on consultants.

While these activities could be picked up by central government and/or by county councils and unitary authorities, the most appropriate possibility would appear to be spontaneous collaborations between local authorities. Voluntary local authority co-operation on planning issues has a long history—at least in certain parts of the country—that pre-dates statutory regional plans by many decades. But it is not clear whether there would be sufficient impetus to continue this. A key issue is that local authorities are having to make massive cuts. In this climate it is difficult to see non-statutory work like this getting priority and collaboration would require resources of the kind that regional bodies once provided. Perhaps one solution would be creative thinking around developing new forums for knowledge sharing.

(d) Adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co-operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) may fulfil a planning function

The proposed duty to co-operate is as yet undefined and will require a formal structure if it is to be realised. LEPs would be joint council-business bodies to promote economic development but the planning skills that existed at regional level were specialised and it is not clear how they would fit into this council-business structure.

Whilst the form and functions of LEPs are yet to be determined, our understanding is that Government does not currently envisage that LEPs will have a statutory planning function. However, LEPs could have a non- statutory planning role, similar to the now-abolished Leaders Boards that were set up to replace regional assemblies; opinion seemed to be that they were beginning to operate well.

There is a real risk that without unless already existing skills can be brought in quickly, the new LEPs’s role of dealing with planning would be a time consuming and expensive learning curve. If LEPs are going to have a planning function then existing expertise and skills need harnessing as soon as possible so they are not lost. 20 Monk and Whitehead, 2010, Making Housing More Affordable: The Role of Intermediate Tenures, Wiley Blackwell, Oxford. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w60 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

(e) How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries It is crucial that the evidence base that has been built up is not lost, particularly since the CLG letter on RSS revocation indicates that the RSS evidence base remains a material consideration. For any plans and targets to have local legitimacy, they must be based on clear and transparent evidence. But it is not clear how new evidence and research will be conducted or funded, particularly across local authority boundaries. The RSS evidence bases have (at least in some cases) been transferred to the successor bodies. However, there is a need to ensure that the evidence that has been deposited is actually made available, that existing web sites are retained and updated, at least for the foreseeable future. We would suggest the creation of a central website where all relevant data, research and guidance is collated and hosted. This would prevent individual local authorities from ‘reinventing the wheel’ when they identify knowledge gaps. An innovative use of online technology could be used to determine shared research agendas and evidence gaps, to enable local authorities to see where they have similar needs and provide opportunities to share resources and work together. It would thus offer a chance to create greater efficiencies.

Conclusions Given that RSS no longer exist except in London, the main challenges can be summarised as: 1. Strategic decision making across local authority boundaries. 2. Mediation between conflicting demands and requirements. 3. Ensuring that national housing needs are addressed. 4. Monitoring and research at strategic level. These jobs still have to be done but in a dynamic and forward looking manner. One way forward is to provide national support for spontaneous and organised collaboration between local areas and ensure a robust evidence base is maintained. September 2010

Written evidence from Whitchurch Village Action Group (ARSS 34) Who are we? Whitchurch Village Action Group exists to inform local people of the impact that the massive proposed South West Regional Spatial Strategy (SWRSS) housing developments would have on the village and surrounds. We felt it necessary to form this Group because the RSS had been imposed upon us with very little open easy accessible consultation. Even with the public in the North giving a resounding NO to the Regional Assembly that John Prescott launched it has still been pushed and with it the Spatial Strategy demanding Local Authorities ( LA’s) to cooperate with Core Strategies. We are a non political group whose sole purpose is to inform and to that end we have taken information stands around the South West to the Bristol International Balloon Fiesta, Ashton Court Bristol, the Royal Bath and West Agricultural Show, Shepton Mallet, Local Fetes, addressed Womens Institutes, Parish Councils and our LA, Bath and North East Somerset Council (BANES) and many many Car Boot Sales around the whole area. Such has been the disquiet and dislike of the SWRSS that to date we personally have forwarded some 8,000 letters of objection to the proposals to the DCLG and to MP’s and in addition 37,000 letters of objection to the RSS via the Save Our Green Spaces Organisation have also been sent. The Majority of households in the Village of Whitchurch wrote letters of objection to our LA. Banes. We discovered other areas around Bristol were suffering similarly and thus Save Our Green Spaces was created with a Web Site www.saveourgreenspaces.org which gave the public a wider picture of the National problem and all the implications should the previous Government have implemented the RSS. We are truly hopeful that now the RSS can be abolished and be replaced with a much more local community based plan.

Points of Note within the Inquiry Set out below are the individual terms of reference. The Committee has decided to undertake an inquiry into the revocation and abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies. The Committee will be focusing particularly on the implications for house building, especially: cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w61

The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development This target driven format for the housing market is the wrong way round. The housing market should be driven by need for the area. Development for need, will stabilise the market allowing prices to become realistic for first time buyers. The need will be proven based and open by LA’s in consultation with local communities which may then provide a better balance between housing, employment and leisure space not to mention infrastructure. The scrapping of house building targets that the RSS demanded is a positive move.

The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing As we travelled around the South West with our Information Stand, people were expressing their disquiet at the sheer size and scale of the imposed housing targets the numbers for which were at variance with LA’s identified local need and without support of realistic future employment, facilities for communities or infrastructure. If local need is identified and local communities are consulted appropriately there should be no need for incentives (blackmail/bribe/bung) as people realise housing is needed but at a local need level. The development needed should not be massive urban extensions but rather spread through villages with a good mix of requirements especially social housing both in the public and private sector so that the social “life- blood” can be retained. At present families become even more fragmented due to lack of availability of housing for first time buyers in rural areas. Further, social/affordable housing should be retained, not sold on for profit thus exacerbating the situation. Incentives could be given to LA’s, Parish Councils, Community Groups to promote this concept.

The Committee understands that the Government intends to announce further details of its plans for incentives “shortly”, and would welcome comments on the adequacy and appropriateness of those incentives when the details are available We look forward to learning what form these incentives will take and note that you will welcome our comments. The Committee will also be considering.

The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities and matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg Waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, &c) This is extremely important and must be addressed because if a sensible form of open consultation is created with maybe local representation being welcomed and respected by LA’s then the need for campaign groups will diminish. In more controversial projects a referendum system (as we carried out at Whitchurch Village) should be put in place. Campaign groups usually only exist because people feel disenfranchised and ignored.

The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co-operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function The problem with this proposal is to make sure that the Local Enterprise Partnerships are independent and not infiltrated or controlled by Developers or Land Agents as has been the case throughout the development of the SWRSS. Unless openness prevails Campaign Groups will continue to be active. Already the implications/ expectations are that LEPs will get developments through the system successfully.

How the Data and Research collated by the now abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries The validity of the Data was always the problem. The figures for future housing development was always questionable. These figures MUST be revisited. The process by which figures were determined for the RSS should be scrutinised—computer modelling as we know can be seriously flawed as it was with sars, swine flu, bird flu, foot and mouth, in fact the list is endless, population growth too. In our area of Bristol City Council (BCC)/Banes under the SWRSS figures, the area was required to provide development of 33,000 houses which presumably assumed up to 66,000 people would be seeking a house. Worse still these thousands of houses were to ALL be built on Green Belt Land protected by PPG’s. There is absolutely no data anywhere to substantiate these figures for huge urban sprawls and invasion and degradation of Green Belt Land. This is what has incensed local people and prompted such opposition to the SWRSS. Housing needs for BCC and Banes is extremely low in the hundreds and could be met by utilising Brown Field Sites and incentivising Landlords to rent out the hundreds of empty houses in the area. Crossing borders between LA’s has proved a huge problem in our area between BCC and Banes who will not accept correspondence from residents residing outside their borders. If this can be addressed then that is progress indeed. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w62 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

At Whitchurch Village, Banes, we were faced with the dictat to have up to 9,500 houses for an urban extension to Bristol all on Green Belt Land. As a farmer, earning a living working on this targeted Green Belt Land I am more aware than most of its importance not only to agriculture but to the general well being of wildlife, flora and fauna and also to humans. The reason for Green Belt Land is as relevant, if not more so now as it was 40 years ago. It is a finite resource and at a time when we should be looking for food security and sustainability we should all be thinking very carefully before concreting over this land which further provides mans Primary Industry and the only true form of Carbon Capture. I was certainly unaware of what was intended for my farm and my neighbouring farms until Land Agents came knocking on my door offering silly money. Furthermore one Land Agent even put in writing that they had been involved in the development of the SWRSS so it was not difficult for them to know exactly which farmers doors to knock on for likely success of procuring their need for profit. If Data is accurate, open, freely available for scrutiny then Groups like ourselves, having to spend their precious unpaid time fighting very unpopular and in many cases unwarranted development, will be less likely to challenge.

Conclusion The SWRSS was deeply unpopular because people felt they had not been consulted, the data was unbelievable and unchallengable and it was Developer lead with intent to succeed whatever. Whitchurch Village Action Group is not against housing needs for the area. Local knowledge provides the key to what the need is for local requirements so let Local Communities say what they need. Respect is a good word. September 2010

Written evidence from the Association of Regional Observatories (ARSS 35) 1. Executive Summary 1.1 We believe that all data, research and monitoring evidence previously collected at regional level (not just that collated by the now abolished Regional Leaders’ Boards) needs to be effectively maintained in future. This information is a fundamental part of the robust evidence base that informs the preparation of plans and policies. 1.2 Whilst the RSS has been revoked, the need for a robust evidence base has not changed. There remains a continued emphasis on the need for evidence to underpin plan making (for example in the recent guidance issued to LPAs, in Steve Quarterman’s letter of 6 July 2010): http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/ planningandbuilding/pdf/1631904.pdf

2. Key Recommendations are 2.1 CLG should provide information and guidance on definitions for datasets to be collated by Local Authorities for planning purposes; to ensure that datasets remain comparable with previous years’ data; to provide appropriate mechanisms to enable this information to be shared across local authorities (allowing comparisons between areas to be made); and to facilitate cross-region comparisons as appropriate.

3. A Brief Introduction to the Association of Regional Observatories 3.1 Regional Observatories were set up to provide independent, impartial analysis of data to support decision- making at a sub-national level, including local authorities. The Association of Regional Observatories represent England’s Regional Observatories that historically have satisfied the data and intelligence needs of the Regional Development Agencies, amongst others. Our work covers the economy, labour market, employment and skills, as well as sustainability and environmental issues. 3.2 We welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Community and Local Government Select Committee’s inquiry into the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies.

4. Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies 4.1 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (Plan, Monitor, Manage: June 2010) underpins the delivery of the Government’s strategic housing policy objectives, and reinforces that local planning policy must be informed by the best available evidence base. 4.2 Information previously collected as part of the RSS monitoring process that will remain critical for Local Authorities includes: 4.2.1 Housing information (including net affordable housing and net completions data). 4.2.2 Employment land data. 4.2.3 Waste management data. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w63

4.3 In most regions there is a desire to retain the evidence and monitoring base previously collated by the regional tier, and fed into the RSS. Monitoring evidence has been available through the websites of the Leaders Boards or Regional Assemblies, most of which have now been archived. The aim is to ensure that the long- standing time series of data is not broken, allowing changes over time to be tracked on a consistent basis now and in the future. 4.4 In some regions, arrangements may be put in place to allow key data series to continue to be collated in one place. However, this may not be possible in every region, in which case mechanisms should be put in place to ensure data continues to be available on a consistent basis at local level. For example, should duties remain on local authorities for the collation of data in areas such as those listed (as is likely with the duty to produce Annual Monitoring Reports by December of each year remaining for Local Authorities), definitions of relevant datasets need to, wherever possible, remain unchanged. 4.5 There is a role here for CLG to provide information and guidance on definitions for datasets to be collated by Local Authorities for planning purposes; to ensure that datasets remain comparable with previous years’ data; to provide appropriate mechanisms to enable this information to be shared across local authorities (allowing comparisons between areas to be made); and to facilitate cross-region comparisons as appropriate. September 2010

Written evidence from Mills & Reeve LLP (ARSS 37) 1. Summary 1.1 Abolition of regional housing targets is causing delay and uncertainty in the system. 1.2 There was more to RSS than housing targets—strategic planning, an important part of our planning system for decades, has been weakened as a result of abolition and the Government should be clear as to what will replace this. 1.3 Incentives may have some place, but there is much to be done on this and in any event, it is doubtful that they can provide the same outcomes as traditional planning. 1.4 We need more clarity around the role of incentives and an understanding of how the potential disadvantages are to be avoided. 1.5 Not enough is being done to explain the benefits development can bring, and expectation (which is likely to be unrealistic) has been raised that communities will not have to accept development they do not want. 1.6 LEPs may have a role to play in forward planning and this should be explored.

2. About the Submitter 2.1 Mills & Reeve LLP is a top 50 national law firm with 92 partners, over 460 lawyers and a total staff of around 800. We have offices in Birmingham, Cambridge, Leeds, London, Manchester and Norwich and serve clients throughout the country and internationally. 2.2 This submission is prepared by Mills & Reeve’s planning law team. The team is based in Cambridge, and specialises in town and country planning, working for a range of clients in both the public and private sectors.

3. Response to Questions Posed 3.1 The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets. 3.1.1 It seems apparent from what we hear that a number of local planning authorities have, in reliance upon abolition, already taken certain decisions which will have significant impacts on housing development. 3.1.2 Authorities are taking their own views depending on circumstances but we hear that: (i) planning applications have been refused which, prior to abolition, are likely to have been approved; (ii) allocations are not being acknowledged or are being reconsidered; (iii) where shortfalls in supply had already been identified, there is “no rush” to fill the gap; and (iv) work on emerging LDF documents is being delayed. 3.1.3 In addition, developers, land owners and their advisers are uncertain as to what the next steps are to be and how, in future, house building targets will be formulated. 3.1.4 Given the doubts which exist, developers are likely to hold back on seeking additional strategic land options and this too will mean further delay in the system. 3.1.5 The combination of all of this will inevitably lead to a reduction (we suggest of some significance) in housing supply at least in the short to medium term. This is to be regretted, not least because house building rates were already below what, as a nation, we had aspired to and have been so over a period of some years. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w64 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

3.2 The likely effectiveness of incentives. 3.2.1 This is difficult to judge without seeing further detail but the following points occur: (i) more than one kind of incentive has been spoken of. Those incentives which focus on retention and “top up” of Council Tax and business rates are incentives which are aimed at the local planning authority. However, incentives which are to persuade local communities to support development need to be more direct and locally based. These may come through in the usual way as section 106 contributions or as part of CIL (or its substitute). However, in the case of CIL (as presented by the previous administration), there may be no link between the payment and the development so this could lead to a dilution of that particular incentive. (ii) we would encourage the coalition Government to be more clear when it uses the term “localism” in the planning context. The determination of planning applications is likely to remain with the local planning authority, but much is made in press releases etc about the increased role of the “local community”. It is important not to overstate what the role and influence of local people is to be, so as to avoid disappointment when “incentives” become more clear. (iii) the best form of incentive should be the positive aspects of development—seen as such rather than as a route to secure any financial incentives. Little has been done, as far as we can see, to take forward the recommendation of Kate Barker that development should be promoted as something which is positive, and which can bring real benefits, and there are still significant and persuasive voices against most forms of development in many if not all “communities” (iv) in areas where housing development is seen as part of a desired regeneration or economic growth plan, then the community view is more likely to be favourable, but in any event, it is incumbent on “local leaders” to demonstrate support where development is for the greater good. (v) incentives may well work—but is the outcome of that always desirable? Local authorities, keen to attract the financial benefits of development, may be persuaded to approve certain types of planning application—but we must be careful to avoid inappropriate planning decisions. (a) For example, if the incentives for housing development are attractive, a local authority may be persuaded to approve applications in locations which are not sustainable. (b) Viewed strategically, the right location for housing development might be a neighbouring authority’s area so whatever the scheme for incentives is, it must avoid unhelpful “competition” between authorities as well as poor planning. 3.2.2 As with many types of development, housing provision needs to be viewed in a strategic way. By this we mean that the provision of a housing supply is not only a matter for individual local planning authorities— nor local communities. Whereas local communities may be attracted by the idea of “a few more houses in the village for local people”, housing provision is a key element of economic growth and success for geographic areas which comprise more than a single local planning authority’s area. 3.2.3 The planned growth of Cambridge is a good case in point. Surrounded by a tightly drawn green belt, the recent review of that green belt came about (as directed by RSS) once the case for it was made by important local employers including the University of Cambridge. It was clear that the price to be paid for leaving the green belt untouched was too great—very high house prices and traffic congestion (as workers came into the City from their homes beyond the green belt), were making Cambridge unattractive for many employees and potential employees. Without a significantly increased supply of housing, and much improved infrastructure, Cambridge’s future economic success was in question. 3.2.4 The review of the Cambridge green belt, and the removal of significant areas of land from it, was not without dissenting voices but the benefits of this kind of strategic planning and the developments, and infrastructure, it brings forward are clear. 3.2.5 The reality is that some local communities will have to face significant housing growth, far in excess of what ideally they would have wanted, and at levels which local people find unacceptable. Incentives may be inadequate to make large developments acceptable to local communities. The impression is being given that local communities will not have to face levels of development they feel uncomfortable with, or that incentives will make development acceptable—but, if these expectations are to be met, there will inevitably be a significant reduction in our aspiration for levels of housing development, which in turn will hinder economic growth. 3.3 Arrangements for cooperation between authorities in relation to certain strategic matters. 3.3.1 There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the Government to acknowledge any level of planning decision making (including forward planning) which is above that of “local”. However, it should be recognised that forward planning has, for many years (and well before the arrival on the scene of the “region”) had both a strategic and a local element. The Town and Country Planning Act 1971 established county structure plans with local plans being done at district level. Structure plans came to an end following the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which introduced the concept of the region and RSS. Cooperation on structure planning was well established and its benefits well understood. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w65

3.3.2 Some issues must be viewed strategically. These include waste, minerals. renewable energy, infrastructure and also housing. In fact most forms of development. beyond the minor, will have some strategic relevance and role. Waste and minerals are dealt with at county level so there is at least a certain level of strategic planning for those developments.

3.3.3 Without an obligation to produce development plan documents (DPDs) dealing with certain issues, it must be open to doubt whether relevant policies will be produced.

3.3.4 Local planning authorities will however be under an obligation to produce their own DPDs and Government guidance could require, as part of the test of soundness, appropriate coverage of certain issues following consultation, say, with authorities included within the same LEP. This is not ideal, since there would still be no single body with the obligation to take a more strategic view, but it would offer some control.

3.3.5 The relevant LEP could take on a role of ensuring these matters are covered but much depends here on the part played by the LEP in the planning context (see below).

3.4 Existing proposals on a duty to cooperate and the possibility of LEPs fulfilling a planning function.

3.4.1 Duties to cooperate can be valuable, but their value can also be overstated. A number of authorities do now cooperate on planning and a number of different arrangements exist—but the extent and success of these arrangements depend on “local circumstances”. For example, Cambridge City Council and its single neighbour South Cambridgeshire District Council have a joint committee to consider those planning applications for major developments which cross the boundary between the authorities—but, up to now at least, they have preferred to take their own course as far as development plans are concerned.

3.4.2 Local councils owe duties to their constituents and will tend to look at issues from a local perspective. Often this will be what is required, but there will be tensions when certain issues fall to be decided. Some of the LEP proposals, we understand, suggest that the relevant LEP may take on a planning role. The proposals are in outline but it is difficult to see how these more strategic planning questions are to be taken forward if not by the LEP.

3.4.3 Even with a planning role, the LEP should not be the local planning authority—but there must be merit in seeking to establish a credible role for the LEP in undertaking research, gathering parts of the evidence base for LDFs and coordinating the forward planning of the LEP area.

3.4.4 We would recommend that LEPs be asked to consider this role and comment further on how it could contribute to good planning within its area. However, in making that suggestion, we recognise that LEPs are not proposed to be elected bodies.

3.5 Research and data

3.5.1 There should be no barriers to dissemination of existing material, and the LEP could take responsibility for ensuring work is kept up to date. This is likely to mean that different authorities within the LEP area are asked to take responsibility for different pieces of research, with the LEP coordinating. This may assist cross boundary cooperation. September 2010

Written evidence from Pegasus Planning Group Ltd (ARSS 38)

Summary: — The abolition of regional house building targets will result in significantly lower and inadequate levels of development being planned for in future through a locally determined single tier development plan system. — The delivery of new development, particularly in the short term, will be impeded, resulting in a reduction in the availability of both general market and social housing, which will, in turn, increase and compound problems of homelessness, increase the number of concealed households, restrict labour mobility thus stifling economic growth at a time of economic recovery and inhibit the general ability to move home thus reducing tax revenues received by the Government from the housing market, such as Stamp Duty and VAT, and leading to some households remaining in unsuitable accommodation. — Strategic, non-local issues will not be adequately covered by a locally determined single tier Development Plan system, based upon the current structure of Local Government in England. — The Coalition Government needs to be clear on the nature and timing of the proposed radical reforms to the Planning system and any transitional arrangements in light of the abolition of the regional strategies. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w66 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Introduction Pegasus Planning represents a number of developers and landowners, including the majority of national volume house builders. Pegasus has participated in the preparation of most of the regional strategies on behalf of our clients.

Implications of the Abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies The Coalition Government’s revocation and proposed abolition of the regional spatial strategies, through the Decentralisation and Localism Bill, will have significant implications for house building in England, particularly at a time when there is a paramount need for a continued and sustained economic recovery, if the economy is to avoid falling into a “Double Dip” recession, and an urgent requirement to address the current housing crisis.21,22 House building in England is at a historically low level23 particularly since the start of the “Credit Crunch” in 2008.24 Affordability for first time buyers in terms of their ability to pay is, if anything, getting worse. Accessibility to both the market and social sectors has dramatically contracted while house prices generally remain high or continue to rise.25,26 Pegasus have analysed housing land supply in the South West region27. This research highlights that, even under the Regional Strategies, many local authorities were calculating their housing land supplies against the lower figures in the Draft RSS. Even then a number of authorities had less than a five year supply of housing, despite the advice in PPS3 para 6.28 The house building and development sector has a key role to play in securing future economic growth and providing sufficient dwellings to help ensure that the various housing needs and demands arising from social and demographic change in England, expected to occur over the coming years, are adequately met in a timely manner. The declining household size and the ageing population add further pressures on the national housing stock.29,30 The latest ONS Population and Households Projections highlight the scale of the problem facing the Coalition Government, Local Planning Authorities, the development industry and others to ensure that “everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live”.31,32 The importance of the private sector in resolving the current housing crisis will increase given the reduced public sector housing programme expected following the Comprehensive Spending Review October 2010. Therefore, a predominantly private sector oriented solution will be required to deliver a sufficient scale of development required to meet projected housing needs and demands, as evidenced locally in the Strategic Housing Market Assessments and nationally in the ONS projections and estimates. Pegasus note the views expressed by the NHPAU,33 regarding recovery from a dramatic drop in housing output and long term assumptions about the scope for output growth. The NHPAU predict a massive under delivery of housing which will further amplify the structural long term under supply of housing in terms of pent up demand and market volatility. The work of the former NHPAU should be continued by CLG to assist local authorities and others by providing an authoritative source of information and research, especially on affordability to save time and money and avoid “re-inventing the wheel”. It remains a principal aim of the Government to secure the necessary “Step-Change” in housing delivery, through a new, more responsive approach to land supply at the local level, as reaffirmed by the Coalition Government in June 2010.34,35 The Minister for Housing, Grant Shapps MP is on record setting out the Coalition Government’s ambition to “build more houses than the previous Government.”36 It is difficult to see how this will be achieved when the major development proposals, which formed the “back bone” of the Regional Strategies housing delivery trajectories, are now delayed and their futures uncertain in the short term, particularly in the absence of any robust transitional arrangements. The revocation of the Regional Strategies and their eventual abolition, will seriously undermine the delivery of housing, particularly in Southern England, and undermine developer confidence by removing the “certainty”, 21 Shelter—The Housing Crisis (2010). 22 National Housing Federation “Don’t Mention the Housing Crisis” Campaign 2010. 23 Historic Dwelling Completions data. 24 Housing Starts and Completions March 2002—March 2010—Building 2010. 25 Affordability Matters—A Fuller Picture (February 2010) NHPAU. 26 Housing Requirements and the Impact of Recent Economic and Demographic Change NHPAU (May 2009). 27 Pegasus Planning Group Analysis of Housing Land Supply in the South West (2010). 28 Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing (June 2010) Para 6. 29 Declining Household Size—ONS data. 30 Ageing Population—ONS data. 31 PPS3 Housing (June 2010) Para 9. 32 ONS Population and Household Projections. 33 NHPAU Housing Requirements and the Impact of Recent Economic and Demographic Change (May 2009) Pages 6 and 7. 34 PPS3 Housing June 2010 Para 2. 35 Government Response to Barker Review of Housing Supply (2004). 36 Grant Shapps Quote 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w67

fundamental to smooth and effective operation of the “Plan led” system. Maintaining certainty is critical for developers if they are expected by the Coalition Government to continue to commit to the often considerable expenditure necessary to effectively engage in the planning process and deliver large scale development proposals. Good planning ensures that we get the right development, in the right place and at the right time.37 This is to be achieved through the “Plan led” system. The “certainty and predictability” provided by the “Plan led” system is central to planning and plays the key role in integrating sustainable development objectives.38 A spatial planning approach should be at the heart of planning for sustainable development. It provides the policy link for Government to various international obligations relating to climate change, Strategic Environmental Assessment, the Habitat Regulations Directive and other requirements. The revocation and the “stripping out” of the regional tier of Local Government establishes a de facto single tier planning system in England imposing a role on the Local Development Framework Core Strategies not previously envisaged when the LDFs were originally established by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.39 Paragraph 34 of PPS3 states the former Government’s expectation that the overall level of housing should be set out in Regional Strategies. It is clear that this role was not envisaged to be undertaken by the Local Development Frameworks. It is a debatable point whether such documents, in their current form, are the most appropriate policy tool to perform this task and whether the LDFs are still “Fit for Purpose.” There remains a strong and cogent case for the retention of some form of strategic or sub-regional planning as part of a revised planning system. The long term continuing desirability of “binding” Inspector’s Reports and the current PPS 12 Tests of Soundness should be reconsidered in light of the RSS revocation and the forthcoming radical reforms of the planning system. The planning system needs to be comprehensively changed if a permanent single tier system is envisaged. This should be thoroughly consulted upon before it is introduced, rather than such a system coming about on an “ad hoc” basis, without adequate consultation, guidance or transitional arrangements, as to how such a new system would function and how proposals being progressed under the previous system would be handled. There appears to be a “reality gap” in the Coalition Government’s thinking on the nature and operation of the revised “Plan-led” system, which embraces localism. The revised “plan led” system should be formulated to effectively deliver a robust housing land supply, based on transparent, evidence based analysis of development requirements. Informal, interim requirements, devised without wide engagement and consultation, are unhelpful in advance of the DPD reviews. Clearly, to ensure “certainty” and a smooth transition to the new system the RSS figures should stand until they are reviewed through the LDF process. The former Government established its Development Plan system; comprising Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks. A two tier system intended to simplify the previous system, which comprised Regional Planning Guidance, which did not form part of the Statutory Development Plan, Structure Plans and Local Plans. The Structure Plans were to be abolished upon final publication of the relevant Regional Spatial Strategy. Most Structure Plans, other than those in the South West region, are now abolished. The former Structure Plans, amongst other things, set out the scale and distribution of housing and employment development envisaged and performed many other important strategic functions, including co- ordination of infrastructure provision and other cross boundary matters, which do not neatly fall within individual local planning authority boundaries. These roles were fulfilled by the Regional Spatial Strategies, prior to their revocation. It should be noted that, unlike the previous Structure Plans, the Regional Strategies went further in their level of policy prescription, not only determining the overall scale of development appropriate for the region concerned, they also set out the proposed distribution by Local Authority Area, having regard to the differing Local Government Structures, sometimes defining the level of development appropriate for particular key settlements and included policy guidance of the broad location(s) and scale of strategic development proposals, where the evidence base supported such identification. The implications of if there is to be no strategic planning undertaken have not been adequately considered. There will be a failure to properly plan for the future housing needs and demands. The recent survey by consultants Roger Tym reveals that only a minority of Councils are expected to continue with the housing levels, previously set out in the regional strategies.40 The Regional Strategies were prepared by the Regional Planning Bodies, on behalf of the Government, but the final publication of the Regional Strategies was undertaken by the Secretary of State. At that point the Regional Strategy document not only became Government policy, but also part of the Statutory Development Plan and was afforded the full weight of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Thus, the “certainty and predictability” of the “Plan led” system was established to enable Local Development 37 PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) Para 1. 38 PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) Para 8. 39 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 40 Planning 6 August 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w68 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Frameworks, in particular the Core Strategies, to be formulated in general conformity to the relevant finalised Regional Strategy. Developers, local authorities and others have fully engaged in the Regional Strategy process, committing considerable resources, time and effort to participation in the various stages of plan preparation, responding to consultation opportunities and contributing to the RSS evidence base. The revocation, with immediate effect,41,42 has created tremendous uncertainty in the planning arena and significantly undermined investor confidence, precisely at a time when the housebuilding sector needs support during the economic recovery and dwelling completions need to be accelerated to address the demonstrable acute housing needs and demand. The act of revocation, coupled with the policy shift towards “Localism” by the Coalition Government, will create problems for housing delivery in the medium term, as well as the short term, as the substantial amount of time taken by the majority of Local Planning Authorities to resolve the current uncertainties is eventually reflected in the timing of actual delivery of development. The Coalition Government’s Localism agenda will take many months, if not years, to “bed down”. The current confusion, given absence of any robust transitional arrangements, has resulted in many local authorities either withdrawing their Local Development Framework Core Strategies or slowing down their preparation until there is a greater clarity at the national level.43,44,45,46 This will inevitably impede the supply of new housing and employment development. Development proposals formulated in accordance with the Regional Strategies, in particular the large scale urban extension proposals at the Strategically Significant Cities and Towns (SSCTs), no longer have the weight of the “Plan led” system behind them. Their implementation will inevitably be delayed and their future is now in doubt, in some cases, where the “Localism” agenda may result in lower development targets being set locally by the Local Planning Authorities removing the need for urban extensions, which are deemed “unpopular” locally, often despite robust evidence for their allocation. The ability of the Coalition Government to reverse now deep seated “nimbyism” and overcome local self interests through incentives and other measures appears limited. The “Localism” agenda is likely to result in the allocation of lower levels of development than set out in the regional strategies, as anti-development lobbies apply political pressure and the Councillors become mindful of the Local Government Elections. Given that the “Step Change” in housing delivery sought by PPS3 was to be achieved, in large part at the Broad Locations for Development identified in the Regional Strategies, the act of revocation will now fundamentally undermine the expected delivery of increased housing numbers at these sustainable, broad locations, where they are needed most. The consequences of planning for lower levels of development are not experienced equitably across communities as a whole. The supply of new affordable housing units will reduce at a time when there are acute levels of housing need.47 Further delays in plan preparation will result from the revocation. The delivery of development, on larger urban extensions and regeneration areas, often is intrinsically tied to the progress of the Development Plan. Local Planning authorities have responded in many different ways to the emerging Localism agenda and revocation of regional strategies. Some councils have been quick to consider the issue and set a new lower level of housing or withdraw their Core Strategies,48 whilst others have sought to take more time over determining level of growth to be planned for.49 The new locally set levels of development still need to be tested at Examination in Public by an Independent Inspector. Core Strategies are supposed to only include strategic sites considered central to achievement of the Strategy.50 Therefore, the majority of allocated sites required to deliver the new locally determined housing figures will have to be progressed through Site Allocations Development Plan Documents. These, in the main, are prepared after the Core Strategies are adopted or the Core Strategy EIP has been completed. Therefore, the delivery of development from the expected on allocated sites included in the Site Allocation DPDs will be delayed by several years. Furthermore, as progress on the former Local Plans was slow and now somewhat dated, the Core Strategies prepared to date have not brought forward sufficient land quickly enough to effectively supplement the housing land supply given the reliance of Site Allocations DPD. Thus in many parts of the country there is a dearth of 41 Secretary of State’s letter dated 27 May 2010. 42 Letter to Chief Planning Officers dated 6 July 2010. 43 South Oxfordshire Council withdrew its Core Strategy and is working on revised proposals. 44 Wiltshire Council revised its timetable to produce the Wiltshire Core Strategy. 45 Joint Core Strategy for Gloucester, Cheltenham & Tewkesbury delayed to take account of Pickles letter. 46 Taunton Deane Core Strategy being revised to plan for lower levels of development. 47 Chartered Institute for Housing in the South West (CIHSW) Planning 20 August 2010. 48 South Oxfordshire Core Strategy. 49 Wiltshire and South Wiltshire Core Strategies. 50 PPS12 Local Spatial Planning Para 46. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w69

genuinely available and deliverable development sites, despite there being a demonstrable need for additional housing to achieve the “Step Change”. In a revised single tier “Plan led” system, it will take several years to address and rectify this problem, provided the local determined housing figures actually recognise this point and seek an increase in overall housing provision.

Policy Deficits Another consequence of the revocation may not be immediately apparent to the Coalition Government policy makers. Given the desire of the former Government to simplify the content of Development Plans and remove duplication of policy and/or repetition as some policy matters were covered by the Regional Strategies there was no longer a requirement to include such duplicated policies in the Local Development Frameworks and so such policies were omitted from the LDFs. For those Core Strategies and other LDF documents where this was the case, the revocation of the Regional Strategies has created a “policy deficit” where the regional policies no longer apply but the Core Strategies have been adopted or the Examination in Publics have been completed without the LDFs including adequate policies on some issues. Clearly, there will be cost implications to the Local Authorities who need to review their Core Strategies and/or other LDF documents to address any “policy deficits” as a consequence of the revocation.

Incentives/New Homes Bonus There is a fundamental tension inherent in the Coalition Government’s “Localism” agenda in respect of planning for new development. The effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development is likely to be modest and patchy. Short term financial incentives run contrary to the long standing principle that planning permissions should not be “brought or sold”. Furthermore, some more wealthy local authorities will consider the expected incentives insufficient to justify the inevitable political backlash from local voters, mindful of the Local Government Elections. The current lack of clarity regarding the precise incentives that could be expected is also a cause for concern, prompting some councils not agreeing to further development too hastily. Given the tight Government Budgets as the deficit is addressed, there is a real concern that the nature and level of incentives that are made available will be insufficient to ensure an adequate long term housing supply is achieved. The Grant Shapps letter51 did not make reference to the previous commitment to match Council Tax revenues on every new home built for six years in grant payments. The Minister is understood to be locked into debate with the Treasury over affordability.

Furthermore, there is evidence that some local authorities are reneging upon their Multi-Area Agreements in terms of their agreed strategies for urban expansion.

Adequacy of Co-operation Proposals—Proposed Duty to Co-operate Guidance and the reasons for joint working are set out in PPS12 paras 4.16–4.18.52

In the absence of the regional strategies it is essential that the local authorities are encouraged to work together on strategic and cross border issues and to establish realistic and responsible targets for waste, mineral extraction and renewable energy generation which have regard to needs and demands arising from a larger geographical area than their own administrative borders.

Whilst it may be desirable for local planning authorities to co-operate in the preparation of planning documents, previous experience indicates that Local Planning Authorities cannot be forced into unacceptable joint arrangements. This is particularly evident in the Greater Bristol area. It is unclear how conflicts in the respective “localism” camps would be resolved. There will inevitably be differing opinions on the future scale and direction of new development from opposing neighbourhoods, communities or local authorities.

The implications of under provision in one local authority are often felt by neighbouring authorities. This is compounded if all authorities under provide, such as in the Bristol/West of England Housing Market Area, then the impacts are felt across a wider sub-region.

Role of Local Enterprise Partnerships It is noted that the proposed Local Enterprise Partnership may fulfil a planning function. Whilst this would enable housing and planning issues to be examined over a broader area, the plan making responsibility remains with the Local Planning Authorities in the “Plan led” system. There does not appear an adequate mechanism to ensure that the views of the LEPs would actually be reflected in the Local Development Frameworks under the current arrangements. September 2010

51 Grant Shapps New Homes Bonus Scheme Letter 9 August 2010. 52 PSS12 Local Spatial Planning (2008) Paras 4.16–4.18. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w70 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from Galliford Try (ARSS 39) Summary — Galliford Try understands the principles of the proposed changes to the planning system. The company intends to work constructively to help make it work as efficiently and effectively as possible. — However the company is concerned about the vacuum created by the removal of the RSS. — The development plan process must retain primacy and there needs to be some sort of means of ensuring that development plan documents, whatever they are called, are produced and adopted speedily and efficiently with real and appropriate penalties if they are not. — There needs to be some sort of housing targets co-ordinated above the local level. — Data collection and research should be done by an independent body which should produce the evidence for the relevant plan making and housing target authorities. — Local Authorities should be expected to provide for the housing that the independent research shows is needed unless they can demonstrate exceptional circumstances why they should not. — Housing targets could be set at housing market area level but this then needs to be translated into local area targets. — Incentives will only work if combined with targets and they will not be enough on their own. Incentives will work better if they bring a direct and visual benefit to the actual communities affected by development. Incentive calculation via the council tax formula may still work if spend is still visible at a local level.

Introduction Galliford Try (GT) is one of the leading national house builders and construction companies building approximately 2,000 houses per year and employing 3,500 people. Turnover was £1.4 billion last year. The company has plans to grow significantly in the coming years and by doing so, employ more staff and increase investment. The company is particularly concerned about the implications of the abolition of RSSs in relation to potential implications for investment plans in the construction and property sectors. This at a time when investment is very much needed to support employment and increase economic growth. As set out below, GT has concerns about the revocation of RSSs without proper consideration being given to a replacement system. However we recognise that localism and Big Society concepts are policy commitments and we hope to work constructively to make these concepts work as effectively as possible whilst delivering the housing and growth that the country desperately needs.

Abolition of Regional Housing Targets The effect of this abolition has already been seen. Research shows that about 38,000 houses in the west of England have been removed from the plan-making system since the revocation of the RSS. The figure for the country as a whole will be much higher. Clearly the prospect of promised incentives has not been seen as being potentially attractive enough to retain house building targets. The other main consequence of RSS removal has been significant delay to many Local Development Documents when this process was already proving slow anyway. We consider that this will further delay delivery of houses to meet needs that are well documented through Housing Market Assessments, population and household projections and local authority waiting lists. Examples of where this is happening are at North Devon, Mid Sussex, several Oxfordshire authorities and Aylesbury Vale. These are being delayed whilst housing numbers are reviewed. The latter is being withdrawn at a very late stage because of the RSS revocation. The development industry needs commitment to building houses at locations where suitability and need has been demonstrated without fear of significant investment becoming abortive. An example of that lack of commitment is at Mole Valley where a decision was taken in 2009 to release some sites for development because supply was not meeting identified need. Since revocation of the RSS that decision has been reversed. This “stop—start” decision-making process is damaging to the economy and discourages investment. The construction and housing sectors are very important to the national economy and extra care should be taken to encourage investment and job creation. The issues that come out of this are considered below:

Plan Making System It is important that the planning system continues to be led by the development plan process rather than by speculative applications and appeals. The problem has always been the speed at which development plans are cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w71

produced and adopted. The concern is that without any incentive (following the removal of Planning Delivery Grants), Local Authorities will under resource their Planning Policy Departments in order to save money. There is a danger that plan preparation will slow (or even cease) undermining the whole established principle of a plan led system. The industry has long argued for absolute requirements for Development Plan Documents (whether they be Structure Plans, Local Plans or LDFs) to be produced speedily and efficiently with severe penalties if this does not happen. Local Development Schemes have been produced as part of the LDF process. These were intended to set a firm timetable to adoption for the Development Plan Documents that were identified. However there are numerous examples where those timetables have slipped, often severely, without any identified repercussions or intervention. Some authorities are on their third or fourth version of the LDS. This seems to have been accepted by government without question. This situation threatens to continue to undermine the whole system. Currently there are no measures in place to encourage or enforce progress in producing planning policy. If not addressed, this problem is likely to get worse.

Housing Targets and Collection of Data It is essential for the delivery of housing for there to be some targets co-ordinated above the local level. This ought to be based on the evidence which in most cases is in place through work done for the RSS and LDFs. The premise that evidence and research should be done at distinct housing market area level is a sound one and this is not constrained by local authority boundaries. This reinforces the need for planning above the local level with targets being set according to housing market area research. Our concern is that targets set exclusively at a local level will not deliver the need that has been identified by the research. It may be that LEPs are appropriate bodies to administer and deal with housing targets but too little is known of their remit to come to a firm conclusion. An alternative could be county and unitary authorities. Whichever body is identified to identify housing needs and targets, there will need to be consistency of approach and clear guidance on how this should be done. There is a danger that each of the housing target authorities will do things differently which will cause confusion and disagreement. It might make co-operation between authorities difficult and cause tensions between the private sector delivery agents (eg developers) and the regulatory authorities. Whoever is responsible for setting targets, data collection and research should be done by an independent group free of political interference. This group could update the data according to housing market areas based on the evidence and report the findings. It would then be for the housing target setting bodies (whether that would be LEPs, counties or others) to use that data to plan for the housing that is required. Local Authorities can then work with local communities to deliver the needed housing growth. It is important that the evidence for new houses is expressed clearly and made available widely. People have to be aware of data in order to make an informed decision. This is an essential part of localism as without information clearly showing why new homes are needed, people often instinctively resist change. This can all be consistent with localism principles whilst effectively using research and delivering housing where it is needed. Without some target co-ordination above the local level, we are convinced that the chronic trend of under delivering on identified housing numbers will only get worse regardless of incentives.

Incentives Currently the prospect of substantial incentives has not been sufficient to increase levels of house building being planned through planning policy. Our experience of public engagement shows that communities rarely have a consensus on what they want to do. Each household will have its own priorities based on its own circumstances. For example, households with children will be concerned about education whilst people without children might prefer to keep their locality as it is even if that does threaten the quality or even existence of the school. Some people might be willing to accept housing development if it brings a community hall whilst others would prefer to miss out on the community hall because they do not want new houses. Our concern is that in many communities, there will be a core of people who will resist change through this process and it is these people who have the most time and resources to enforce their views. Our concern is that the council tax incentive seems too indirect in most cases to benefit the actual communities that are being asked to accept new housing. The attraction of small reductions on council tax (as a result of extra council tax receipts) or provision of extra capital investment across a district will not be enough of an incentive to encourage people affected by development to accept it particularly in the affluent areas where the housing is most badly needed. For example, residents of Clevedon should not necessarily benefit from Weston-super-mare taking lots of development if they are not materially affected by it. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w72 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

This proposed approach seems designed to promote large developments which generate a greater capital receipt. We are concerned that this will discourage appropriate smaller developments because they do not deliver the council tax incentives at a sufficient scale to be much of a benefit to the local authority. The incentive scheme might stand a better chance of success if money goes directly towards paying for a particular benefit or to a parish council so that people can actually see a direct and visual link between the new houses and improvements to their local area. Our conclusion is that there may be some instances where financial incentives can help but it needs to be more direct and in itself this will not be enough to increase house building where it is needed. This needs to be combined with effective housing target setting.

Other Consequences of RSS Abolition Other problems have emerged since RSS abolition. Local Authorities were told not to include policies that replicated policies at a national or regional level in order to keep Local Development Documents concise. With the removal of the RSS, a whole level of policies have been instantly removed meaning that policies that previously formed part of the development plan have now gone and there is a vacuum. This has created great uncertainty on major issues not least environmental protection where important policies are no longer applicable. This all reinforces the need to prepare policy quickly and effectively including planning for growth. Authorities should not be permitted to pick and choose which policies to replace at the expense of planning for housing which should be an essential part of the plan making exercise. For example, some authorities might choose to develop environmental protection policies in isolation to housing, employment and other policies. This would be a disjointed approach. There is precedent on this sort of process where some authorities have proved to be unable to produce an adopted Core Strategy for resource reasons but have been able to produce SPDs to avoid independent examination of new policy. By doing this, restrictive policies are introduced whilst planning for needed growth is not developed.

Co-operation Between Local Planning Authorities Major infrastructure projects are always going to be controversial. It is unrealistic to look for volunteers amongst local authorities for necessary strategic facilities that are always going to be controversial (eg power stations, landfill sites, incinerators) unless some sort of strategic assessments and decision-making procedures are in place. Failure to consider this at a broader level means that tensions will emerge between local authorities and could become divisive. An additional concern is where the most appropriate sites for development may be large developments across local authority boundaries (eg new settlements). There needs to be procedures in place to ensure fair treatment for each local authority as well as providing for the housing numbers that are needed. Co-operation is needed between councils. There does need to be some form of independent adjudication where each authority looks to abdicate its responsibilities to another unwilling authority. Decisions should be based on the independent evidence that is produced and co-operation should be required on this basis.

Conclusion Galliford Try acknowledges that a localism approach is a policy commitment for the coalition government. Whatever the system, it is essential that ways are found to ensure that Local Authorities produce their development plans speedily and efficiently and that they plan and deliver the housing growth that is needed. September 2010

Written evidence from Councillor Professor Alan Townsend (ARSS 40) Executive Summary — There is an urgent set of issues arising from the revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs). This is unprecedented in the period since the passing of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, when expansion of travel has interlocked adjoining Districts. — In that context the Committee are wise to consider “the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfill a Planning function”. The view I published in October 2009 was that they should be statutory Planning Authorities; eg the Nottinghamshire/Derbyshire LEP, which includes 18 of the newly independent District Planning Authorities, should broadly work like the Greater London Authority does through the “London Plan”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w73

— The Committee are wise to recognize that RSSs covered a wide range of subject matter in all Regions, beyond the problems of housing numbers in the south, following an increased recent recognition in CLG papers of employment sites. There is a strong business interest in co-ordination of 324 soon-to-be independent Local Planning Authorities, and fear of wasteful competition between LEPs and Local Authorities. — The writer is one of the few people who have worked across both Town Planning and Economic Development issues as Councillor, Partnership Chair and Professor, and wrote to the Shadow Secretary of State a year ago (17 September 2009) that “Someone said that Gordon Brown would have failed an exam if he had written that he had “ended boom and bust”: equally, anyone who wrote that you could achieve the Planning of England purely by Districts, without sub-regional or regional powers would also fail badly. — Ie planning, housing and transport are not only necessary to LEPs’ working but need LEPs strengthening with formal Planning powers for essential purposes of CLG and government at large, and to complement the advances provided by localism. — Problems of co-ordinating Committees and Departments from London may be offset by saving agreed parts of draft integrated Regional Strategies, and re-convening Leaders’ Boards with business bodies in Regions that want this, co-ordinating LEPs. — The conserving and updating of Regional Strategy data could be a task of continuing skeleton government Offices.

Brief Introduction to the Writer Professor of Regional Regeneration & Development Studies, University of Durham, 2000–05, responsible to CLG for nine reports. Career interests have been in Physical Planning, member RTPI; Chair of District Council Planning Committee. Economic Development. DTI Regional Offices; five books on UK economic development at Regional and sub-regional scales; Chair of District Council Regeneration Committee. Joint activity; held the economic desk on a Land-use Transportation sub-regional Plan; Chair of Wear Valley Local Strategic Partnership. Currently Vice-Chair, Bishop Auckland College, and Greater Willington Town Council and Rural Durham Employability Steering Group.

Relevant publications: Can LEPs fill the strategic void? Town and Country Planning, September, 2010 (with L.Pugalis). The Planning of England-Relying on Districts,Town and Country Planning,October, 2009. Integration of economic and spatial planning across scales’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 2009, Vol. 7. The fluctuating record of economic regeneration in England’s second-order city regions, 1984–07 (with A.G.Champion, in press Urban Studies).

Co-ordination of all Fixed Investment by LEPs 1. The peril is that the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. I maintain that strategic spatial planning, ie the Regional Strategy (RS) making process and the RSS exercise before it, served a pragmatic and valuable role. 2. The present 324 second-tier and unitary authorities, to which independent planning has devolved, are artificial creations which vary considerably in their geographical degree of functional independence and cohesion. Thus dropping RSSs without replacement leaves, for example, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire with a total of 18 independent District Planning Authorities. It was through a reaction against the Maud Commission’s work of 1,969 that the second tier of local government was instituted by government; a fresh commission then bolted together previous smaller authorities to form minimum required populations. 3. Abolishing the regional tier of strategy multiplies the potential number of boundary disputes, with many planning practitioners suggesting that cross-boundary developments will stall indefinitely. 4. Within a strategic framework, it is possible to prioritise development schemes in a manner that shares and minimises negative externalities from a wide range of necessary developments. Shropshire, for example, was prepared to receive aggregate waste under the last West Midlands Plan, but has now withdrawn its cooperation under the prospective arrangements. 5. Efficient infrastructure and new development have to be planned in relation to each other across the map, as in the Milton Keynes South Midlands Growth Area; equivalent bodies are now needed for areas which straddle different Districts. Many past examples can be given of transport proposals which were mistakenly cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w74 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

confined within one lower-tier authority area, and which were likely to be inefficient, while water and sewage have to be planned across drainage catchment areas. 6. Regional targets have been discredited for the time being while there is scepticism over the government’s proposed housing incentives. Nevertheless, housing in one second-tier District may be complementary to employment growth in the adjoining one. Constraining housing delivery could significantly hinder economic recovery across the whole of the south. Alternatively, undue speculative activity in some localities could destabilise the wider urban land economy. 7. In terms of important theory, emphasis therefore on the abandoning of regional planning would be on issues of duplication, sub-regional displacement, negative externalities and efficiency of infrastructure between authorities, along with the planning system’s existing machinery for avoiding wasteful competition, as in retailing. 8. However, many of these purposes of strategic spatial planning are not exclusive to the regional spatial level and were previously administered at the level of counties, including former metropolitan ones. We therefore anticipate the emergence of a new sub-regional strategic planning geography and suggest that the shape of Local Enterprise Partnerships, or LEPs, is recreating such a map. For example, the 18 Planning Authorities of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire mentioned above are now included in one proposed LEP area. 9. But the LEPs’ lack of statutory planning powers may deny them the very certainty which planners, developers and business demand, as in the letter of 30 bodies to the minister of 5 August. 10. This author recognises the issues mentioned by the Committee in waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy and would prefer some of them to be dealt with continuingly at the Regional level. Climate change experts particularly see the loss of the level as important. However, even on environmental topics the proposed 56 LEPs are better than nothing for strategic work. Socially, issues such as the handling of gypsies or the inner city questions of greater Manchester or Tyneside will benefit from an LEP approach. 11. Department for Transport issues are subject to District Planning judgement in the absence of an RSS. For example RAIL Magazine of September 8–13 cites two Freight Interchanges which have been rejected since May; “this presents a possible barrier to growth “where the parish council will decide what is good” 12. The approach here is that of an expert on travel-to-work since the 2001 census, noting that “functional economic regions” have been recognised since for example a work of 1947, “City, Region and Regionalism” (RE Dickinson, Routledge). As part of their professional training of up to five years, all Planners are taught the growing interdependence of adjacent towns and suburbs for the activities of work, housing, shopping, leisure and services, which have to be taken into account in providing land, engineering calculations of road needs and Planning approvals. By the end of the 1960s the Ministry of Labour was linking local authority areas together in “Travel-to-Work” areas. It was a normal requirement of Ministry of Transport that new roads could be financed only by calculating detailed forward travel needs in “Land Use-Transportation Surveys” for conurbations and larger growth centres such as Northampton. The Metropolitan Counties of 1974–85 had their own Structure Plans which survived the closure of those Authorities. It is argued here that these plans could not have been produced by the present separate Metropolitan Boroughs. 13. The needs of the economy are intimately bound up with the topics of housing, transport, infrastructure and planning. Long-overdue integration of these activities was embodied in increasing work between ministries in integrated Regional Strategies, which were to be signed off by BIS and CLG jointly. It was equally correct that the letter of 29 June announcing LEPs was signed jointly by the Secretaries of State of both BIS and CLG. 14. It is argued here that it is necessary for LEPs to embrace all these topics: and that not as another “talking shop” but as bodies having statutory Planning powers at the centre of their individual work. If, as often stated, LEPs are responsible for “real economic areas”, then they must embrace the topics together, none of which can be dealt with purely at the lower level of most Local Authority areas. 15. Because of the effects on social housing and jobs, this is a moral issue. However, to argue this from an economic point of view: much as one might welcome aspects of devolution to the 324 Local Planning Authorities, the withdrawal of RSSs without replacement nonetheless leaves a vacuum of uncertainty for business investment 16. Briefly, having 324 separate Planning Authorities could produce: — Unco-ordinated wasteful competition between new shopping centres. — Unco-ordinated buck-passing by between nimby southern authorities. — Irrational development of transport. As an example in my letter of 26 July to the Minister for Decentralisation, a major development area straddles the boundary between Stockton and Hartlepool Boroughs: the otherwise excellent Partnership (existing and proposed) between Tees Valley Authorities leaves them as entirely independent sovereign Planning Authorities cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w75

17. The allocation of employment land by the Planning system is of fundamental interest to business. For example, successive strategies for North East England since the arrival of the Nissan factory have allocated a small, set number of sites for large inward investments: otherwise all the present 12 Unitary Authorities would wastefully allocate one each. 18. The location of new growth is the more advantageous if it is carefully calculated in relation to that of existing and new housing and transport for goods and personnel. Quoting the editor of PLANNING 9 August, p.9) “Following the scrapping of regional spatial strategies, just over half [of 70 LPAs surveyed] expect to review their local development framework housing targets...Only one in five authorities will review employment targets...How many employers will spend big bucks investing in an area if there are serious doubts about housing their staff?” 19. In short, the business and housing interest is different from the outcome of what 324 Local Authorities might decide. The last government responded to business and Treasury influence in legislating for merging Regional Economic and Spatial Strategies. This may have proved too cumbersome, but the lessons must be learnt, that there needs to be economic input into Planning. It is not the sum total of what Councillors on District Planning Committees might think, and say to CLG ministers through their national associations, when they might refuse applications of interest to DFT, BIS etc. 20. It is now therefore argued here that LEPs are of value to Planning and vice versa: (1) It is necessary at all stages that Planning is part of LEP work, but (2) That is not sufficient as the only proposal to fill the vacuum between the 324 Authorities and Whitehall, (3) LEPs must have Planning powers: otherwise much of their work could prove nugatory: for example, a LEP containing say five Boroughs could find its separate Planning Committees voting to develop or approve rival out-of-town shopping centres, despite previous accords. 21. It is now argued that the LEP level is the only one at which to resolve the strategic co-ordination of Planning. This statement does not reflect criticism of the dropping of the RSSs as such, but the surprise of many bodies and of academics at their dropping without replacement. 22. RDAs have met almost unresolvable conflict, sufficient to risk losing regional projects, between metropolitan boroughs. A “law of the jungle” would leave disadvantaged communities further behind, Bradford behind Leeds, or deprived ex-coalfield areas behind those with Motorway junctions. When we look at the eight leading provincial cities, we find that the average proportions flowing in from adjoining areas summed to no less than 42 % of all workers already by 2001. 23. LEPs provide a scale at which future essential strategic planning should continue. Government Party speakers over the last year have not been unaware of the gap which their Planning proposals would produce between District and nation. It would be a duty for their Local Development Frameworks “to be genuinely spatial”; unless authorities contributed genuinely to their cluster they would not get their regeneration money. 24. There is not a large volume of decisions that cannot be transferred down to sub-regional level: they largely concern transport systems from Birmingham northwards as between the Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and Leeds areas and between Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the Tees Valley. On the other hand, the 324 Planning Authorities cannot be expected always to work in the interests of all neighbours. 25. The power of RSSs and previous Structure Plans was that their approved text provided legally- enforceable certainty for implementation through Planning Inspector decisions. Disputes about retail centres were decided on an agreed policy calculated across the whole Plan area. 26. LEPs will need to have the legal right and duty, in full consultation, to assemble and write the legally- enforceable Plan for the whole area. This need not involve them in all the myriad day-to-day decisions of the Local Planning Committees. 27. This leaves the issues of Chairmanship and memberships of LEPs. There could be the view that Plans can only be approved by elected Councillors, in which case they could convene as a separate Planning sub- Committee for this purpose. In total the situation would not be very different from the regime from 1974 to 2004 when County Planning Committees undertook strategic work and a few larger decisions, while the lower tier of Districts undertook all the detailed work in the implementation of Plans. 28. Following the rejection of the North East Assembly through a referendum, many experts looked to the model of two-tier planning of Greater London with its overall “London Plan”. Along with the two-tier Planning of the four Scottish City Regions, the proposed use of LEPs would register a convergence of views at a sensible scale.

Regional Level Data and Co-ordination Between LEPs 29. The Committee are right to draw attention to the value of the data and analyses conducted for Regional Strategies, which include the published Strategy in the case of North West England. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w76 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

30. It is important to note that these analyses were publicly funded and reside in a public location. The fact that a current London-based government does not prioritise policy at this scale does not mean that data will not be needed by many public bodies and local authorities in individual Regions. Further, there are certain key data which are not currently available at lower levels, and which it would be uneconomic to produce. ONS are not stating that LEP level data can be produced under their current contract. In any case, LEP agreements may be liable to revision by members over time. 31. There is ample precedent from the breaking up of Metropolitan and some other Counties in the 1980s for statistical and policy units to be retained for the original wider areas, and these continue today. There is an argument for retaining small government staffs in Regions to provide a minimum of intelligent co-ordination of London departments’ activities, at least for the Regions further in travel time from London. If on that basis the southern Regions did not claim or recognize this need, then the government would be entitled to implement a distinction between North and South, which matches frequent practice in many analyses and books. 32. Regional data should be maintained, updated and be available free of charge in designated bodies. These could be a function of skeleton Government regional Offices or of a neutral statistical body—in the North East these could be the Regional Observatory, ie the North East Research and Information Partnership, or the Institute of Local Government. The 1979 change of government brought the end of the “Strategic Plan for the Northern Region”, but its publication in seven volumes in 1977 remained a publicly-recognised repository of new wisdom about the regional economy. 33. This leads on to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee’s concerns about co-ordination of roles between LEPs and “arrangements for co-ordinating regional strategy”. The underlying point is that efficiency requires the salvaging of the best of Regional thinking from ten years’ recent work in Economic and Spatial Strategies, and draft Regional Strategies as well as broader arrangements across Sustainable Community Growth Areas. 34. There are problems in building up a single and complete system of LEPs. “It is essential that the Government should give real assurances to those for whom a city-regional style of government is inappropriate that the development of policy will not result in a reduction of support for other areas.” (CLG Committee, Is there a future for Regional Government?, Session 2006–07, para.179) 35. Statistical data over nearly 25 years indicates relative success for the Manchester and Leeds City Regions over their neighbours in Liverpool, Pennine Lancashire, Sheffield, Teesside and Newcastle (Champion and Townsend, 2010). This government, which is concerned with deprivation and the reduction of welfare assistance, will want to retain machinery for assisting weaker areas. These points raise the issue of retaining some measure of co-ordination of strategy between LEPs at the regional level. 36. It is likely that, for individual functions, the present system of eight units is capable of being cheaper and easier to staff than a sub-regional system of about 60 LEPs, and more capable of understanding and communicating with Whitehall. What must not be allowed to disappear is a floor of basic machinery for strategic co-ordination. September 2010

Written evidence from RWE Npower Renewables Ltd (RWE NRL) (ARSS 41) Summary — For renewable energy in particular, RSS provided a link between national policy and site-specific issues to be determined by local policy. It ensured that the need for renewable energy was explicitly part of the development plan and provided a manifestation of the UK’s obligations at a regional level. — Without the RSS the connection between national climate change objectives on the one hand, and local decision-making on the other, is weakened so industry has concern that renewable energy developments will find it more difficult to satisfy policy tests and gain consent. This threatens to reduce the pace of renewables development in England. — To address this, the National Framework should include clear guidance on the inclusion of positive policies for renewables deployment in local plans, and give statutory weight to national renewables targets. — Local Enterprise Partnerships could produce strategic guidance that can guide the level of renewable development necessary in each area, consistent with the sensitivities of each local area. This should be a requirement for Local Enterprise Partnerships. — The move towards a low carbon economy should be integral to local plans and to the strategies of Local Enterprise Partnerships. — Changes to the land use planning system in England should be consulted on and implemented without undue delay to avoid uncertainty and possible adverse impact on investment in renewables. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w77

— We support incentivisation of renewables in the form of business rates from renewable energy schemes being directed to the local authority. — The retention of a strategic evidence base for renewable energy is crucial, and the assemblage of such an evidence base would be best placed at a tier higher than local authority. — The key aim for industry is to have a mechanism that ensures that the national imperative to secure more renewables more quickly is translated down to a local level as effectively as possible, leading to balanced and consistent decision-making.

1. Introduction 1.1 This evidence to the Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry into the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies is provided on behalf of RWE Npower Renewables Ltd, part of the RWE Group. 1.2 Although the Committee has specified it is focusing on issues around housing, it will also consider: — The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy). — How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries. 1.3 This response focuses on these issues, specifically in relation to renewable energy. 1.4 Whilst larger scale on-shore based electricity generating assets (above 50MW) are expected to be determined by a Secretary of State under the replacement for the Infrastructure Planning Commission regime, most land-based renewable energy schemes fall below that threshold and so fall to be determined by the local planning system, which is the subject of this inquiry.

2. RWE Npower Renewables Ltd (RWE NRL) 2.1 RWE NRL is a major UK based renewable energy company, focussed on the development and operation of renewable sources of electricity for supply to the UK electricity grid network. RWE NRL’s generation contributes towards UK targets for renewable generating capacity, and the electricity produced contributes to the satisfaction of national and EU commitments on the percentage of energy supply to be delivered from renewable sources. RWE is committed to investing over€1.4 billion per annum in new renewable capacity in Europe. Given the right regulatory framework, we are keen to direct a large proportion of this investment to the UK. 2.2 RWE NRL operates 22 onshore wind farms in the UK with a total installed capacity of 423 megawatts, with a further 15 consented onshore wind farms at various stages of the construction process. The anticipated development pipeline is extensive, with 15 proposals in the planning system and further projects at various stages of design and assessment. RWE NRL see these projects as important contributions to meeting the UK renewables and climate change obligations 2.3 RWE NRL is also very active in the development, construction and operation of significant offshore wind farms; operates 18 hydroelectric generating stations with others in development; operates three biomass co-firing power stations and is investing€235 million in a new biomass plant in Scotland.

3. The Role of the Planning System 3.1 There will need to be a substantial investment in the UK’s electricity generating plant over the next few years. This is due at least in part to the decommissioning of existing nuclear and conventional plant as it ages. This coincides with the need to move towards the use of low-carbon technologies across the energy sector in order that the UK’s low carbon sustainability obligations can be met. The Government’s renewable energy target is to generate 10% of UK electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010 and its aspiration, as set out in the Energy White Paper 2007, is for this level to double by 2020. The Coalition Government’s aim is to increase the target for energy from renewable sources, subject to advice from the Climate Change Committee. 3.2 As a minimum, the UK must meet its legally binding target of 15% of energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020 set out in the EU Renewables Directive, contained within the EU Climate and Energy Package. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (July 2009) sets out the means by which the UK can meet this legally binding target of 15% of energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020. Building on the aspiration set out in the White Paper, the Renewable Energy Strategy sets out a ‘lead scenario’ of at least 30% of electricity to come from renewable sources. 3.3 Bringing this investment to fruition requires a predictable and efficient planning system. The development of new proposals can take many years before reaching construction, and business needs confidence in the consenting process if it is to justify that initial investment. Both the Low Carbon Strategy and the RES highlight cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w78 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

that delays in the planning system is one of the major obstacles to delivery. The uncertainty arising from the removal of strategic planning risks worsening this situation.

4. The Role of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) 4.1 The requirement for RSSs came out of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as a replacement for the County-level Structure Plans. RSSs were formally adopted for each of the English Regions on different dates in 2008 and 2009, and have been part of the Development Plan since their date of formal adoption. In addition, prior to their formal adoption consultation draft documents were considered to be a material consideration as they indicated direction of travel. 4.2 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 section 38(6) requires that planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan (ie including policies in the RSS) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The RSS policies have therefore been an important component of the decision making process—both at local level, and at higher level by planning Inspectors or by Secretaries of State. 4.3 With respect to renewable energy, the guidance in Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (PPS 22) indicated what Government expected RSSs to include. This was to include criteria-based policies against which individual proposals might be assessed, some spatial indication of where those criteria might be met, and regional targets for the amount of renewable generating capacity to be brought forward. Those regional targets were not to include any contributions from offshore renewables, and could be broken down into indicative sub-regional targets. 4.4 The role of the RSS was to provide a link between national policy and site-specific issues to be determined by local policy. The policies and targets adopted in RSS were arrived at following extensive consultation within each region, and having regard to the national targets for renewable generation. In renewable energy terms the strategic policies drew upon an evidence base to demonstrate what could and should be achieved at a strategic level if the UK was to meet its obligations. They were therefore a manifestation at the regional level of the UK's national obligations and intentions. 4.5 As a result, the national need for a growing contribution from renewables was explicitly part of the development plan and was given substantial weight in planning decisions taken both by local planning authorities, and by planning inspectors and Secretaries of State at appeal. The inclusion of targets enabled the national need for renewable energy, embodied by a variety of legally binding targets to reduce CO2 emissions, to be expressed in a form more readily comprehended and utilised by local decision-makers. 4.6 There are many examples of where Inspectors and Secretaries of State have taken explicit account of RSS policies and targets. A recent example is that of the Green Rigg Fell Wind Farm, Northumberland,53 where the Secretary of State concluded that the targets set out in the RSS are material considerations in his determination of this appeal, and he agreed with the Inspector that greater urgency must therefore attach to securing appropriate development to meet those targets. 4.7 The existence of such targets does not over-ride other environmental and planning considerations, and there are other examples where local environmental impacts have led to refusal, notwithstanding the shortfall against targets. However, what the targets do provide is a meaningful and clear way of dealing with the need and wider benefits of renewable proposals within the planning balance.

5. The Potential Impact of Abolishing RSS 5.1 The clear dangers resulting from the removal of the RSS tier of the development plan are three-fold: (i) The creation of uncertainty and inconsistency in decision-making between local authorities, and also at the appeal stage, through the removal of consistent guidance. (ii) The creation of a difficulty for the decision-maker in judging how to weigh the renewable energy benefits of a proposal against the local impacts. (iii) The potential diminution in the weight to be given to the need and wider benefits of renewable energy proposals. 5.2 The loss of the regional targets does not in any way remove or reduce the national imperative to deliver renewable energy, and therefore the weight to be attributed to the benefits of renewable energy schemes in the planning balance should not be diminished. However, there is a clear potential for this to happen. 5.3 As an example of how this might happen, intentionally or not, reference may be made to the decision of the Secretary of State on 22 June 2010 for a wind farm proposal at Westfield Lane, Wakefield. This decision was made after the Secretary of State had written on 27 May 2010 stating the intention to withdraw RSS, but before the formal revocation had occurred. In his decision, the Secretary of State records that he gave the Regional Strategy “less weight” because of its impending demise (para 9), and that whilst the contribution the proposal would make towards meeting local regional and national targets, and its contribution to meeting the 53 CLG decision ref: APP/R2928/A/07/2039188, 25 March 2010, para. 33. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w79

challenge of climate change were material considerations in favour of the proposal, the weight he gave to these benefits was “tempered” by the fact that he “affords less weight to the targets” set out in the Regional Strategy. 5.4 The concern of the industry, clearly, is that as the connection between national climate change objectives on the one hand, and local decision-making on the other, is weakened, renewable energy developments will find it more difficult to satisfy policy tests and gain consent.

6. The Way Forward 6.1 The intention to remove the regional tier of policy was well-signalled in advance of the General Election, and comes as no surprise. The needs of some infrastructure development can be catered for through the application of National Policy Statements and the development consent process which will replace the IPC. Most onshore renewables projects, however, fall to be determined by the local planning system. 6.2 Renewable energy development is in many ways strategic infrastructure in nature—it owes its existence to a national need for energy supply, and it comes forward as a direct response to the need to meet national climate change objectives. It doesn’t usually come forward in response to local needs, either for energy supply, or for housing or employment or other local economic drivers. But, on a national level, it is acknowledged to be needed. 6.3 The industry acknowledges that under the Government’s localism agenda local communities should so far as possible make the decisions that affect their locality. This will require the industry to listen harder and consult even better than hitherto. But even so, without some expression of the need for and wider benefits of renewables in a way that is meaningful for local communities and decision makers, we fear that progress towards renewables objectives will falter. 6.4 The resolution of these difficulties seems to lie in the following:

6.5 National Planning Framework 6.5.1 The Coalition Government programme set out the intention for “a simple and consolidated national planning framework covering all forms of development and setting out national economic, environmental and social priorities”. We believe that this National Planning Framework needs to set out clearly the place of sustainable development—including, explicitly, the place of renewables—in national priorities, and provide for the relevant degree of weight to be given to this degree of priority in the preparation of new Local Plans. Such priority will be meaningless unless it has quantified targets attached to it at the national level. 6.5.2 Whether the need to accord weight to renewables—the national need and targets, and the wider social, economic and environmental benefits that the move to sustainable energy brings—is provided through the National Planning Framework or through a requirement for it to be included in Local Plans is as yet not clear. That those benefits need to be given weight in the planning balance does seem to us—for all the reasons given above—necessary if we are to meet our national climate change objectives. 6.5.3 This approach would not detract from the fundamentally local decisions to be made through the development plan or the development control processes, but would ensure that the wider context of the need for renewables is fully taken into account in the planning process.

6.6 Local Enterprise Partnerships These are intended to provide strategic leadership in their areas, and to tackle issues including planning, infrastructure priorities and the transition to the low carbon economy. LEPs therefore present an opportunity to undertake that level of strategic guidance, worked out by cooperation between groupings of local authorities, that can helpfully guide the level of renewable development necessary, which is consistent with the sensitivities of each area. We believe that consideration of the move towards a Low Carbon Economy should be an integral requirement of the plans and proposals brought forward by LEPs.

6.7 Local Plans The move towards a low carbon economy should be an integral requirement of Local Plans, and they should provide strong policy support for appropriate development that facilitates this. As indicated above, local decision-making will need to have regard to the wider context and benefits of renewables, either through policies in the Local Plan, or through the national policy framework.

6.8 Speed of Implementation Major changes to the planning system inevitably give rise to uncertainty. It is therefore important that those changes that are proposed are consulted on widely and efficiently and then decisions made without undue delay, and promptly implemented. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w80 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

6.9 Incentivisation The government has previously stated that business rates from renewable energy schemes will be given to the local authority for local use, and this type of incentivisation is supported. Developers themselves also provide local economic, environmental and community benefit in association with their renewable energy schemes; flexibility will need to be retained if these benefits are to be designed to suit the needs of local communities.

6.10 A reliable evidence base 6.10.1 The letter issued by CLG on 6 July 2010 relating to the revocation of the RSS was accompanied by a guidance note on the related implications. Paragraph 20 indicates that the evidence base associated with former regional plans may be relevant when considering the potential for renewable and low carbon energy. It is felt this is a positive move, although the guidance makes no reference to how any evidence should be used and the weight that should be given to such existing documents which supported the derivation of RSS targets. 6.10.2 Furthermore, several regions were in the process of undertaking a review of renewable energy targets, some using standard criteria to assess the capacity of renewable energy produced by DECC.54 The use of a standard way of assessing strategic capacity and setting local or higher level targets would be welcomed, as long as cumulatively across all local authority areas the capacity exceeded the need set out in national targets. This is imperative as the capacity assessment does not include many technical issues such as landowner agreement, access and site specific elements such as Listed Buildings which could further rule out a large proportion of sites. 6.10.3 The carrying out of such an evidence base would be best placed at a tier higher than local authority, as the capacity between district areas will not be equal. Some authority areas may be required to deliver a higher level, due to a lack of constraints when compared to neighbouring authorities which may be urban areas or national parks for example.

7. Conclusion 7.1 With the revocation of the RSS, the key aim for industry is to have a mechanism that ensures that the national imperative to secure more renewables more quickly is translated down to a local level as effectively as possible. 7.2 We believe there are opportunities through the National Planning Framework, through Local Enterprise Partnerships, and through the new Local Plans, to ensure that renewable energy proposals are given the appropriate weight in the planning process. If this is not done, investment in on-shore renewables could be severely hindered. September 2010

Written evidence from The Campaign to Protect Rural England South East (CPRE SE) (ARSS 42) Summary — CPRE has a long record of close involvement in housing and planning issues. — CPRE welcomed the removal of regional housing targets because they were top down, but we are sure some form of strategic planning will be needed to fill the void left by the abolition of the overall strategies. — The RSS involved extensive consultation and planning work in the region especially on directions for sustainable development. This work should remain accessible for the next, more local work on strategic planning. — The RSS set the framework within which current local plans (LDFs) are prepared, and has created the current “action mandate” through core strategies and other local development documents (LDDs). There is therefore a large gap following the revocation of the RSS. The strategic issues remain, now looking for locally focussed policies and solutions. — Housing development targets are being reset locally; some, but not all, are lower. Local authorities will continue to manage land supply and approve planning applications: they do not deliver the housing. — Local Enterprise Partnerships may have to take on some strategic planning of housing, infrastructure and transport, to fill the gap left by the removal of regional plans, but only if they are given a wider remit than solely promoting economic growth. — Provision of affordable housing—still a back log, is key in the South East. — More cooperation between authorities will be essential, and will need to be based on mutual benefit. 54 Renewable and low-carbon capacity assessment methodology for English Regions (DECC, March 2010). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w81

— Data from the regional strategy work including ideas, plans and data should be made available to the new LEP teams, through the South East Councils secretariat, which is based at Hampshire County Council.

Introduction 1. This submission is made by the Campaign to Protect Rural England group in the South East of England (CPRE South East). It complements the submission made by CPRE nationally. CPRE has a long record of involvement in housing and planning issues, and especially working at a strategic level. This submission was prepared after discussions with CPRE county branches in the South East. 2. CPRE is pleased that the regional housing targets have been revoked by the incoming government. We were always opposed to housing targets because they imposed on local councils who have no way of regulating the housing market except by means of land use allocations. Despite its ill founded structure the RSS process in the South East did a lot of good work to understand sustainable development in a pressured region where the environment and development are often in conflict. Many local authorities and interested parties were involved and there was a sound consultation process. Nevertheless the whole process was widely disliked, because of the constant pressure for higher housing numbers, disregard for local knowledge and valued land uses including greenbelts. The parallel diversionary initiatives of Growth Points and Eco-town housing targets added to the disrepute of the RSS process. It is very important that the good evidence base work and understanding is not completely lost as the people involved move on and the current radical restructuring takes place. As a new definition of strategic planning beings to emerge with the Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), many of the same questions: on housing, the environment, transport and minerals, waste and water will be asked. 3. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 brought in a statutory system of regional spatial strategies. These presented a vision for what the region will look like in 15 years’ time. Regional planning became more important for the future of local communities, effective infrastructure and countryside protection than previously. This is because: — The Regional Spatial Strategy influenced what happens locally, because the Local Development Frameworks have to conform to it. — It was part of the local authority’s development plan that has to be taken into account when deciding planning applications and making other planning decisions. — The majority of the planning body’s members were councillors from the local authorities in the region, so they had regard to both region-wide and local issues. — It set out how its policies would be delivered: the focus was on deliverability and on implementation; on getting things done. — It had to help make things happen that were included in other strategies on issues such as tourism and energy. — Other strategies had to pay attention to what the regional spatial strategy said, for example on sustainability and climate change; the aim was for the various strategies to complement each other. — It was not intended to repeat or counteract guidance contained in national statements. — It was the only layer of planning between national policy and local development frameworks. It took over sub-regional planning and replaced the structure plans that county councils had produced since the Town and Country Planning Act 1968. — Their removal creates a very large gap in the planning system. 4. It is also relevant to note that regional strategies were developed over a lengthy period of time. This allowed much buy-in by local authorities and stakeholders, and the ability of all participants to influence outcomes was significant. The South East Plan was given two periods of formal consultation, and this was regarded as an important element of democratic involvement at these stages. The public and local organisations had become familiar with the consultation process, and with the level of options available. This process of buy-in went some way to countering the fundamental flaws of an excessively top down, target driven system. It may also account for the fact that some very good groundwork was done to understand the sustainability agenda of a complex region containing huge differences in economic and social and environmental performance.

The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development 5. There is a widespread view that removing targets will simply allow councils to avoid significant levels of development in their areas. However not all local councils want less. Many councils—perhaps as much as 50 per cent in the South East—want to maintain the present momentum as part of economic growth and regeneration strategies. The uncertain economic situation makes establishing reliable figures for house building very difficult in the short term. But the base data of house building ambitions in each local authority combined with five-year housing land availability land may give some idea soon of how the new locally generated figures relate to the previous RSS figures. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w82 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

6. In the absence of a regional level strategic plan it will become necessary for there to be some similar strategic level integrated approach with declared strategic aims for a sustainable approach to development covering economic assumptions; employment and housing ambitions and vision for the community or Local Economic Partnership area being planned. In the context of the South East, and applying experience learned under the previous system, the aims should generally be for reasonable levels of housing taking account of infrastructure provision; making better use of land; and a step change in affordable housing; together with making better use of existing stock; and working within the constraints of the local environment. 7. The work on housing targets at regional level, wrestled with complex problems of household composition, age structure, and housing types. In the absence of a continuation of regional housing strategy, these factors will continue to be important but at local level, and plans will need to be based on locally relevant national data and local knowledge. The back log of affordable housing provision and the under provision recently of family houses will be issues that go forward to the new locally based strategic planning.

The likely effectiveness of the Government's plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing 8. The present incentive suggestion from the Coalition Government announced by the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps on 9 August is to pay local authorities a New Homes Bonus equivalent to the council tax of the new property over six years. It is said to be payable on approval of planning permission, and the money not ring fenced. While the money will no doubt be welcome to local authorities, it will be a minor element of local authority budgets and no more than a small proportion of the money needed to fund essential strategic planning work in a local authority to ensure houses are built in the right places and in the right numbers to match provision of infrastructure, comply with environmental constraints including flood assessments and local transport plans. 9. The need for a five-year housing land supply is still in place and is well exceeded in many areas. This makes the need for incentives per se redundant. The councils involved need simply (and are required to) grant the applications that comply with their development plans. Housing land supply is a key factor in determining where houses are provided. There are wide variations in housing land supply distribution, from constrained areas like Surrey having only five years and the Isle of Wight 15 years. In 2008, there was enough land in the region for 235,000 dwellings, which is 8.5 years supply, on past targets. 10. There are already incentives for affordable housing in the South East. These come mainly from the traditional funding streams of the Homes and Communities Agency, via social landlords, and have resulted in some 8,000 such houses being built annually in the region. Other provision has come from local agreements with large scale developers. Given the very significant demand for affordable housing in the South East it will be important that incentives regimes do not remove or replace funding for affordable homes.

The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment and renewable energy) 11. Co-ordination of policies and strategies is essential. Councils already have to work jointly with adjacent authorities, but this will not necessarily address wider issues on a geographical or practical basis to address the gaps arising from the revocation of regional strategy and organisation. Many local authority planning officers will have experience of life before RSS: in the South East, prior to the spatial strategies, there were regional planning conferences. Notably SERPLAN started in 1962 was a wholly-owned entity of the local government sector. This body was able to provide guidance for local councils on a wide range of subjects and policy areas, including energy, the rural economy, minerals and waste. The process of arriving at figures and policies was participatory, and included expert working groups reviewing policies and developing strategic positions. Similar arrangements pertained in other regions, and these were essentially voluntary with a degree of outside interested party involvement. 12. In public sector work today there is a need for greater transparency, and wider consultation and involvement of communities. The agenda has also moved on as sustainability has become central and climate change adaptation and mitigation are always a consideration. Pressure on water supply and waste water provision in the South East and the requirements of the Habitats and Strategic Environmental Assessment Directives set a very different context from that under SERPLAN. Residents and communities now have strong opinions on and affiliation to green space and provision of safe cycling and walking and more recycling of waste, and better air quality and less noise and congestion. These and other changes argue for a different approach going forward, which will be necessarily quite complex even if locally based, and with cooperation. If the SERPLAN model were to be considered, as an approach to strategic level planning, it would therefore need to be evolved. 13. A duty to co-operate will be difficult, if councils are not minded to do this, or share common aims. Many local authorities are competitive with their neighbours, for employment, resources, and may have long standing contested relations. A good example of this is the desire of Oxford city to expand its borders, and the view of surround authorities that it should remain closely contained. If a formal duty to cooperate is combined cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w83

with mutual financial or other benefit of doing so, it will have greater potential. Cooperation based on a wider jointly agreed strategic objective is more likely to be achieved if there is a level of strategic planning shared across local authorities.

The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co-operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function 14. Local Enterprise Partnerships will have to work on the tasks fulfilled by previous strategies, and fill some of the policy gaps left by the loss of RSS. As models of local cooperation and determination to succeed, they may have a defined geography, as exemplified by some of the proposals submitted. They may use or cross regional administrative boundaries as the Milton Keynes and South Midlands area has done for some years. It will obviously be difficult to decide which LEP bids should be approved in the absence of a national planning framework, but in this situation the geographical pattern and spatial planning intentions of approved LEPs may be a key factor for the national framework preparations. It the present time, and looking at the range of LEP bids, it is unclear how the strategic planning functions could be fulfilled. 15. The new approach would have to encapsulate both the challenges and the dilemmas of the region. On the one hand, some consider that economic growth and concomitant development has been a necessary condition for prosperity and social and environmental action in the South East. On the other, it is increasingly apparent that the price of that growth, in terms of resource consumption and other net impacts, including noise, congestion, air quality and loss of tranquillity is very high and needs to be addressed to avoid destroying the physical, social and environmental assets that have account for the success of the South East. In recent years the use the Sustainability Appraisal has proved to be a useful tool for working through these dilemmas. 16. LEPs would need a core statement of policy or vision, and this would need to take into consideration other influences outside of their boundaries. The South East has long been conscious of its global and European position. It is also aware of its relationship to other English regions. There has been an evolving relationship with London, as a capital region. There is a need to have a sustainable development context set by Government policies and local frameworks. There are continued imbalances between the east and west of the region, and a strong urban influence from previous regional statements. All this requires working at a level between national and local. The need for efficiency in the use of natural resources is overriding. There is also a need to identify investment priorities for health, education and affordable housing. LEPs will be looking to supplement their own visions with an understanding of outside influences and opportunities, at whatever geographical level they are operating. 17. LEPs in the South East will emphasise economic opportunity and enterprise aspects, but should also celebrate its varied and attractive countryside. They can only fulfil a planning function if promoting a more sustainable pattern of development, a more bio-diverse environment, as well as reducing levels of natural resource consumption. The scale of development they propose will be scrutinised carefully, as will the timely delivery of infrastructure on which any development is dependent. It might be possible to give LEPs a spatial planning function if this were carried out in an integrated way, respecting the principles of sustainable development. This would also avoid the proliferation of structures at this strategic level.

How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders' Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries 18. As stated in the Introduction, a great deal of work, including data collection and research has been done to understand the characteristics of the South East and consider—through implementation plans as well as strategy and policy, how to evolve the region in the direction of more sustainable development including behaviour change. It is important that this work is not lost, and that it remains useable and accessible. It will also assist monitoring and evaluation purposes in the longer term. In the South East, much of the data collected over recent years has been deposited with a new group: South East England Councils SEEC. SEEC is based at Hampshire County Council, and will provide a limited updating facility, based on local authority returns and manage access to previous strategy work and topic papers.

Conclusions 19. The removal of RSSs, although widely anticipated, has happened more quickly and suddenly than expected and there are concerns that the vacuum that has followed their revocation undermined established good principles of plan-led development. The current period of “creative destruction” to remove the top down target driven system, needs to be followed soon by a new sub national or supra local system that enables spatial strategic planning to be rebuilt. 20. The new LEPs will have a lot of choice about what to include in their strategies. Public involvement is essential throughout this process. Local people should be asked to consider what is important to them about their areas or sub-regions, particularly if the remit includes planning. This should include wildlife and landscape, and cultural heritage in the planning options. The new bodies should deal with the issues people care about, as well as ensuring a healthy economy. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w84 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

21. The LEPs must strive for openness in their planning and monitoring, whatever their mandate. They must meet in public, with papers freely available in advance to the press and public. The results should not be judged on the basis of rightness or wrongness, but on the overall soundness. Implementation plans will essential, and the Government should be committed to continued partnership delivery. We are pleased to note that the voluntary and community sector will be encouraged to come forward and take part in strategy development and monitoring. All future stages of LEP development should include involvement by all sectors. LEP plans should include details about investment needs to facilitate proposals, monitoring and local delivery vehicles, where appropriate. September 2010

Written evidence by Crest Nicholson (ARSS 43) Inquiry into the Abolition of Regional Strategies & Housing Targets These representations are submitted on behalf of Crest Nicholson Limited (CN). CN are a leading UK house builder with a recognised track record of developing sustainable mixed use housing schemes along with the regeneration of many deprived areas. Of particular note is the award winning redevelopment of Ingress Park in Kent and the regeneration of the Park Central estate in Birmingham. CN has direct experience of the effect of the Government’s policy on housebuilding and in particular the abolition of regional strategies and housing targets and make these representations in order to inform the Inquiry. CN are willing to provide further details of the evidence provided in this short submission and give oral evidence at the Inquiry.

1. Summary — The abolition of the regional strategies and housing targets are already having a profound negative effect on the house building industry. It is CN’s view that this will continue and will result in a reduction in the number of dwellings constructed and further exacerbate the chronic shortage of good quality housing. — The lack of any transitional arrangements following the abolition of the regional strategies and the regionally set housing targets has created a policy vacuum. — The policy vacuum coupled with the lack of any detail on the incentives that are to be offered to LPA’s has resulted in the cessation or delay of work on a large number of core strategies particularly in relation to major strategic which have historically provided the largest proportion of new housing numbers. — That policy vacuum has also resulted in the delay in considering planning applications which will result in an increase in the number of applications that will need to be determined through the appeal system. — Any incentives and the Government’s proposals for planning obligation and any changes to the community infrastructure levy or the introduction of local tariffs, need to be set out clearly as soon as possible. These will need to be fair and reasonably relate to the development in order to provide a proper incentive to a LPA and local community to permit development. — The duty for LPA’s to co-operate with each should have a statutory basis and be enforceable. CN believes that there is a need for cross LPA boundary considerations of housing need and infrastructure requirements and suggest that consideration should be given to using County Councils to encourage, facilitate and police such arrangements based upon nationally set parameters. The data that is already available through the Regional Local Authorities Leaders Boards could form part of this along with a requirement to keep that data up to date with independent testing of its robustness.

2. The Implications of the Abolition of Regional House Building Targets for Levels of Housing Development 2.1 The revocation of regional strategies and the abolition of regional house building targets left a policy vacuum which has had and will have a very significant effect on the level of house building development across the country. This is and will continue to be particularly acute in certain areas such as some cities and larger towns which have constraints upon the land available for development within their administrative boundaries. We have set out below evidence from CN’s own experience. The Government’s incentives to aid this are, subject to some caveats, welcome and are also dealt with below. 2.2 Whilst we understand the reasoning behind the Government’s decision to abolish regional strategies and housing targets, we believe that there is a real need to bring certainty to its plans to provide incentives to LPA’s to grant planning permission for housing and mixed use development to in order to avoid further long term problems in the provision of new good quality housing. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w85

2.3 An immediate effect of the letter of 27 May 2010 to all LPA’s and the Planning Inspectorate from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (The Right Honourable Eric Pickles MP) and the subsequent revocation of the regional strategies was the cessation of work on and the proposed cancellation of some core strategies (for example Aylesbury Vale are seeking consent from the Secretary of State to withdraw its core strategy from the examination process). We believe that 58 LPA’s have stopped work on or have delayed their core strategies with only three LPA’s responding positively (continuing with their core strategy process). 2.4 As far as CN’s schemes are concerned many of these have been effected with the following a relatively small representative example. 2.4.1 The DERA Site (Runnymede)—A brownfield site within the Green Belt “allocated” in the revoked South East Plan for 2,500 dwellings. A planning application is yet to be submitted but this site was being promoted by CN through the Runneymede Core Strategy process. The LPA are now looking to review its core strategy housing allocation as a result of the revocation of the South East Plan with a view to proposing a lower housing target and retaining the green belt. The effect is to delay consideration of the proposals pending this review. No timetable has been provided for the resumption of work on the Core Strategy. 2.4.2 Church Farm (800 dwellings) and Fern Hill Heath (200 dwellings) (Worcester, Wychavon and Malvern Hills)—a planning application was being prepared and the sites were being promoted through the planning process. CN have undertaken detailed public consultation. The applications have been delayed as a result of potential changes to the housing targets. Despite the identified need for further housing development in Worcester the city is constrained by its administrative boundary. That housing need can only be met by developing in the adjoining districts of Wychavon and Malvern Hills, however to support that growth infrastructure investment will also be needed in Worcester as well as within those LPA’s boundaries. All three LPA’s are waiting to see the details of the incentives that are to be offered by the Government before committing to such schemes. 2.4.3 North Whitley (3,000 dwellings—jointly CN, Taylor Wimpey and Bovis) (Winchester)—The Winchester Core Strategy is delayed as a result of the revocation of the South East Plan. This is subject to challenge by way of judicial review by CALA Homes which is to be heard on 22 October 2010. The proposed housing development on the CN site is supported by the LPA and will help in meeting the identified housing and infrastructure needs in the area. However the review of the Core Strategy has delayed any progress by one year. 2.4.4 Oakgrove (up to 1,300 dwellings) (Milton Keynes)—The planning application was due to be heard by Milton Keynes on 15 July 2010 but has been deferred indefinitely. 2.4.5 Mid Sussex (100 dwellings) (Mid Sussex)—Following public consultation an application has been lodged with the LPA . However the LPA have ceased work on their Core strategy as a result of the revocation of the RSSs. A timetable has not been given for any review. 2.4.6 Hicks Gate (1,500 dwellings and employment)(Bristol City and Bath and North East Somerset)— BANES have stopped all work on their Core Strategy and are consulting on alternative housing strategies as a result of the Governments policy and the revocation of the regional strategies. This is a cross boundary site that will be held up despite Bristol City Councils need for housing. As a corollary to the Hicks Gate example, at the Examination in Public of Bristol City’s Core Strategy on 7 September 2010, the LPA proposed a reduction in the number of dwellings to be provided for the plan period lan from 30,000 to 26,400 dwellings. The reason given was that Government policy allowed the LPA to set its own housing figure. The Inspector at the Examination in Public raised a question over the weight that should be given to the proposed reduces housing figure given that the Council’s own evidence points to a higher figure. This raises an important point of principle—is planning policy to be evidence based or not? If Bristol City maintains it’s position the Vision and objectives in the core strategy will need to explicitly state that the City does not intend to meet it’s need. This will send a clear sign to potential investors in one of the Country’s major cities. 2.5 The above provides a small example of the delay and uncertainly that is now faced by the housing industry. The policy vacuum that exists will mean that many sites are likely to be decided through the appeal system rather than locally which in turn will result in increased delay and cost both to the development industry and the LPA’s. Such costs will effect the viability of schemes and the ability for them to contribute financially towards the local community in addition to the provision of much needed quality new housing. 2.6 Whilst CN recognise that there is not any proposal to return to regional strategies and regionally imposed housing targets, those polices did set a framework against which local policies had to be formulated and provided an opportunity to examine housing requirements over a housing market area rather than the artificial boundaries of a LPA’s administrative area.

3. The Likely Effectiveness of the Proposed Incentives 3.1 As the details of the proposed incentives are yet to be published the submissions below can only be based upon the information available to date and is necessarily general. Two new incentives have been proposed, the New Homes Bonus and a bonus to be paid for permitting commercial development. In addition mention should cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w86 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

be made of the current extant system of mitigating the effects of a development through planning obligations and the proposals for either an amended community infrastructure levy (CIL) or local tariff. 3.2 The overriding issue is a requirement for certainty. This will allow LPA’s and the local communities to see and consider the benefits that allowing such proposals will bring through the provision of new and enhanced infrastructure in addition to the provision of new housing. The present proposals lack this certainty which along with the policy vacuum mentioned above is (as referred to in the above examples) exacerbates the already dire need for new housing provision. 3.3 New Homes Bonus and commercial development bonus—certainly as far as the New Homes Bonus is concerned (we have not seen any detail on the commercial equivalent), is stated to be fiscally neutral. 3.4 Overall CN can see that providing a financial incentive to LPA’s to permit new housing or housing led mixed use development may be effective in increasing the numbers of new dwellings that are given planning permission. It will however be important to ensure that planning decisions are made upon planning grounds and not the prospective receipt of such incentive payments. The later having the potential to damage public confidence in the planning system when poor decisions are made on that basis. Equally it will be important to ensure that there is a recognised benefit from the payment and use of the incentive sums. 3.5 In particular CN believe that the following main points should be considered fully in formulating an effective incentive system: (i) How will the bonus or incentive be calculated, will that be at a national or local level or based upon the local council tax levels? CN have concerns as to how the level of funds to be paid could provide sufficient incentive to an LPA that has an identifiable need for new hosing within its boundaries but is reluctant to permit such development. The funds paid should be used in a manner that relates to the proposed development. Equally where much of the effects of a proposed development are felt in adjoining administrative areas but the development is predominantly within one area, the resulting funds should be paid to LPA subject to the greater impact rather than the one with the greater number of dwellings within its boundaries (see the examples given above). (ii) How will the funds be split between a District and County? Whilst it may the District that permits the development, it is the County that is often required to provide much of the infrastructure for example schools, libraries and highways. (iii) Should a LPA be allowed the New Home Bonus if the proposal was approved on appeal? It is CN’s considered view that many LPAs will prefer to allow proposals to be determined by the Inspectorate rather than make decisions that do not enjoy complete local support. By either not determining proposals or refusing otherwise sound schemes the LPAs are introducing a significant cost to all parties. It seems inequitable that they then benefit further from the New Homes Bonus in these circumstances. 3.6 CIL/Local Tariff—whether this is revision of the CIL provisions or a new tariff based system, it will be important that funds received can be shown to be mitigating any potential harm a development may cause along with providing recognisable benefits flowing form the development. Linked with incentives mentioned in paragraphs above these could (particularly if they are ring fenced towards direct mitigation and benefits flowing from the development) help in showing the real benefits of allowing housing development in an area. 3.7 CN’s concern is that such payments should not be in conjunction with any planning obligations, taxation and building regulation requirements which make development unviable or incapable of implementation and should be a material consideration in granting planning permission. 3.8 A major issue with all of these incentives is the speed and clarity that the details emerge. At present LPA’s cannot judge the likely benefits that those developments will provide above the provision of new housing. Uncertainty results in delay. 3.6 The Government need to ensure that any incentives are properly enforceable and allow for cross boundary issues to be addressed including the provision of funds to a County Council.

4. Cooperation Between Local Planning Authorities 4.1 It is important that and cross border issues (whether that is the requirement for new housing, or the effect of new housing are quickly, properly and clearly considered. 4.2 Where there are major housing and infrastructure requirements there is a need for sub regional and at times regional co-operation. It is sometimes not possible to consider the housing need of one LPA area in isolation from adjoining areas (again see the examples above). In addition the effects of major housing, mixed use or commercial proposals will need to be considered at a level that is above a single LPA’s remit. The abolition of the regional strategies which dealt with such issues has, as stated above left a policy vacuum that will need to be filled. 4.3 County Council’s could use their role to assist or act as facilitators in producing such sub-regional policy. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w87

5. Regional Local Authorities Leaders’ Boards Data and Research 5.1 This should be made widely and publicly available. 5.2 LPA’s should be required to prepare and keep up to date housing need supply data that should also be made widely and freely available. These should (where they are shown to be robust and up to date) be a material consideration in any planning decision and be subject to independent examination to test their robustness based upon objective nationally set parameters. 5.3 There should be penalties if there is a failure to provide that up to date data, maybe linked to the incentives mentioned above or any residue planning delivery grant. September 2010

Written evidence from Traveller Law Reform Project and Friends, Families and Travellers (ARSS 44) Summary Proposed RSS changes will mean — A marked reduction of pitches planned and delivered for Gypsies and Travellers. — Serious delay in provision. — Lack of monitoring, review of evidence base and oversight. — Reduction of community involvement in planning. — Increased unauthorised camping and costs to the public purse. — Continued poor life outcomes for Gypsy and Traveller families and children.

Background The difficulties which Gypsies and Travellers have had in finding suitable accommodation to place their caravans, the large public cost of enforcement measures and the recognition of very poor health and educational outcomes led the last Government to make a start to address the problems. The initial approach was one of increased enforcement but the Government was persuaded that mainstreaming provision was the only sensible route. The Housing Act (2004) and subsequent planning circular (Circular 1/2006)55 laid a requirement for local planning authorities (LPA) to carry out a needs assessment (Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments (GTAA)) and make planning provision in their Local Development Framework. The role of the RSS process was to set the levels of accommodation requirement (in terms of the number of pitches that each LPA should plan for) as it does for conventional housing. The view of FFT and TLRP is that this system is the best available currently, though we believe that there should be a restoration of a public duty on each local authority to make public provision. These arrangements were accompanied by a government grant totalling 100 million for new public sites and also for refurbishment of existing sites (the remaining 30 million was taken away in totality earlier this year). Several regions have completed the process of RSS Review for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation (SW, East and E Midlands). The Panel Report of the EiPs for the South East (conducted in February) and the North West (conducted in March) were released recently by the Planning Inspectorate as the result of a Freedom of Information request by ourselves. There is a very uneven distribution of Gypsy and Traveller sites in the country. Some local authorities have been more responsive to the needs of Gypsies and Travellers than others. Some have no or very little provision despite the presence of Gypsies and Travellers. Some have been very active in discouraging sites through rigorous enforcement action, essentially creating “no-go” areas for this community. There is a considerable state of denial about needs of this community evident in many local authorities. Over all there has been a lack of provision which has meant that many Gypsies and Travellers have had to move into housing because of a lack of an alternative in an increasingly hostile enforcement regime. The ill effects of what is effectively forced movement into housing have been documented and the needs of this section of the community have been recognised in a few of the more recent GTAAs (eg London and Manchester). The official CLG Caravan Count shows that 20% of caravans counted have no legal place to stay, rendering their inhabitants homeless. This proportion has remained unchanged since 1997. The reality is larger due to overcrowding and poor quality statistics. The regional planning process has allowed a start to be made on addressing the huge backlog of need but also to help widen the choice of places to live for Gypsies and Travellers. The response of local planning authorities to this process has in our experience been very mixed. Some have challenged the evidence base and attempted to minimise provision. The attempt by regional planners to widen choice by ensuring that every district makes some modest provision has been opposed by some local authorities affected, though some recognised the principle of equity involved. 55 ODPM Circular 1–2006, Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravans cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w88 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

The SE Panel report56 was severely critical of the approach of some of the local authorities and local authority groupings: 1.8 We have found many shortcomings in the evidence base due to the different methodologies in the GTAAs and TSAAs but this is not surprising considering much of the work was undertaken in 2006 and 2007 and the methodology was not tried and tested as, for instance, in assessing other housing needs. What was more surprising is the lack of regard by some authorities of the evidence base they did have in their GTAAs. Although attempts were made to reach the communities there were some major shortcomings, particularly concerning those gypsy and travellers in housing and the New Travellers. 2.2.…… Even taking into account these caveats, we found the overall standard of the GTAAs as a sound and credible evidence base for gypsy and traveller pitch accommodation needs to be very disappointing. . 2.59 Much of the other evidence we had was anecdotal, but Friends Families and Travellers (FFT) ……. provided us with a considerable amount of evidence …….it paints a consistent and convincing counter- balance to the findings, assumptions and conclusions of the GTAAs. . 2.63 …Lessons will have been learned from the first round and our criticisms of many of the GTAAs in this Report should be seen as guidance in formulating a methodology and analysis which provides a more focussed, robust and consistent evidence base on which to identify the need for gypsy and traveller pitches across the region. In our view the three guiding principles should be transparency, simplicity and the close involvement of both the gypsy and traveller and settled communities so that the process is seen as legitimate and the assessment seen as credible. To a large extent the failure to put these principles at the heart of the process in this first round of GTAAs has been the root cause of much of the dispute over the legitimacy and credibility of the figures and has diverted attention and resources away from the crucial issue of pitch delivery. The benchmarking exercise57 undertaken for the East RSS Partial review found that only one GTAA was robust, one acceptable, three underestimated needs and one overestimated need. Clearly there is some way to go until local GTAAs can be relied upon without independent evaluation. The RSS process has allowed a regional perspective to be taken and allowed shortcomings to be identified and recommendations made. Failure to do this in the future will jeopardise the progress made so far and will not help ensure that the evidence base is more credible and more uniformly robust.

Implications of abolition of regional housing targets for levels of housing development We are of the opinion that the abolition of pitch targets for local authorities will inevitably mean a serious reduction in the number of pitches planned for. The SE RSS Draft Policy H7 recommended a regional residential pitch allocation of 1,064 but the panel report recommended a residential pitch allocation of 2,119. Clearly to leave it up to local authorities to decide for themselves how many pitches will be delivered would inevitably mean a shortfall of at least 1,000 pitches in the South East. This is a 50% shortfall. Hence abolition of regional housing targets will impact negatively and disproportionately on Gypsies and Travellers in their search for sites. A leaked letter from the Equalities Minister (9June 2010) to the Chancellor said that “I think we should take a collective view on the cumulative impact of cuts, and whether any action should be taken to spread the impact more equitably, to avoid widening inequality.” We have grave concerns that the abolition of targets for Gypsy and Traveller sites will do just this and widen inequality. We do note that the Liberal Democrats, during the election stated that “ we are not intending to disturb the planning already in place for providing traveller sites”. The negative view held by many people of the Travelling Community has led to a widespread NIMBY approach to site development. Historically the lack of some form of duty to make provision (whether it be actual sites or merely planning provision) has meant that needs have not been met and the growth of a backlog of unmet need. Not meeting needs or even attempting to meet accommodation needs has severe consequences for the families in need but also to the public purse requiring conventional housing provision and increased costs related to enforcement activities (estimated at 18 million per year in 2000 by Cardiff Law School). It is inevitable that the trend of unauthorised camping, unauthorised developments and associated on costs to the public purse will increase in a climate of reduced planning provision, reduced opportunity for people providing for themselves and increased emphasis on enforcement. Already local authorities are responding to the announcement of the abolition of RSSs. In Huntingdonshire, where there was huge local opposition to a site put forward by the council as part of the LDF Site selection process in the village of Yaxley (1000 people are reported by the BBC as attending the meeting), the council recently said during a planning appeal Inquiry that it no longer accepted there is a need for additional provision following the scrapping of the Plan (the RSS). The RSS58 indicated a need for 25 pitches to 2011 and a further 21 to 2021. 56 South East Regional Spatial Strategy Gypsy and Traveller Panel report—released under FOI request by Planning Inspectorate August 2010. 57 Preparing Regional Spatial Strategy Reviews on Gypsies and Travellers by regional planning bodies, CLG in partnership with GOEAST and EERA/SWERA/SWRA, March 2007. 58 Accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople in the East Of England July 2009. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w89

The Greater Norwich Joint Core Strategy alteration59 recently put forward the contention that although the council would meet identified needs to 2011 beyond that date it would decide what local provision it would make without indicating either numbers or how it would decide on those numbers. In Reigate and Banstead60 the council has redrafted a policy to indicate that they will meet the needs of Gypsies and Travellers according to the latest GTAA assessment—this would mean a 15% reduction on recommended pitch requirements from the SE Panel report. In Elmbridge61 new proposals aim to identify land for 11 new pitches, the SE Panel report identified a need for 48. In Epping Forest62 work on a well advanced dedicated DPD has been abandoned and future provision will be dealt with on a case by case basis and provision for the next 15–10 years will be subject of a further study alongside general housing. In London Policy 3.963 has been the subject of a number of alterations and one more is due shortly. The alterations have meant that the overall needs assessment of some 800 residential pitches (according to the GTAA) has been reduced to just over 200. We fear that the next and final alteration will mean there will be no targets at all for pitches for boroughs. The inevitable result will in our view be that few pitches will be built in London despite a large identified need and the resultant demand will spill over into adjoining regions. No allowance has been made for this. In Peterborough64 site allocation has been abandoned in favour a return to relying on individual planning applications. No pitch targets have been proposed though a need for a transit site was identified. The RSS indicated a need for 30 residential pitches to 2011. The abolition of the RSS requirement will mean delay in delivering planning documents and ultimately pitches. In Ipswich the Planning Inspector halted the Inquiry for five months and stated that the evidence base for Gypsies and Travellers would have to be reviewed (despite already being subject to a regional EiP)65; this implies yet further delay. Most of the RSS reports make recommendations about regional review given evidence base problems. We fear that without some sort of regional structure coordinated reviews will not be undertaken and inevitably this will mean a disparity in approach. Given the negative views of the Travelling Community held by part of the settled community, councils have relied on the argument that they have to make provision because of the regional planning structure. Without the requirement to make provision it will make it very difficult for councils to resist the often racially motivated local demands to reduce or even eliminate provision. This will impact negatively on provision exacerbating the problems which the Travelling Community faces in trying to access suitable accommodation. The abolition of a regional planning structure and the formal examination which attends it will impact severely on representations by the Travelling Community about planning policy matters. FFT/TLRP employ a part time worker on planning policy development and we believe there is one other worker who responds to some planning consultations in the West Midlands. . The FFT/TLRP worker responds in writing to LDF policy documents in England and Wales and has attended and given evidence at four regional EiPs. The panel report for the SE EiP said: 2.59 Much of the other evidence we had was anecdotal, but Friends Families and Travellers (FFT) a national body representing the needs and interests of gypsy and traveller communities who had contributed to the Examinations of the Gypsy and Traveller RSS Reviews in the South West and East of England provided us with a considerable amount of evidence,66 including statistical data from their own generally small scale surveys, and others. While this information had its limitations, which could be ascribed to the scarce resources with which FFT has to operate, and much of the evidence could be described as anecdotal, as a body of information from those most directly affected by the shortage of appropriate accommodation for gypsies and travellers, it paints a consistent and convincing counter-balance to the findings, assumptions and conclusions of the GTAAs. FFT also made a very valuable contribution to the EiP as the principal “representative” of the gypsy and traveller community, alongside that of the Showmen’s Guild, representing travelling showpeople. If in future the issue has to be argued out at local level through examinations of Local Development Frameworks of the 300 or so local authorities then there is no prospect of the Travelling Community being 59 Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk: Statement of Focussed Changes Jul 2010. 60 Banstead and Reigate Core Strategy proposed Changes July 2010. 61 Elmbridge Borough Council Core Strategy: Post Submission Consultation August 2010. 62 decision by full council of Epping Forest District Council 27 July 2010. 63 Mayor of London : Minor Alteration to the Consultation Draft Replacement London Plan Draft Policy 3.9 Gypsies and Travellers March 2010. 64 Peterborough Core Strategy—Suggested Changes regarding provision for Gypsies and Travellers, August 2010. 65 Letter from Inspector to Ipswich BC, 30 July 2010. 66 FFT Representations to PINS on Draft Policy H7, August 2009, No.67a & b, and Statements to EiP on most Issues. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w90 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

properly represented on matters of the level of provision at local examinations in public. The low level of engagement of the Travelling Community and the complexity of planning issues mitigates against local representation. With a few exceptions local authority engagement with the local Travelling community has been inadequate or tokenistic and cannot be relied upon to deliver adequately the views of the Travelling community on the likely level of need for pitches. One or two part time workers cannot provide the level of representation needed and the current economic climate means that expansion of this service is unlikely to take place. Hence the lack of regional planning will inevitably mean that community involvement will be inadequate at best. Local assessments of need will go unchallenged and targets will be inadequate, grossly so in some cases.

Likely effectiveness of incentives and the nature and level of incentives to ensure an adequate supply of housing

We are very sceptical about the effect of incentives (New Homes Bonus) when applied to the very small numbers of pitches when compared with overall housing needs (less than 1% of overall housing needs). Pressures brought whenever sites are proposed means councils are unlikely to find that incentives make it worth their while to plan for an adequate number of pitches no matter what the incentives on offer. The previous government provided 100 million for new sites and for refurbishment of existing sites. The response of housing providers has been very disappointing in the face of 100% funding. Most of the money spent has gone on refurbishment and few new pitches have been developed but more disconcerting is the poor uptake of the last tranche of funding in the East. The available money for 2009 was underbid despite efforts by the Homes and Community Agency to encourage housing providers to become involved.

Hence FFT/TLRP place little faith in incentives as a means of ensuring proper planning provision and delivery. The fact that 100% grants were unused suggest that the incentives route of encouragement of provision is bound to fail.

We see no alternative to compulsion as existed under the RSS system to ensure that reasonable planning provision is made.

Arrangements to ensure cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by Regional Spatial Strategies

Whilst there are some existing examples of councils cooperating on producing a joint approach to planning provision (eg in Dorset), they are concerned deliver pitch numbers already decided upon at regional level. Cross border cooperation in deciding on numbers to be provided will we fear lead to endless to debate over who provides what and inevitable large delays; never mind the opportunity for manipulating target pitch numbers downwards.

Adequacy of proposals including duty to cooperate and that Local Enterprise Board will fulfil a planning function

Unless there are penalties for local authorities in relation to the effectiveness of cooperative arrangements we have little faith, given the evidence presented by various local authorities at the EiP, that cooperation will be positive or indeed possible over agreeing numbers of pitches to be provided and their location. Delay will ensue and it is likely that the efforts to increase the locational choice for the Travelling community will be undermined.

If the Local enterprise Board fulfils a planning function in relation to pitch provision it should have similar powers those in the regional planning system to set targets and mediate between competing councils to ensure that provision is adequate and appropriate to meet needs.

How will data formerly collected by Leaders Boards be made available to local authorities and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries

There will be a need to ensure that arrangements can be out into place regarding reviews of the needs of Gypsies and Travellers and to ensure that future needs assessments are carried out uniformly across the country, progress towards provision monitored, delivery issues examined and that updated GTAAs are much more robust. Without some sort of oversight and monitoring arrangements we fear that the disparate range of approaches criticised in the EiPs will continue and that future provision will fall woefully short of what is needed. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w91

Written evidence from Hogan Lovells International LLP (ARSS 45) on behalf of Argent Group Plc, Baker Associates, CJC Development Company Ltd, The Church Commissioners for England, Crest Nicholson Limited, Fairview New Homes Limited, Gleeson Strategic Land Limited, Hogan Lovells International LLP, Property Development Specialists and Welbeck Land Limited

1. Introduction to the Signatories to this Submission

1.1 This evidence is submitted by Hogan Lovells International LLP (“Hogan Lovells”). Hogan Lovells is an international law firm with 2,500 lawyers operating out of more than 40 offices around the world. In London, Hogan Lovells has wide experience acting on significant development projects and the firm has a pre-eminent group of specialist practitioners involved in the field of town and country planning.

1.2 Hogan Lovells is submitting this evidence on its own behalf and also on behalf of a number of other signatories who are listed at the end of the evidence. These signatories represent property developers, consultants and other advisers who are deeply involved in town and country planning. In particular, they have had direct experience of the consequences which have flowed from the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies and the implications of that abolition for the commercial property sector. On 1 September Hogan Lovells hosted a discussion session regarding the abolition of regional strategies and it is from those discussions that these representations have been formulated.

2. Executive Summary of the Submission’s Main Points

2.1 The following is a summary of the submission’s main points. (a) The revocation of regional strategies has created in some places a policy vacuum resulting in uncertainty for the development industry, delay in local development frameworks being progressed, delays in planning applications being determined and some development projects being put on hold or abandoned. (b) These uncertainties and delays are leading to a slow down in the delivery of much needed housing development thereby frustrating economic growth. (c) Regional differentiations mean that the effects of the abolition of regional strategies varies from one region to another and within regions. The abolition of regional guidance and the housing targets in particular is being used by those opposed to development as a means of slowing down development approvals and the delivery of new housing. (d) In the absence of guidance at a regional level, national policy (in PPS3 in particular) is absolutely vital to housing delivery. Clarity is required on how authorities should calculate housing need to achieve consistency. (e) Some housing markets cross local authority boundaries. It is essential that a means of achieving co- operation between local authorities within a region is put in place as soon as possible. The proposed statutory “duty to co-operate” is likely to be too vague to achieve the required levels of co-operation. More certainty is required on this issue. (f) Insufficient detail currently exists regarding the proposed incentives based system. However, financial incentives are open to abuse and are unlikely to lead to better planning. There is a risk that local authorities will be motivated by the amount of financial gain on offer rather than ensuring that the right development is delivered in the right place meeting appropriate need. (g) If incentives are to be introduced, the way in which they are distributed and applied needs to be established. Incentive funding should be used for purposes related to the development which has given rise to the incentives being paid. (h) Whilst the focus on the effects of the abolition of regional strategies has understandably been upon the impact for the delivery of housing development, there are other important issues to be considered. In particular, the delivery of important infrastructure which underpins housing and other development is of deep concern.

3. The Submission

3.1 This submission addresses a number of the issues raised in the Inquiry terms of reference. It addresses in particular (i) the implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development; (ii) the need to ensure cooperation between local authorities on matters formerly covered by regional plans; (iii) the likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development; and (iv) other issues. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w92 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

(i) The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development 4. Uncertainty/Delay caused by the abolition of targets 4.1 Within the short term the revocation of regional strategies and the absence of any clear interim guidance has created in some places a policy vacuum resulting in severe uncertainty for the development industry. That has manifested itself in various ways, including: (a) a delay occurring in relation to the progressing of Local Development Frameworks (“LDFs”) (particularly pending announcements by the Government of further revisions to the LDF system); (b) a delay in planning applications being processed and determined; and (c) certain development projects being put on hold or even abandoned by those promoting them. This has been particularly acute for large residential schemes (eg 1,000 plus units) which relied heavily on regional guidance to support and justify such proposals in the absence of up to date adopted local policy. 4.2 The uncertainty relates principally to the general policy context within which all of the above issues need to be considered. Ultimately the uncertainty/delay is leading to a slow down in the delivery of much needed housing development. 4.3 There are numerous examples of Councils delaying or withdrawing their Core Strategies. The latest example is Aylesbury District Council which on 8 September was considering a recommendation to withdraw its Core Strategy from the examination process. 4.4 There are also examples of developers facing delays in being able to progress development schemes, particularly on large strategic sites which rely upon the policy context provided by the regional strategies. 4.5 Some examples of residential development sites which have been delayed are: (a) Calne, Wiltshire—a developer has been promoting a site for 200–250 units through the Core Strategy. The site was considered favourably within the Council’s “Options” consultation in 2009. The Developer envisaged a planning application in 2010 and had been working up to this in 2009. However due to the uncertainty in policy and changes to proposed housing numbers and distribution an application has been delayed. (b) Malmesbury, Wiltshire—similar issues as (a) above on another scheme of 200–250 units. Due to uncertainty over policy at a national level the site is now to be promoted through the delayed Core Strategy. (c) Honiton, Devon—a site for around 100 units within East Devon was being promoted through the Core Strategy as a potential strategic allocation. Since revocation of the regional strategies housing numbers have been reduced and the quantum of growth attributed to Honiton has been reduced. The submission of a planning application has accordingly been postponed.

5. An opportunity for opponents of new housing development Supporters of the regional strategies and the housing numbers which they contained saw them as providing a means of ensuring that housing development would be delivered, particularly within those areas where local authorities and communities are resistant to additional housing development. The revocation of the regional strategies is accordingly being treated as an opportunity to slow down or even frustrate approvals for new housing development by those who are opposed to it. However, in circumstances where the “need” for new housing remains pressing no evidence base has been established to justify this approach.

6. Regional Differentiations 6.1 In considering the implications of the revocation of regional strategies, it is important to understand the regional differentiations which exist regarding the approach to new development generally and new housing development in particular. Whilst it is dangerous to generalise, it is often the case that opposition to housing development is most acute in those areas which are under greatest pressure in terms of the need to provide more housing and the scarcity of land available upon which to provide it. It is for this reason that the greatest resistance to the housing numbers set out in the regional strategies was from those local authorities and communities faced with the greatest challenges to deliver the housing numbers. In assessing the implications of the abolition of regional strategies it is therefore important to bear this distinction in mind and to appreciate that, as a result, the implications have been very different from one region to another. These regional differentiations are also important when considering the question of “incentives”—see section (iii) below. 6.2 Whilst the focus of the inquiry is into the implications of the abolition of the regional strategies in relation to house building targets, it is also important to understand that there are implications for other forms of development, particularly infrastructure delivery (see section (iv) below). The abolition of regional strategies and the “policy vacuum” and uncertainty which has been created means that developers now lack the necessary planning policy context to pursue many development projects. A combination of the lack of confidence in the policy context and a lack of confidence that important infrastructure which underpins development will be delivered, has resulted in developers either delaying or abandoning projects. That in turn will have adverse cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w93

effects for the economy and will jeopardise economic recovery and growth. In short, development in general and house-building in particular is critical to achieving economic growth, a particularly pressing concern in the current economic and financial climate.

(ii) The need to ensure cooperation between local authorities on matters formerly covered by regional plans 7. Co-operation between local authorities 7.1 In the absence of “overarching” planning policy at the regional level under which local authorities are obliged to pursue clear targets and objectives, the issue of co-operation between local authorities becomes absolutely fundamental. Co-operation will be essential to ensure a co-ordinated approach towards the delivery of development and essential infrastructure, which will in turn secure economic growth. These issues are particularly problematic where development and infrastructure has to be delivered across wide areas including across local authority boundaries. 7.2 Until their abolition, the regional strategies acted as a framework within which the development and infrastructure required was reasonably assured. In the absence of regional strategies going forward, there should be an obligation on local authorities to put in place, by a defined time, appropriate structures to achieve a replacement framework. The proposed “duty to co-operate” has to date been expressed extremely vaguely and is likely to be inadequate. An analogy is the statutory duty contained in Section 39 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Section 39 contains a statutory duty on a person or body who exercises certain plan making functions to “exercise the function with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.” That statutory duty has been much too vague to have any meaningful effect. If it is proposed to create a similarly vague statutory duty upon local authorities generally to “co-operate” in relation to matters previously covered by regional strategies no solution will be provided. Instead, local authorities should be required to put in place structures within defined parameters and by a defined point in time in order to address the vacuum which has been created. If Local Enterprise Partnerships are to be used for that purpose, their role needs to be clearly defined. This will be particularly important where, for example, cross-boundary housing needs assessments are required. 7.3 National Planning Policy will have a vital role to set the context for the new structures under which local authority co-operation will be achieved. The relationship between national and local policies will need to be clear. National policy and advice should help to clarify the way in which housing need is assessed, to ensure consistency of approach between local authorities and that Core Strategies comply with national policy.

(iii) The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development 8. The New Homes Bonus—is the principle of incentives a good one? 8.1 One of the main objectives of the planning system should be to ensure that housing is delivered on the most appropriate sites to meet the housing need which exists. A system based on incentives risks skewing the decision making process. Decisions on development projects may, under an incentives based system, be taken not on the basis of proper and balanced planning decisions in the public interest founded on planning policy, but instead on the amount of incentives and hence financial gain which would be generated if a development project is approved. Indeed, the question arises as to whether the amount of incentives which would be achieved can and should properly be a “material consideration” in the decision making process on a planning application. 8.2 An incentives based approach also again raises the question of regional differentiations. It is doubtful whether a “one size fits all” approach in relation to incentives is appropriate having regard to the different pressures in different parts of the country because of the regional differentiations referred to earlier. It is entirely possible that an affluent local authority will not be sufficiently incentivised by any amount of financial incentives notwithstanding a clearly established need for more housing to be delivered within that authority, particularly in circumstances where the local electorate does not welcome more housing development. Conversely, a poorer authority may decide to approve new housing in order to procure incentives, notwithstanding that the housing development which would trigger those incentives is of the wrong type or in the wrong place. In short, an incentives based approach is open to a range of potential abuses. 8.3 The prospect of the refusal of applications in areas where incentives are less important is a particular concern in circumstances where the Government has signalled its intention to restrict the right of appeal to the Secretary of State on planning applications. In those circumstances the “downside” for a local authority in refusing a planning application is significantly less than at present where there is a reduced risk of a decision being challenged on appeal. At the same time amending planning legislation to provide that Inspectors’ reports on local development documents are no longer to be binding upon local authorities would exacerbate the problems.

9. How will the incentives scheme work in practice? 9.1 It is not clear how the incentive system will work in practice. Without more detail, it is impossible to predict whether the system will be effective. That the Government has so far revealed little of this detail adds to the current level of uncertainty. There are a number of specific concerns, including the following. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w94 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

10. Funding the incentives

10.1 It appears to be the intention that the incentives will be provided from central Government funds. It is unclear, however, whether this is genuinely new and additional funding or whether it is a “re-hashing” of central Government funding which already exists. We would be surprised if, in the current economic climate, genuinely new funding is proposed.

11. Allocation of the incentive funds

11.1 There are important questions to be answered regarding the allocation and use of the incentive funds. At present, Council tax revenues are split between District and County Councils. Will the same apply in relation to financial incentives? If a District Council is obliged to hand over part of the incentives to a County Council, the incentive may be less attractive. On the other hand, it is arguably appropriate that County Councils should receive part of the incentives funding. The answer to this issue may differ from one area to another, again indicating the difficulty of a “one size fits all” approach.

11.2 Equally important is the question of who will decide upon the allocation of the incentive funds received and the purposes for which they may be allocated? There is a strong case to suggest that the funds should be applied towards matters which bear a relationship to the development which has generated the funding. It would seem perverse for an authority to be able to use the funding for matters completely unrelated to the development. Will the local community and the elected members be made aware of the use to which the funding is to be applied when the decision is taken to approve or refuse the relevant development? Will the decision to approve or refuse based on the incentives be led and driven by employed officers of the local planning authority or by the elected members?

11.3 All of these questions demonstrate the complexity of any system of incentives and the detailed considerations which will need to be grappled with if the proposal is to be pursued.

12. Alternative approaches

12.1 A number of alternative or refined approaches are possible. These include the following. (a) Successful housing delivery could be rewarded with priority bidding status for infrastructure funding. (b) Local authority performance tables could be created. Those authorities who deliver housing at an early stage to meet identified need calculated in accordance with national policy could be rewarded by enhanced incentives to recognise the benefits of early delivery. (c) The benefits of regional planning include providing a policy basis on which large scale and strategic development can be delivered. These benefits have been seen in London, through the successful implementation of the London Plan. London, with its elected Mayor of London, is obviously in a different category from the other regions. It would be possible to consider rolling out the London model, with the elected Mayor, to other appropriate areas in England such that a new system of regional planning can be put in place under the control of elected Mayors.

(iv) Other issues

13. As noted above, whilst the emphasis of concerns expressed regarding the abolition of regional strategies has focused upon housing development, other types of development also risk being delayed and prejudiced by the revocation of regional strategies. For example, important cross boundary infrastructure which was subject to policy in regional strategies is now likely to be delayed and frustrated as a result of the revocation of regional guidance governing its delivery. It will be essential that there is proper co-working between the relevant infrastructure delivery partners if the impetus on infrastructure delivery is not to be lost (see paragraphs and above). September 2010

Written evidence from Finham Residents Association (ARSS 46)

Finham is an area on the south side of Coventry adjoining the Warwickshire border. Our Association represents the 1,900 houses in the area and has a membership of 80% of all residents.

We submit our summarised views on the RSS below. We have submitted additional information to Mr Eric Pickles MP regarding our views on our wider experience gained from the Coventry Core Strategy and have contrasted both with the more positive experience of the Highways Authority’s public enquiry regarding the A45/A46 Coventry Toll Bar Junction. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w95

Our experience of the Regional Spatial Strategy stems from attending the Public examination on June 4 2009 at Molineux. National bodies such as the CPRE put forward strong and valid arguments against the proposals and these represented the wide public concern. Local council representatives also voiced concern over the excessive proposals for new dwellings. The subsequent Report did not reflect these concerns and indeed were contrary to the views expressed at the Enquiry. Many of the legitimate concerns and evidence given were not reflected in the final Report. It was disturbing to witness the extent and time invested with developers (and their professional advisors) in contrast to the little afforded to the general public, who in the long term will be the most affected by the outcomes. More time and additional support should have been invested in realistic Public Consultation in order for members of the public to appreciate what was being proposed and the processes involved so they contribute more effectively. Much of the money that was spent in meeting with Stakeholders and producing glossy documents should have been used to explain to the public exactly what was proposed in clear and precise terms that could be understood by everyone. The use of acronyms in Reports sets up a barrier between those who know what they mean and the general public. The financial implications of RSS process should not be used to justify the retention of any of its conclusions in the future. We feel that the Government proposals to scrap the RSS process are a welcome move but would add that the RSS findings and Reports should also be scrapped. There are two main lessons to be learnt from the RSS: 1. Although the financial costs are regrettable, it should initiate the development of more appropriate and effective procedures in the future which are more likely to result in greater public involvement, understanding and acceptance. 2. Not to automatically accept statements made by small groups of Council members as fact and then to subsequently carry these forward without reappraisal and alteration when necessary. September 2010

Written evidence from Cavendish Keymar (ARSS 47) 1.0 Summary 2.0 Terms of Reference The Communities and Local Government Committee has launched an Inquiry into the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies. Submissions are invited to address: — The implications for regional house-building targets. — The likely effect on this of government’s financial incentives to local planning authorities for housing delivery. — The arrangements that should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities. — The adequacy of proposals already put forward by government including a proposed duty to cooperate. At present, the detail of financial incentives is sketchy and there seem to be no government proposals requiring local planning authorities to cooperate. Accordingly, this submission focuses on the implications for house building and housing delivery.

3.0 House Building House building—how popular? I (Edward Keymer) attended a recent residents’ meeting to consider the possibility of strategic housing growth on the edge of Stevenage. Not surprisingly, the meeting was convened in a rural village hall and was attended by 47 members of the public; 44 of them were over 50 years old and at least 25% of those present were no longer economically active. Only three young people attended; one couple left after 20 minutes, the remaining person (in his 20s) stayed because his parents were present. The purpose of this observation is to stress that decisions on housing provision are rarely taken by those who are likely to be occupying them and, too often, housing growth is seen not as a facility for housing the next generation, but as a threat likely to be populated by aliens! This fear of the unknown and obsession with the status quo is reason enough why the provision of housing within Great Britain should be decided at a level above and beyond local District Councils. Indeed, until the introduction of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, housing numbers were decided by County Councils, who were able to take a more objective view. It is my professional opinion, after more than 25 years of promoting strategic private sector housing development, that if housing numbers are left to local planning authorities, the South-East will face a critical cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w96 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

shortage of housing. This, in turn, will de-house the workforce, causing employers to desert London and the South-East to locations where labour can be hired at affordable rates. This is not a convenient relocation of jobs from Southampton to Solihull, but quite possibly from Southampton to Slovenia. Labour must be provided where it is needed and to meet this requirement so, too, must housing be made available at prices people can afford.

House building—how much? The figures put forward in the approved East of England Plan and in the proposed roll forward to 2031 are not based on fiction, but on hard fact. Attached at Appendix I with this submission are extracts from the Strategic Housing Market Assessment Report (SHMAR) for the London Commuter Belt (East) 2008. This document is attached for three reasons: 1. It sets out the science behind the requirement for house building. 2. It demonstrates on page four that, in terms of cost, the main areas of cheaper housing within the North London commuter belt are Harlow and Stevenage—both new towns. This is shown on the plan by dark green colouring suggesting that house prices are 75% to 90% of the average, whereas areas marked red are as much as 200% of the average price. The thrust of this submission relates to Stevenage which is where my expertise is focused and where there is a proven need for substantial strategic housing releases over the next 10 years. 3. Figure 5 of the SHMAR demonstrates that, in Stevenage, only 10% to 15% of people commute to London. As such, it is a more sustainable location to expand rather than, for instance, Harlow which, although it offers good value in terms of house prices, lacks the substantial employment base of Stevenage, benefitting as it does from British Aerospace, Glaxo and a host of other major employers. The case of Stevenage could apply equally in terms of strategic housing growth to any number of substantial settlements around London—be it Basingstoke, Reading or Guildford—especially when the main settlements lack sufficient space within their administrative boundaries to determine their own rate of expansion.

4.0 The Case for Growth at Stevenage I repeat that the reason for making the growth case for Stevenage should be viewed in the generality, in that matters which apply to Stevenage can apply equally to other towns. Stevenage has few claims to fame, apart from E M Forster and Lewis Hamilton, but its growth requirements are mirrored throughout the South East. However, Stevenage’s special qualities are: — Cheap house prices—Hertford is up to 70% more (see Appendix II). — Strong employment base. — Substantial social and physical infrastructure, in particular schools and a major hospital. — Location on north-south routes of communication. — Proximity of airports at Luton and Stansted.

5.0 History of Growth Over the last 25 to 30 years, Stevenage has grown steadily at about 800 houses per annum—see Appendix III. In recent years, growth proposed for this key strategic centre, under the East of England Plan, or Regional Spatial Strategy, was to be located west (now approved) and north of Stevenage—within the North Herts administrative area. This was and is because Stevenage has virtually no land for growth within its administrative boundaries. These new neighbourhoods were being planned jointly by Stevenage and North Herts Planning Authorities, under the Stevenage North-herts Action Plan (SNAP). Date Development Number of houses

1980s Poplars 3,500 1990s Chells Manor 3,000 (East Herts) 2000 onwards Great Ashby 2,500 (North Herts)

This sustained private sector growth followed on from Stevenage’s previous designation as a “new town”. The increased amount of private sector housing has increased importance of Stevenage as a key employment regional centre over the past decade(s). It has also changed the economic profile of the population and encouraged higher calibre employers. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w97

6.0 Future Growth

Growth envisaged by Stevenage over the next 20 years and, indeed, embraced under the auspices of the Regional Plan and its review was predicted according to the plan attached as Appendix IV. Location Date Houses

NES 3/SNAP 5 2011→ 1,000 (North Herts) North Stevenage 2013→ 1,000 (North Herts) NES 4 2013→ 5,000 (North Herts) NES 5 new RSS not SNAP Post 2020 5,000 (East Herts)

In contrast to piecemeal housing estates, the SNAP proposals—see Appendix V—envisaged the provision of complete communities, provided with schools, shops, employment and open space, all holistically planned within each neighbourhood. Prior to the abolition of Regional Plans, development consortia were in place, ready to submit planning applications on these growth areas in order to deliver new complete communities from 2013.

7.0 The Effect of Abolition of the RSS

As stated previously, prior to the abolition of the East of England Plan, Stevenage Borough Council and North Herts District Council were working jointly on SNAP in order to plan and deliver the longer term growth of Stevenage, related to its role as a key centre.

Following the Secretary of State’s letter of 27 May 2010, North Herts District Council resolved on 15 June to place all work on SNAP into abeyance.

The Council stated: “Whilst the North Hertfordshire Cabinet resolution refers to all work on SNAP ceasing until there is further clarity, it is extremely unlikely that SNAP will be resumed in its current form once that clarity is found.”

The Council went on to state: “It is highly unlikely that (NHDC) will reach the same conclusions reached by the East of England Plan.”

We are now informed that North Herts plan to go back to Stage I to re-consult on the principles of growth in the district.

In the meantime: 1. Further strategic housing provision at Stevenage has stopped which will inevitably lead to housing shortages and rising prices. 2. The provision of a Northern Relief Road (NRR) is scrapped, so it will no longer offer relief to existing housing areas north of the town. 3. The provision of new primary schools and financial contributions to secondary schools will now cease. 4. Planned improvements to the Stevenage foul drainage system, already much needed, have stopped. 5. The much-needed population growth of Stevenage will not now happen, leading to no increased “spend” in the dilapidated town centre, so much in need of regeneration. 6. Stevenage will offer no safety-valve for housing demand in the locality, which will exert pressure for less sustainable forms of development

8.0 Conclusions

Finally, the Terms of Reference include a brief to comment on the arrangements in place for the effective cooperation between local planning authorities and the adequacy of government proposals regarding a duty of local planning authorities to cooperate.

These two questions are identical but attract the same answer. There do not appear to be any arrangements in place that require local planning authorities to cooperate. Indeed, very little seems to have been put in place by Government, only a spree of abolition, which has horrified the House Builders Federation and prompted Carla Homes, among others, to seek a judicial review of the government’s actions.

Other sources have calculated that in the order of 26% of the national economy is dependent upon a buoyant housing market; this high figure stems not only from direct employment in the construction industry but in DIY purchases, purchases of carpets and soft furnishings, removals, conveyancing but, most importantly, the whole supply chain of the building industry. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w98 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

In spite of this vital importance to the national economy, Planning Resource reports that housing supply decreased for the second month in a row, falling by 2.2% in August according to latest market research by Hometrack. In addition, Government has announced the cancellation of Housing and Planning Delivery Grants (HPDG) which will further curtail planning authorities’ ability to kick-start the private housing sector. We are told that the purpose of the new legislation (although there has been no legislation) was to promote more rapid housing delivery because the Local Development Framework introduced under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 was not working. On the contrary, it was working and “if it ain’t broke, it does not need fixing”. Yet now the joint SNAP plan at Stevenage has been scrapped, and over 7,000 much-needed houses will not be built in this vibrant town. September 2010

Written evidence from E.ON (ARSS 49) Summary 1. The regional spatial strategies performed a valuable role in helping to realise national energy and climate change targets at a regional level. The strategies helped ensure that renewable and low carbon energy were a key part of development plans at a more local level. The UK has very challenging targets in the energy sector and we are concerned that, without some form of regional coordination, these targets will be more difficult or more costly to deliver. 2. We fully supported the concept of regional targets to drive national objectives and as such we would like an alternative structure to be put in place that delivers this need. The National Planning Framework should replace the role of regional spatial strategies, providing clear guidance on the importance of renewable and low carbon energy deployment. We believe that local authorities would benefit from an approach which takes a holistic view and provides consistency and cross border integration, ensuring borders are not a barrier to meeting large scale development needs. 3. We would also like a framework that encourages local authorities to facilitate delivery of broader targets. We support the use of incentive schemes, such as that proposed by the government which allows the community to retain the business rates associated with a new development for a certain number of years, provided such incentives do not limit the economic viability of the project. Any incentive structure should ensure funds are directed towards those most affected within the community. 4. It is essential that local people should be able to have a say, though consultation and community engagement, at a local level on how to achieve national policy and that it is important that development decisions aim to deliver a positive outcome for communities. Plans should be in place to address how the area will contribute to the transition to a low carbon economy. A robust evidence base should be used to inform how each plan will support the delivery of national policy. This could fall within the remit of the National Planning Framework.

Questions Q. What are the implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development? 5. The recession together with constraints on lending by banks has had a much more significant impact on the reduction in levels of housing development, than the abolition of regional house building targets. However, regional targets supported the drive to a low carbon economy as it provided house builders and companies in the business of delivering utility infrastructure and services with a degree of certainty around what would need to be built, where and when. In addition, regional spatial strategies provided the platform on which joined up utility infrastructure solutions could be developed. It allowed energy companies to partner with developers (such as house builders) and the community to deliver sustainable energy infrastructure that may serve multiple urban developments, in turn making use of sustainable local sources of energy such as wind, biomass and municipal waste. We are now concerned that what has been lost through the abolition of regional house building targets is the ability for infrastructure suppliers to plan for and deploy joined up “sustainable”infrastructure. 6. We believe that, through new development, new opportunities are created to rejuvenate the existing infrastructure that serves the community around a particular development. For example, meeting the low carbon energy requirements of a large development of around 3,000 Code level three homes could be most cost efficiently met through a district heating scheme built over a number of phases. The deployment of this new energy infrastructure could potentially be extended to meet the energy needs of the adjacent built environment across a local boundary. Therefore, the delivery of new homes, coupled with holistic energy planning could lead to the lowering of the overall community’s carbon footprint. In the absence of regional spatial planning cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w99

another approach that allows for a holistic approach to be undertaken is crucial. The abolition of housing targets has removed the certainty that investors had and could result in missed opportunities.

Q. What is the likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing? 7. It is important that communities are able to have a say in development proposals and local people are fully consulted upon for major new housing developments. However local planning authorities must assess developments not just in terms of local impact but also national need in reaching their final decision.

Q. Should arrangements be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy) 8. Yes. We believe that there should be a duty on local planning authorities to co-operate with neighbouring authorities to identify optimum locations for developments that meet national policy objectives. The National Planning Framework could facilitate this. 9. We are also concerned that the abolition of regional spatial strategies has also meant that significant work conducted previously by RDAs in establishing regional requirements for sustainable development may not take place; this needs to be addressed as part of the National Planning Framework. 10. In order to ensure that local authorities are able to make a contribution to the UK’s energy and climate change related goals it is important that sustainable energy solutions are encouraged at the right scale. Therefore, where sustainable energy infrastructure can be deployed at a scale which supports the needs of multiple urban developments the planning framework should incentivise this outcome in the interests of all stakeholders. September 2010

Written evidence by Dr. Angus Murdoch (ARSS 50) PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE Summary The decision to revoke and then abolish the RSSs is unlawful because, inter alia, no assessment of the impact on those changes was undertaken by the Government to inform that decision. In particular, the impact on Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers (both of whom are accepted as being ethnic minority groups for the purposes of Race Relations legislation) was not considered. Moreover, whilst there remains such a substantial level of unmet need for further authorised sites for Gypsies and Travellers, the related proposals to reform the planning system in this area are ill-conceived and counter- productive. “It is worse than useless to harass Gypsies from place to place unless some shelter or retreat is allowed”— Hoyland, 1815

Introduction Signaled first in the Secretary of State’s [“SoS”] letter to the Chancellor on 25 June 2010, the Regional Spatial Strategies [“RSS”] were “revoked”—to be “abolished” in due course—by way of a letter dated 6 July 2010 to all Chief Planning Officers [“the SoS letter”]. In my view, the decision to revoke (and abolish) the RSS is unlawful because, inter alia, that change in policy was not subject to any public consultation; and no racial impact or equalities assessment was undertaken to inform that decision. My principal cause for concern is in relation to the impact of these changes on Gypsies and Travellers who, as I will demonstrate below, will be disproportionately affected. That the SoS was aware that the revocation of the RSS would impact on Gypsies and Travellers is clear in the SoS letter: in the question and answer section on page four it states “that local councils are in the best place to assess the needs of Gypsies and Travellers in their area. The abolition of RSS will mean that local authorities will be responsible for determining the right level of site provision, reflecting local need and historic demand and bringing forward land in development plan documents. They should continue to do this in line with current policy. Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments (GTAAs) have been undertaken by all LPAs and if [they] decide to review pitch requirements in their Core Strategies, these assessments will form a good starting point. However, LPAs are not bound by the methodology adopted by the Regional Planning Boards in drawing up the GTAAs…” cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w100 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

It is also clear that Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are two groups specifically protected by domestic Race Relations legislation (see CRE v Dutton; and Allied Domec respectively). These groups are also accepted as ethnic minorities under the European Convention on Human Rights. In the case of Buckley-v-the UK (1996) the European Commission on Human Rights held that by refusing to grant planning permission for a Romany Gypsy to live in caravans on her own land and then commencing enforcement action against her, the LPA had violated her rights under Article 8 recalling: “... that the applicant has been subject to enforcement measures and has been prosecuted in respect of her failure to cease occupying her land in her caravans. This is sufficient to constitute an interference with the terms of the first paragraph of Article 8. Whether there are viable alternatives open to [Mrs. Buckley] if she leaves her land is relevant to the consideration of the necessity of such interference.” (emphasis added). The Government accepted that the applicant’s complaints concerned her right to respect for home and stated that it was unnecessary to consider whether the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life was also in issue… The Court considers that the applicant’s occupation of her caravan is an integral part of her ethnic identity as a gypsy, reflecting the long tradition of that minority of following a travelling lifestyle. This is the case even though, under the pressure of development and diverse policies or from their own volition, many gypsies no longer live a wholly nomadic existence and increasingly settle for long periods in one place in order to facilitate the education of their children. Measures, which affect the applicant’s stationing of her caravans, have therefore a wider impact than on the right to respect for home. They also affect her ability to maintain her identity as a gypsy and to lead her private and family life in accordance with that tradition.”

My short point, therefore is that the revocation (and abolition) of the RSS is unlawful because the impact on Gypsies and Travellers—particularly in the absence of any public consultation and racial/equalities impact assessment—has not been properly considered.

My second point requires a bit of historical context: for the first time in a generation there is a real possibility that the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers might be addressed properly. However, there is an even greater danger that history will repeat itself, with local authorities trying to avoid meeting those accommodation needs just as they have with previous duties where Gypsies and Travellers are concerned, unless meaningful enforcement action is taken against recalcitrant local authorities by the Secretary of State in the first instance and ultimately, the Courts.

The evidence to support this assertion can be found in the experience of the State providing sites for Gypsies and Travellers these last 50 years or so: only a handful67 of authorised sites were built when there was a power available to—rather than a statutory duty upon—local authorities to provide sites under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960; therefore that power was made ultimately into a duty by the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

There was a “carrot and stick” element to the 1968 Act: for those authorities who had met the need for sites in their area, the “carrot” of Designation status provided for robust eviction powers to move on unauthorised sites. In terms of the “stick”, local authorities that failed to make adequate provision could be “Directed” by the Secretary of State to provide the requisite number of sites in their area—a power that, though ultimately enforceable by the Courts, was seldom employed in practice. In fact, on not one single occasion did the Secretary of State actually seek assistance from the Courts to compel obedience to the law.68 Had the power of Direction been used to ensure that all local authorities had met their duty to provide sites, then the accommodation problems facing us today would quite simply not exist.

The Courts have placed the issue of unauthorised encampments within a wider historical context that sees Gypsies and Travellers as more sinned against than sinning. Progressively restrictive legislation and policy have deprived Gypsy and Traveller communities of their traditional stopping places and park-ups, with inadequate alternative provision to replace them. To then criticise those communities for unauthorised camping today, is to poke out their eyes and blame them for being blind: "For centuries the commons of England provided lawful stopping places for people whose way of life was…nomadic. Enough common land had survived the centuries of enclosure to make this way of life still sustainable, but by s.23 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 local authorities were given powers to close the commons to Travellers. This they proceeded to do with great energy, but made no use of the concomitant power given to them by s.24 of the same Act to open caravan sites to compensate for the closure of the commons. By the Caravan Sites Act 1968, therefore, Parliament legislated to make the s.24 power a duty…For the next quarter of a century there followed a history of non-compliance with the duties imposed by the Act of 1968, marked by a series of decisions of this Court holding local authorities to be in breach of their statutory duty, to apparently little practical effect….."69 67 By my reading, only nine sites, providing 25 pitches, were created in the eight years between the power to create sites being enacted and that power being made mandatory. 68 Interestingly, the written evidence from the DCLG to the Select Committee in June 2004 fails to even refer to the power of Direction when discussing the context for the current provision and location of sites for Gypsies. 69 Sedley, J (now LJ) alluded to this problem in R v Lincolnshire County Council, Ex p Atkinson (1995) 8 Admin LR 529 at 533. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w101

Therefore, it was not the 1968 Act itself that failed—what failed was ensuring that local authorities met their duty under it to provide Gypsy sites. By the time the duty was repealed via the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, fewer than 40%70 of local authorities had met their legal obligation to provide an adequate number of lawful sites and achieved Designation status.

The privatisation of Gypsy site provision: Circular 1/94 Gypsy sites and planning

Just as most local authorities effectively ignored the duties imposed on them under the 1968 Act, so most similarly failed to meet the requirements imposed on them by 1/94. This latter policy was supposed to introduce a “plan-led system for Gypsy site provision”, wherein the Development Plan process would meet the need for sites in the following ways: — Local authorities would be required to quantitatively assess the extent of need for sites over the Plan period; — Such assessments were to provide the evidential basis for locational policies that showed where Gypsy sites could be lawfully accommodated; — Where it proved “impossible” to identify actual locations where Gypsy sites might be suitable, local authorities should produce “clear, realistic” criteria-based policies for assessing applications that could not have been foreseen in the Development Plan.

Back in 1994 then Shadow Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg could see that: “There is humbug at the heart of the government’s policy. The humbug is not simply that what they are suggesting is unrealistic as a solution to the problem of unauthorised sites; it is also that at the same time as they suggest that private site provision is the solution on which we should rely, they are making such provision more difficult by altering national planning policies. The real effect of the legislation, which they dare not openly avow, is to make those who have no lawful place to reside in their vehicles disappear through the imposition of criminal sanctions.”

It is to be regretted that, just as with the former statutory site provision duty, yet again the majority of local authorities failed to meet their obligations under 1/94. There was almost universal agreement—from groups as diverse as the Local Government Association, the Royal Town Planning Institute, Gypsies and Travellers themselves, and people affected by the inevitable unauthorised sites that flow from under-provision—that that Circular 1/94 was an utter failure. In consequence a root and branch policy review commenced in 2001: “…because… 1/94 has failed to deliver adequate sites for Gypsies and Travellers…over the last 10 years. Since the issue of Circular 1/94, and the repeal of local authorities’ duty to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites there have been more applications for private Gypsy and Traveller sites. However, LPAs have refused the majority of these. A new direction is necessary to ensure that the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers are addressed with the same consideration as is given to the accommodation needs of other sections of the community. This will also help to promote good community relations at the local level, and avoid the conflict and controversy associated with unauthorised developments and encampments.” (DCLG, 2004 paragraphs 2–3)

The CLG concluded that the issue of unauthorised camping and developments is a consequence of under- provision: “…There is a serious shortage of sites for Gypsies and Travellers across the country. This has led to a growing tendency for Gypsies and Travellers to buy land and develop it without planning permission. This goes back to 1994 when the Government of the day removed the duty on Local Authorities to provide appropriate sites…The solution: Gypsies and Travellers must have somewhere to go… If they cannot find an authorised site, their only alternative is to camp somewhere that is not authorised. So it is clear that the problem of unauthorised development and encampments can only be solved by the provision of more public or private sites.” (DCLG, 2005 Gypsies and Travellers—The Facts)

The human and social consequences of this shortfall in lawful site provision are becoming increasingly evident, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights recently found when they expressed “…concern at the discrimination [Gypsies and Travellers] face, reflected in their higher child mortality rate, exclusion from schools, shorter life expectancy, poor housing conditions, lack of available camping sites, high unemployment rate and limited access to health services…Evidence…attests to the multiple discrimination faced by Gypsies and Travellers, and their exceptional level of social exclusion…It is unequal access to adequate and culturally appropriate accommodation, however, which lies at the root of many of the inequalities that face Gypsies and Travellers. In their evidence to us, the Gypsy and Traveller Law Reform Coalition emphasised the consequences of insecurity of tenure for the health and education of Travellers, and the … detrimental impact which eviction and the lack of secure sites had on the welfare of Traveller children …” 70 See the Memo @ 4.4. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w102 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

In December 2004 the DCLG launched the Consultation paper which, as Circular 1/06 Planning for Gypsy and Traveller caravan sites replaced 1/94. That Consultation exercise was informed by research conducted by Pat Niner, whose work concluded that “Perhaps the most striking impression from this spectrum of research and reports from almost forty years is the similarity of the issues and concerns being discussed, and the resistance of the problems being identified to “solution”… There are particular continuities in terms of basic demographic factors, poor health, prejudice and discrimination on the part of the settled community and very poor living conditions… experienced by Gypsies and other Travellers not living on authorised sites. Resistance to site provision and objections from the settled community to proposals for development are recurring themes…” (DCLG 2003 p40) — The main intentions of 1/2006: — A new Circular is necessary because evidence shows that the advice set out in Circular 1/94 has failed to deliver adequate sites for gypsies and Travellers in many areas of England over the last 10 years. Since the issue of Circular 1/94, and the repeal of local authorities’ duty to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites there have been more applications for private Gypsy and Traveller sites, but this has not resulted in the necessary increase in provision. — Creating and sustaining strong communities, for the benefit of all members of society including the Gypsy and Traveller community, is at the heart of the Government’s Respect Agenda. These communities will depend ultimately on a shared commitment to a common set of values, clear rules and a willingness for people to act together to resolve differences. — This circular will help to promote good community relations at the local level, and avoid the conflict and controversy associated with unauthorised developments and encampments. — Gypsies and Travellers are believed to experience the worst health and education status of any disadvantaged group in England. Research has consistently confirmed the link between the lack of good quality sites for Gypsies and Travellers and poor health and education. This circular should enhance the health and education outcomes of Gypsies and Travellers. — The planning tools which the Planning Act (2004) makes available and the associated move to more positive planning will help deliver communities that are sustainable and work better for people.

Circular 1/2006’s intention of replacing unauthorised sites through the provision of authorised sites in suitable locations by 2011 would have succeeded had LPAs complied with the law and policy in this area. Although there has been a steady increase in site provision since 2006, unfortunately much of this has been in the form of temporary permissions whilst more appropriate sites were to be provided by LPA’s in their Development Plan Documents (DPDs) (see the transitional arrangements at paragraphs see 41–46). If the Circular is withdrawn, then when those temporary permissions expire shortly, the current shortfall in authorised sites of approximately 20% will increase significantly with no effective mechanism for site creation. This situation will be exacerbated by the withdrawal of the 100% grant which until recently was available to LPAs to build and renovate sites.

Enforcement Before Provision is Putting the Cart Before the Horse

Unfortunately, the emphasis in the proposed reforms seems to be towards yet stronger enforcement against those unauthorised sites which the under-provision of authorised sites necessarily ensures, whilst enforcement against the recalcitrant authorities whose avoidance of successive responsibilities has created that very situation, is ignored. The resultant unauthorised sites are the cause of social conflict, as the Secretary of State acknowledged during a Local Plan Inquiry recently: “…On the question of maintaining community relations... the Secretary of State considers that the proper identification of appropriate and authorised sites for Gypsies and Travellers, as opposed to leaving them to fend for themselves by camping on unauthorised sites, would be more likely to assist the promotion of harmonious community relations than undermine them.”

In my view, what is required is for the intentions of Circular 1/2006 to be enforced against all LPAs. This includes restoring the RSS figures on need as history shows that without central direction, LPAs will not meet the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers, resulting in a lose-lose position for both Gypsies and Travellers and the settled community alike. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w103

Written evidence from Oldland Common Save our Green Spaces (ARSS 51) Executive Summary Granted the Regional Spatial Strategy gave certainty on housing locations and prevented opportunistic and costly development applications, but the residents of Oldland Save Our Green Spaces group celebrated its passing. The Coalition Government appears to have put a satisfactory interim arrangement in place to fill the policy gap and its replacement must be seen to be fairer from the residents’ point of view, as the field for objection and stopping the process was narrow indeed. We have considered in particular the effects on the area of Oldland Common, in particular on a site called Barry Road. On this site there was an application to build 450 houses (just the first phase) a general store (likely Tesco) 60 bed care home and employment warehousing, all on grade two agricultural land. Under the RSS, that would have gone ahead, under the localism agenda of the Coalition, it would not. — There was no connection with job opportunities. There must be a proven need for people to fill the local jobs market BEFORE housing permission is granted. There must be a restriction on settlement expansion if employment is inadequate. — There must be an assessment of the impact on existing shops of any supermarkets development which often accompany these applications. The Oldland High Street with its restrictive parking would have died with the unfair competition of a supermarket. — The number of homes that were demanded under the RSS was always under some suspicion. There must be a transparent method of assessing the local need for housing as numbers are easily manipulated by amongst others, multiple council housing applications, people unsuitably housed or those just wishing to move. These figures must be available to all members of the public who will then have the ability to question their justification. — The Regional Spatial Strategy was originally having to be completed on line, was complicated and difficult to manage as it was so lengthy. The site was subject to crashing and losing previously entered data. It was advertised in public libraries, an unsuitable method of communication and so communities were often ignorant of a consultation which would have enormous bearing on their lives. Older people without internet access and abilities often excluded from the process. — The Oldland Common application had the accustomed one third affordable houses. Therefore more than two thirds of the housing would have been superfluous to local need and providing affordable housing, in effect, a tax on the builder’s profits. Under the present system S106’s are used as a community bribe to provide social housing but we think this is wrong and all developments should stand or fall on their own merits. — As the Oldland site was on the inner edge of green belt land, it would have to be accessed by what is at times, a single track road. We ask that no development be allowed to proceed without the necessary new infrastructure being in place. — This un-necessary development would have swallowed up acres of productive farmland. We ask that more value be placed on the protection of our food source, especially in the light of climate change and Britain’s advantage of its temperate climate. So under the RSS, South Gloucestershire would have been forced: — to provide an un-necessary care home, warehousing and shops; — to build houses without job provision which would put more cars on an already overloaded road system; and — to overload the local health facilities (the local dentist said she could not take on anymore patients, the doctor was “concerned”). All on the strength of a perceived housing number with no transparent process of justification, and all on valuable farm land which is now being farmed.

Recommendations — There might well be a problem if the incentives offered by Government or direct by developers (as has been suggested) are such that they entice local councils, in cash stricken times, to try to bulldoze through planning applications without the necessary community consent. This situation would result in the campaigning groups fighting with their local councils against inappropriate development, instead of the as it was Labour Government under the RSS arrangements. — If the incentives to build are offered directly by developers to the community, presumable the local authority will be bypassed in this process. I would offer a word of caution on this process, as no provision appears to have been made for the supervision of suitable materials to be used, building regulations, funds for architect fees for supply of appropriate plans and their unlimited adaptation to meet community approval. A local authority has the tried and tested ability to co-ordinate all the various planning processes and is able to ensure that nothing slips between the cracks in a way that direct developer/community participation would not. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w104 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— The Government needs to consider incentivising the re-use of the 800,000 vacant properties that are in the UK by introducing some sort of grant system or reduced interest rates for developers. The planning system must include some “time limits on use” to address the second holiday home and “buy to leave” issues. — The Government needs to also consider stopping charging full rates on empty commercial properties which will help prevent wasteful demolition or deliberate property damage to avoid rate charges. — The link between house building and our Gross National Product should be severed. Building houses must not be used as a vehicle for economic growth rather than a function of need. There must be allowances within the planning system for respect for our ecological limits.

Conclusion Whilst admitting that the revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategy has left some policy gaps, its demise has given local people the chance to influence future development that would never have otherwise been afforded. The people of Oldland Common value their green belt above all else, a key factor in the change of administration at the recent election. With careful thought, a future policy can be put into place that will never again allow the views of the population to be so completely ignored. September 2010

Written evidence from South Wiltshire Agenda 21 (ARSS 52) 1. About South Wiltshire Agenda 21 South Wiltshire Agenda 21 was established in the 1990s. Our goal is to work towards a sustainable society where we do not consume more than our fair share of the earth’s resources and do not compromise the ability of the earth to sustain life for future generations. We seek to achieve our aims by lobbying for policy change at global, national and local level and encouraging individual behaviour change. The group’s members include over 50 individuals and 30 organisations, 4 schools and seven businesses in the South Wiltshire area (Salisbury and surrounds).

2. Summary 2.1 Our particular concern in respect of the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies relates to consideration of “the arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, etc).” 2.2 Our evidence covers the following: — Some thoughts on sustainable development and the need for a “one planet” life style from the South West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) which was starting to move towards a more sustainable framework for development in the region. — An example is given from the South West in respect of transport demonstrating the need for a clear regional transport policy if infrastructure investment is to be targeted appropriately and sustainably. — There is a requirement for a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to be undertaken which considers the overall impacts of development. It is not clear how this will be provided in the absence of the SEA provided by the RSS. — We believe that the UK is likely to be in breach of the EU Habitats Directive if current regional Habitats Regulation Assessment work and the conclusions arising from this are now to be disregarded. — We are concerned that the Local Enterprise Partnerships, which seemingly will form a replacement for the RSS planning framework, focus exclusively on economic development and do not provide enough emphasis on the environment or sustainable development.

3. The Sustainable Development Perspective 3.1 In the South West Region, where our group is based, we were pleased to see written acknowledgement in the RSS of the importance of living within environmental limits: “There is a tension which the RSS must help resolve, between further population and economic growth and the imperative to reduce resource consumption and, most importantly, the decoupling of growth and CO2 emissions. Consumption of natural resources or “ecological footprint” has a global impact. Growing demands for built development, infrastructure, food, fresh water, natural materials and energy, seriously risk the erosion of environmental quality and the life systems on which we all depend. The South West’s ecological footprint is unsustainable as it stands. If everyone on the planet consumed such a quantity of natural resources and energy as an average cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w105

South West resident, three planets would be needed to support life on Earth. Consequently, a shift is needed towards “one planet”, lower consumption, with lifestyles which are more resource efficient.”71 3.2 There is recognition in the SW RSS (para 1.6.7) that “The need to stabilise and then reduce the region’s ecological footprint in the light of continued economic growth and lifestyle choices requires active promotion of efficient use of resources by business and individuals, adopting a “low carbon” approach. Regional action alone is unlikely to be sufficient and will require a step change in the attitude of individuals to the environmental impacts of their consumption choices in terms of the goods and services purchased and the consequences of unlimited, relatively cheap travel. National and international action is also essential.” 3.3 This thoughtful and considered approach which has been one of the strands in the SW RSS has led to some challenging questioning of some long established dogmas which have held sway for decades in the shire counties of the South West. An example of one of these is the aspiration to dual the A303 for its entire length which is covered in section 4 below.

4. SW Regional Transport Policy—A303 Dualling Aspirations 4.1 The Strategic Sustainability Assessment (SSA) of the draft SW RSS prepared in March 2006 referred back to an earlier July 2005 commentary which had noted that: “The aim of the proposed strategy to deliver the capacity and services to encourage a switch to rail from road is commended from a sustainability point of view. However, this could easily be undermined by, firstly, the difficulty in securing the funding to deliver the improvements to rail required and the speed with which this can take place, and secondly, the upgrading of the A303/A358, which will provide a “more attractive” alternative. We recommend that SWRA needs to reconsider how it can achieve the aim of improving quality of life and access to opportunities in the region with less travel. In particular, the assumption that providing a second motorway-standard road link deep into the Peninsula is essential to the future well being of the region needs to be examined more critically.” 72 4.2 The draft RSS published in June 2006 noted that the SSA had expressed a fear “that improvements to the strategic road routes such as the M4/M5 and A303/A358 may increase traffic flows whilst not bringing the economic benefits wished for.” Nevertheless despite these reservations there was at that stage still a policy (TR3) to “achieve a second strategic route into the region from London to dual carriageway standard utilising the A303–A358 in order to improve the resilience of the inter-regional network and maintain the competitiveness of the South West”.73 4.3 The version of the SW RSS incorporating the Secretary of State’s changes issued in July 2008 removed references to the policy for a second strategic route. The cancellation of the A303 Stonehenge improvement scheme in December 2007, after cost estimates for the proposed tunnel had risen to £540 million, may have had some bearing on this although this is not the reason given, which was that the policy implied that “the Exeter-London (via Taunton and/or Salisbury) [corridor] should be given greater priority over other regionally important corridors. We do not consider sufficient evidence has been put forward to support this view.”74 4.4 The local authorities along the A303 appear to be having some difficulty in assimilating this change in policy, with the South Wiltshire Core Strategy published in July 2009 still taking the line that “Studies have confirmed the need to overcome these problems by dualling the A303 along its length” and stating that “Wiltshire Council will work collaboratively with agencies, such as the Highways Agency and the Department of Transport, to try and achieve an acceptable solution to the dualling of the A303.”75 4.5 In the context of the inquiry into the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategy we believe the above example serves to illustrate both the cross-boundary nature of transport planning and the reluctance which there may be to accept a policy agenda which incorporates sustainable development principles. A radical rethink of current transport policy is required if we are to meet the challenges set by carbon reduction targets in the coming decades. There is no evidence that the local planning authorities will propose or promote the greener alternatives which are required unless they are steered in that direction by strong regional and corridor based transport policies.

5. Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulation Assessment 5.1 Linked to the RSS in the SW region—and presumably in other regions also—is the Sustainability Assessment (SSA) process which combines the requirements of a sustainability appraisal under PPS 11, and a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) under the European SEA Directive. The removal of the mechanism whereby the cumulative impacts of development across the region are assessed must surely be a cause for 71 The Draft Revised Regional Spatial Strategy For The South West incorporating the Secretary of State's Proposed Changes—for Public Consultation July 2008 Para 1.6.2. 72 Strategic Sustainability Assessment of the Draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy prepared for South West Regional Assembly by Land Use Consultants with Collingwood Environmental Planning and Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants March 2006 (para 6.12). 73 Draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy, South West Regional Assembly, June 2006 Section 5 Transport. 74 SW RSS Schedule of the Secretary of States proposed changes & reasons for public consultation, July 2008, p.193. 75 South Wiltshire Core Strategy Proposed Submission Document, Wiltshire Council, July 2009, para 8.24. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w106 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

some concern, especially as one of the reasons why the current RSS process in the South West had stalled was due to concerns regarding potential breaches of the Habitats Directive. 5.2 An example of combined impacts of development affecting environmental assets is provided by the River Avon Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) prepared for the SW RSS concluded, inter alia, that there was no certainty that there would not be an adverse impact on the River Avon SAC76 due to the scale of development being proposed at Bournemouth and Poole HMA, Swindon HMA, Salisbury HMA, Bournemouth, Poole and Salisbury SSCTs. It is noted in the HRA (para 3.9) that existing public water supply abstraction is already having a significant adverse effect on the interest features of the Avon special area of conservation (SAC)—before demand is increased by large RSS housing allocations in the housing management areas (HMAs) of Bournemouth and Poole, Swindon and Salisbury. 5.3 The above is just one example, the Executive Summary of the HRA lists 37 SPA, SAC and Ramsar sites where it is uncertain whether adverse effects on integrity will remain following incorporation of the HRA recommendations into the Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes to the South West RSS.77 The uncertain effects relate to the water abstraction, water quality and air quality impacts of development, and in many instances the protected site would be impacted by development in more than one local planning authority area. 5.4 It is not readily apparent, in the absence of the RSS and environmental assessments associated with it, who will be responsible for assessing the “in combination” effects of development in the future. Presumably this would require joint working between the local planning authorities involved. However it is hard to see how this would work, or how agreement would be reached regarding whose plans should be modified should “in combination” effects be identified. 5.5 It is worth stressing that an assessment of the potential effects of development on European sites is not a mere technicality which can be brushed aside. As the HRA for the SW RSS makes clear “The HRA should conclude whether or not a proposal or policy in a development plan would adversely affect the integrity of the site in question…. Significantly, HRA is based on a rigorous application of the precautionary principle and therefore requires those undertaking the exercise to prove that the plan will not have an adverse effect on the site’s integrity. Where uncertainty or doubt remains, an adverse impact should be assumed”.78 5.6 The European Union has powers to take infringement proceedings against a member state who is in breach of the regulations. Here in the South West region an example of where this could happen is given by the current ongoing investigation into the decision making process in Wiltshire and the South West region resulting from a petition (EU ref 440.053)79 submitted on behalf of the White Horse Alliance. This relates to an alleged failure of the British authorities to comply with the EC Habitats Directive in connection with the proposed Westbury bypass and other major highway schemes.

6. The Way Forward 6.1 It is not clear how, or whether, the goals of the “Local Enterprise Partnerships” which are proposed will incorporate environmental targets such as carbon reduction. The Expression of Interest in a Local Enterprise Partnership for Gloucestershire, Swindon and Wiltshire gives no indication that this is being considered. The term “environment” is only used in the context of the “environment” for economic or business growth, and an “environment” where “the role of the state, and its interventions, is significantly rolled back.”80 6.2 Against this “laissez-faire” background it is not apparent how the current work done at a regional level to consider the “in combination” effects of development will be dealt with. The now de-coupled Local Authorities in the South West region have inherited a list of regional allocations and infrastructure schemes which could potentially breach the Habitats Directive due to their “in combination” adverse impact. As things stand we believe the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies and (seemingly) the shelving of the Habitats Regulations Assessments which accompanied them would lead to the UK being in breach of the EU Habitats Directive. 6.3 Our group is of the opinion that insufficient emphasis was given to environmental considerations in planning and decision making under the previous RSS regime. However, at least in the South West region, there was some evidence that the “economic growth at all costs” model was being challenged at the regional level, and environmental assessment work was questioning some of the levels and types of development being proposed. We need more environmental safeguards in place—but without the RSS and its associated studies and reports we have fewer. We hope the Communities and Local Government Committee will rise to the 76 South West Regional Spatial Strategy Proposed Changes Habitats Regulations Assessment Final Report Prepared for Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government by Land Use Consultants in association with Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants July 2008, para 3.10. 77 South West Regional Spatial Strategy Proposed Changes Habitats Regulations Assessment Executive Summary prepared for Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government by Land Use Consultants in association with Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants July 2008, Table 1. 78 South West Regional Spatial Strategy Proposed Changes Habitats Regulations Assessment Final Report Prepared for Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government by Land Use Consultants in association with Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants July 2008, para 1.5. 79 See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/organes/peti/peti_20100531_1500.htm 80 Expression of Interest The Local Enterprise Partnership for Gloucestershire, Swindon and Wiltshire, available on the web at http://www.wsep.org/media/uploads/LocalEnterprisePartnershipExpressionofInterest2.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w107

challenge of ensuring that the “greenest government ever” will swiftly put in place a planning framework to replace the RSS which will provide more and not less environmental protection. September 2010

Written evidence from North West Transport Roundtable (ARSS 53) Summary & Recommendations — We welcome the abolition of the current regional housebuilding targets which have no upper limit but would like to see a holistic, strategic approach to and fair distribution of housing figures. — If incentives (financial or otherwise) are to be given for building new houses, they should only be awarded to those communities/ LAs which meet certain sustainability criteria (see bullet points). — Local Enterprise Partnerships should have serving on them a fair representation of SEEPs—social, economic and environmental partners. — All data should be widely available to all interested parties, not just local authorities.

Evidence Who we are, why we were established and our principal way of influencing policy The North West Transport Roundtable operates under the auspices of the Campaign for Better Transport (CfBT). We are an umbrella body that promotes sustainable transport, healthier lives and low carbon lifestyles. The regional roundtables were established shortly after Regional Assemblies came into being to represent the opinions of organisations and individuals which believe in sustainable transport and to try to bring about more environmentally friendly transport and planning policies at the regional and sub-regional level. Their primary method of achieving this (and it has met with some success) has been through engagement with the Regional Spatial Strategy process, although NW TAR has also had a lot of involvement with the eight individual Local Transport Plans in the region, taken part in numerous national, regional and sub regional consultations and served on a number of regional and sub-regional bodies. Many of our recent outputs are viewable/downloadable from our website: www.nwtar.org.uk.

The representation we have been afforded under regional working The North West Transport Roundtable (NW TAR) is a member of North West Environment Link (NWEL) and Voluntary Sector North West (VSNW). Through both channels, we have had a voice via the Social, Environmental and Economic Partners (SEEPs), under the regional working arrangements that have just been disassembled. This has been much valued, not only by us but by elected members and officers of regional agencies and local authorities alike. We are well known to and well regarded by Government Office for the North West.

Implication of the abolition of regional house building targets NW TAR accepts there is a need for more affordable housing to be built but it believes that the open-ended approach to housebuilding imposed by central government following the last RSS process was unsustainable and, most worryingly, it paid no heed to environmental limits—an issue of considerable concern to the Environment Agency. The panel of inspectors who sat in judgement at the last North West RSS examination in public considered all the evidence placed before it and recommended quite substantial maximum levels of housing. However, the Department for Communities and Local Government were not satisfied that these were adequate and, at the final stage of the process, changed the maximum figures to minimum ones with no ceiling limit. In our opinion, this was not a well judged approach to adopt—especially as the North West has more brownfield land and more empty homes than any other region—and therefore we welcome the abolition of the present regional housebuilding targets. That said, we can see many advantages in having well researched and justifiable housebuilding figures set at the regional/strategic level as these would ensure a fair distribution and an over-arching view could be taken of environmental capacity in the region.

The likely effectiveness of the government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development The government’s latest initiative of awarding financial incentives to local communities for building new houses is a very blunt tool to achieve an end. It could badly misfire and result in a reversal of welcome trends in recent years which have seen more emphasis on a sequential approach to land use and particularly to more housing being delivered on brownfield land. This approach has helped to keep ‘sprawl’ contained and has taken pressure off special landscapes and Green Belt. The key to successful, holistic housing policies at any level—national, regional, sub-regional or local—lies in obtaining a sound evidence base (which includes an analysis of environmental capacity available and wider cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w108 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

consequences such as transport implications) and adopting sequential land use tests. If incentives are to be given to communities/ local authorities, these should be predicated on them delivering sustainable schemes. We suggest that incentives are only given to those local authorities which deliver schemes that: — Adhere to the government’s five principles for achieving sustainable development. — Give priority to previously developed land and land with extant transport corridors. — Adopt a sequential land use approach. — Give due consideration to environmental capacity and the proximity principle. — Give due attention to Town and Parish Plans and Village Design Statements where these exist. — Contribute to the government’s carbon reduction targets. — Meet level three in terms of environmentally sound design.

The arrangements necessary to achieve co-operation between local planning authorities NW TAR believes that there is a need for strategic planning because it witnessed for itself through the regional planning processes the way that it brought into line those local authorities which would otherwise have taken a less sustainable approach. We are aware it has been mooted that Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) might take on some transport and/or planning functions. We would refer the CLG Committee to our submission to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee for their inquiry into LEPs in which we emphasised the need for LEPs to have serving on them a fair and equitable representation of SEEPS—social, environmental and economic partners. This formula helped to ensure better balanced Regional Spatial Strategies than would otherwise have been the case. Well balanced policies and decision-making must be fundamental to the new set-up.

The need to share/update data amongst Local Authorities researched/ collated by the Regional Leaders Boards The data collated Regional Leaders Forums and, before them, Regional Assemblies, was widely disseminated amongst participating partners such as ourselves and most was also available on their websites. Such information should not, in future, only be available to LAs. Otherwise, how can wider stakeholders hold them to account in the way which the “Big Society” envisages? September 2010

Written evidence from the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain (ARSS 54) The Irish Traveller Movement in Britain (ITMB) welcomes the opportunity to participate in the Communities and Local Government Select Committee enquiry into the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies. ITMB is proud to work in partnership with the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities together with service providers and policy makers across the UK to better promote social inclusion and community cohesion.

Key Points — The abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) has already led to many local authorities instigating regressive policies on the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites, which in turn infringes upon Gypsies and Travellers Human Rights and exacerbates the incidences of unuathorised sites. — RSSs or an alternative regional or national approach to the provision of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation is essential considering the extent to which Gypsies and Travellers face discrimination and inequality in accommodation provision at the local level. — The Government’s decision to ignore the evidence base created by the Gypsy Traveller Accommodation Assessments (GTAAs), alongside the abolition of RSSs, has created a policy vacuum in which many years worth of knowledge, community consultation and policy guidance is in danger of being disregarded. — Gypsies and Travellers suffer from some of the poorest social outcomes of any group in the UK. The abolition of RSSs stands to exacerbate existing inequalities and further infringe upon Gypsies’ and Travellers’ Article 8 Human Right to “respect for private and family life and home” (Human Rights Act 1998). — Without a regional or national mechanism to ensure Gypsies’ and Travellers’ accommodation needs are met through the planning process, the New Homes Bonus Scheme will remain a token gesture. — ITMB would like to know what information base and consultation process have informed CLGs decision to abolish RSSs in the context of the accommodation needs of the Gypsy and Traveller communities. Gypsies and Travellers must be consulted on all decisions that dramatically affect accommodation provision for their communities. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w109

This Submission Follows the CLG Committee Terms of Reference in respect to Gypsies and Travellers Accommodation Needs

Background

The shortage of authorised Gypsy and Traveller sites has for a long time caused huge hardship for the Gypsy and Traveller communites and social unrest with their settled neighbours. For this reason the Housing Act 2004 placed a statutory duty on local authorities to include Gypsies and Travellers in their wider accommodation needs assessments. It also required local authorities to take a strategic approach and draw up a strategy demonstrating how Gypsies’ and Travellers’ accommodation needs would be met.81 As a result GTAAs were carried out by local authorities across England to inform RSSs. This resulted in the most detailed research into the accommodation needs of Britain’s Gypsies and Travellers that has ever been carried out. It also resulted in Gypsies and Travellers’ accommodation needs being determined at the regional level through the regional process.

The continuing severe shortage of authorised Gypsy and Traveller sites has been widely documented by Gypsy and Traveller organistions, government departments and the EHRC. CLG’s 2009 Progress Report on Gypsy and Traveller sites stated: “The current position on site delivery remains unsatisfactory. It is clear that local authorities need to increase the pace at which suitable locations are identified that can be used as Gypsy and Traveller sites.”82

Unwilling local authorities, often unduly influenced by hostile local residents, are predominantly the reason why there has previously been a failure to deliver the required number of sites throughout the regions. Considering the evidence that “well-run authorised sites can be effectively integrated into local communities” leading to greater community cohesion,83 the next logical step would be for Government to place a duty on local authorities to plan and build sites in the most appropriate locations possible for both Gypsy, Traveller and settled communities.

At the same time as revoking RSSs, the Coalition Government has offered no tangible or credible alternative to resolving the accommodation issues facing Gypsy and Traveller communities. Conversely, it has indicated an intention to give more power to local authorities, despite the fact that local authorities were unwilling to provide sites in the past. It has also chosen to ignore the invaluable evidence base created by the GTAAs and indicated that it will increase enforcement measures that will only exacerbate, not alleviate, the incidence of unauthorised sites. To add to this the Government’s decision to cut the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) Gypsy and Traveller Sites grant by 100% has presently put the nail in the coffin of financially supporting local authorities to identify and build new sites.

The implications of the abolition of regional Gypsy and Traveller accommodation targets for Gypsy and Traveller site provision

1. Planning Implications

Evidence of revision and/or termination of Gypsy and Traveller pitch provision by local authorities

Evidence of the implication of the abolition of RSSs on the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites is already noticeable in local authorities across England. Many local authorities have interpreted the Secretary of State’s decision as a green light for turning a blind eye to Gypsies’ and Travellers’ accommodation needs. — In the last month Central Bedfordshire Council stated that it would cut provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites by half from 40 to 26 pitches as a direct result of the Government’s decision.84 — Huntingdonshire District Council recently stated that they no longer accepted that there was a need for additional provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites resulting in plans for the provision for 46 pitches being scrapped.85 — Council leaders in Bournemouth and Poole have stated that they have “no plans” or “no wishes” to provide sites having taken into consideration the Government’s decision on RSSs.86 81 CLG, 2007, Gyspy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment guidance, p.4 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/accommneedsassessments.pdf 82 CLG, 2009,Progress Report on Gypsy and Traveller Policy, p.5 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1284500 83 EHRC, 2009, Gypsies and Traveller: Simple Solutions for living together, http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/gypsies_and_travellers.pdf 84 Traveller sites quota slashed in Mid Beds, Bedford Today, 02 September 2010 http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/bed-news/Traveller-sites-quota-slashed-in.6509728.jp 85 Traveller Law Reform Project/Friends Families and Travellers, Steve Staines, Gypsy and Traveller planning research, August/ September 2010 86 Plan for Traveller sites in Dorset scrapped, Daily Echo, 31 August 2010 http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8361625. Plan_for_traveller_sites_in_Dorset_to_be_scrapped/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w110 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— Epping Forest District Council has officially abandoned provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites after the “requirement to find an extra 34 pitches in the district through formal consultation had been withdrawn.”87 — In London, the Mayor Boris Johnson has reduced the 800 pitches recommended by the London GTAA to just 238 through revisions in the Replacement London Plan and the introduction of policy 3.9; more commonly referred to as a “minor alteration.” In a recent statement the Mayor announced that “following the removal of references to regional strategies in Government statements of planning policy, it considers requirements to set targets no longer apply.” In his upcoming “further minor alteration” the Mayor is expected to propose scrapping all regional Gypsy and Traveller accommodation/pitch targets for London to “enable boroughs and stakeholders to meet required needs in light of local circumstances.” However, the Mayor has stated his intention to retain the regional approach to Housing Supply (policy 3.3), explaining that housing supply in London is “more than a local issue.”88 Other local authorities who are in the process of revising or significantly cutting pitch provision for Gypsies and Travellers include: North Tynside;89 the local authorities that make up the Greater Norwich joint core strategy; Reigate and Banstead Borough Council90 and certain local authorities in Somerset.91 However, the above examples are just a snapshot from around the country and by no means reflect the extent to which Gypsy and Traveller pitches have been revised or terminated by local authorities as a result of the abolition of RSSs. What can be deduced from these trends is that many local authorities have instigated regressive policies on the provision of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation as a direct result of the abolition of RSSs. Even in London—which still retains the regional approach under the GLA Act 1999—the Mayor has used the abolition of RSSs to justify reducing local authorities” obligations to identify sites in the London Plan.

The importance of retaining a regional approach and GTAAs as an evidence base Regional or national targets for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation are essential considering the extent to which Gypsies and Travellers face discrimination and inequality in accommodation provision at the local level. RSSs went some way towards implementing a process by which Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs could be fairly dealt with by local authorities in the regions. As described by the EHRC in its 2009 assessment of local authorities’ progress on meeting the accommodation needs of the Gypsy and Traveller communities in England: “The regional dimension to GTAAs is intended to ensure that all local authorities contribute to resolving the current shortage of authorised site accommodation in a strategic manner, which helps redress current imbalances in the pattern of provision, and enhances the sustainability of the Gypsy and Traveller site network.”92 The regional system has also enabled local authorities to justify making provision for Gypsy and Traveller sites to local populations who are hostile or skeptical towards such plans. Evidence from the EHRC highlights that “well-run authorised sites can be effectively integrated into local communities”, consequently leading to greater community cohesion.93 Considering such evidence, it is crucial that local authorities have a regional or national obligation to supply pitches for Gypsies and Travellers in order to set in motion a trend of interaction and cohesion between these communities and the settled community. The importance of a regional or national approach is also evident in the examination process in which local authorities’ GTAAs are scrutinised and evaluated by a regional panel in the regional context. A recent Freedom of Information request by the Traveller Law Reform Project and Friends Families and Travellers (TLRP/FFT) revealed the South East Regional Panel Report to be “severely critical of the approach of some of the local authorities.”94 The South East RSS Draft Policy recommended a total of 1,064 pitches for the region. However, following its examination in public, the Panel recommended an increase to 2,119 pitches for the region. The Panel stated that: “Lessons will have to be learned from the first round and our criticisms of many of the GTAAs in this Report should be seen as guidance in formulating a methodology and analysis which provides a more 87 EPPING FOREST: Gypsy and Traveller requirement lifted, Epping Forest Guardian, 13 July 2010 http://www.guardianseries.co.uk/news/efnews/8269715.EPPING_FOREST__Gypsy_and_traveller_requirements_lifted/ 88 Targets in the London Plan, Statement to the examination on behalf of the Mayor of London, Targets statement JL mod to original doc-1.doc 89 Rethink on Gypsy sites, New Guardian, 02 September 2010 http://www.newsguardian.co.uk/latest-news/Rethink-on-gypsy-sites.6508867.jp 90 Traveller Law Reform Project/Friends Families and Travellers, Steve Staines, Gypsy and Traveller planning research, August/ September 2010. 91 Fears over traveller and gypsy sites in Somerset, BBC Somerset, 03 September 2010. 92 Assessing local housing authorities progress in meeting the accommodation needs of the Gypsy and Traveller communities in England, EHRC, 2009. http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/Scotland/13assessing_local_housing_authorities_progress.pdf 93 EHRC, 2009, Gypsies and Traveller: Simple Solutions for living together, p.9 http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/gypsies_and_travellers.pdf 94 Traveller Law Reform Project/Friends Families and Travellers, Steve Stains, Gypsy and Traveller planning research, August/ September 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w111

focused, robust and consistent evidence base on which to identify the need for gypsy and traveller pitches across the region”95 In abolishing RSSs, the Government has stated that it is for “councils to decide for themselves how many traveller pitches are necessary in their area according to local need and historic demand.”96 However, considering the judgment of the South East Regional Panel Report it is evident that local authorities need to have their GTAAs scrutinised and evaluated by a regional or possibly a national panel to enable them to have an ounce of credibility and consistency. The South East Regional Panel stated that: “the three guiding principles should be transparency, simplicity and the close involvement of both the gypsy and traveller and settled communities so that the process is seen as legitimate and the assessment seen as credible”97 While many local authorities’ GTAAs have been flawed and often underestimate Gypsies’ and Travellers’ accommodation needs, they still represent a crucial evidence base from which those accommodation needs can be assessed. In abolishing RSSs, the Government stipulated that local authorities “are not bound by the methodology adopted by the regional planning bodies in drawing up the GTAAs.”98 Considering local authorities’ targets in the abolished RSSs were based on their own GTAAs, it follows that in the majority of cases local authorities still have an obligation to make the provision for the need they themselves originally identified. However, as evidenced by the South East Regional Panel Report, it is essential that all local authorities’ GTAAs are properly examined by a regional or possibly in the future a national planning panel.

2. Human Implications In a recent Westminster Hall debate on Traveller “unauthorised encampments”, Andrew Stunnell, the Under Secretary of State for CLG, stated that the Government was “committed to addressing the discrimination and poor social outcomes experienced by Traveller communities.”99 He also stated that he wanted to see “a plan, policy or strategy that can deliver the Traveller community authorised sites.”100 In a research report on the lack of provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites, the EHRC concluded that “the lack of secure accommodation for nomadic groups remains the lynchpin of a plethora of other inequalities.”101 This submission has cited evidence of local authorities significantly revising and/or terminating provision of sites as a result of the Government’s abolition of RSSs. With this in mind the question stands: how does the Government propose to effectively address the “discrimination and poor social outcomes experienced by Traveller communities’ by instigating policies that allow greater discrimination and inequality in accommodation provision for Gypsies and Travellers at the local level? In terms of health and education, Gypsies and Travellers are one of the most deprived groups in Britain. Life expectancy for Gypsy and Traveller men and women is 10 years lower than the national average. Gypsy and Traveller mothers are 20 times more likely than the rest of the population to have experienced the death of a child. Only 19% of Irish Traveller children and 9.9% of Gypsy children achieved five A*–C passes at GCSE in 2006 and it is estimated that nationally over 10,000 Gypsy and Traveller children are unregistered with a school.102 Lack of secure accommodation is the catalyst for many of the severe inequalities the Gypsy and Traveller community face. The abolition of RSSs stands to exacerbate existing inequalities and further infringe upon Gypsies’ and Travellers’ Article 8 Human Right to “respect for private and family life and home” (Human Rights Act 1998). Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are legally recognised as ethnic groups, and protected from discrimination by the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new Gypsy and Traveller sites, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites The inclusion of Gypsies and Travellers in the New Homes Bonus Scheme does little to abate Gypsies’ and Travellers’ genuine concerns over the provision of new sites under the Coalition Government. Aside from the wider question as to how such a scheme is funded, the Government also fails to address the fundamental obstacle preventing the planning and construction of new sites. In a 2009 report, the EHRC highlighted the 95 South East Panel Report 2010. 96 CLG, 2010. 97 South East Panel Report 2010. 98 Eric Pickles, letter to George Osborne, Revocation of Regional Strategies, 25 June 2010, p. 5. 99 Andrew Stunell, Unauthorised Encampments, Westminster Hall Debate, 8 September 2010. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100908/halltext/100908h0001.htm#10090817000003 100 Ibid 101 EHRC, 2009, Gypsies and Traveller: Simple Solutions for living together, p.11 http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/gypsies_and_travellers.pdf 102 CLG (2007); The Road Ahead:Final Report of the Independent Task Group on Site Provision and Enforcement for Gypsies and Travellers. www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1284475 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w112 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

obstacle as being “resistance from the sedentary population to the idea of new sites for Gypsies and Travellers.”103 If the Government is serious about financially supporting local authorities to build more Gypsy and Traveller sites, then it must first acknowledge that the primary obstacle preventing sites being built is local opposition through the planning process. The abolition of RSSs and the introduction of a localism agenda will most likely not lead to more sites being built by local authorities. Consequently, the inclusion of Gypsies and Travellers in the New Homes Bonus Scheme inspires little confidence that such funds, even if available, will ever materialise in the form of increased provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites.

Conclusion Britain’s Gypsies and Travellers are not adverse to the Coalition Government introducing progressive new policies to resolve the existing accommodation issues facing the communities. However, ITMB strongly disagrees with the Government’s present strategy of deconstructing or dismissing nearly all existing legislation, guidance and research on Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. If the Government is to be successful in addressing this issue, it must learn to build on the existing models of good practice and not simply disregard them. In the run up to the general election the Conservatives stated that “local authorities have a role to ensure the provision of suitable authorised sites to tackle genuine local need for their area in consultation with local communities.” The Liberal Democrats also announced during the election that “we are not intending to disturb the plans already in place for providing traveller sites.” The abolition of RSSs contradicts both these positions. ITMB calls on the Coalition Government to listen to and consult with the Gypsy and Traveller communities when drawing up any policies which affect their lives. September 2010

Written evidence from the Gypsy Council (ARSS 55)

Introduction The invitation from the Communities and Local Government Committee to submit evidence on the abolition of RSS identifies the implications of RSS abolition for waste, minerals, and flooding but not that abolition also deleted regional and district targets for site provision for Gypsies and Travellers (and indeed targets for plots for Travelling Showpeople.) This submission aims to fill that gap.

Summary — Gypsies and Travellers are an extremely disadvantaged ethnic minority across a wide range of measures. — The critical shortage of adequate, culturally appropriate residential accommodation is at the heart of many of the other disadvantages from which Travellers suffer. — We are the victims of very high levels of prejudice and overt and institutional racism. Of particular importance for this inquiry is the institutional racism we suffer in the way the planning system works against us to refuse and restrict planning permissions for residential provision. — We are not just facing the abolition of RSS, but of Circular 1/06, Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites, and of Gypsy and Traveller grant for new and additional pitches via the Homes and Communities Agency. — The system put in place through ODPM Circular 1/06 with regional and district targets for additional pitches defined through RSS had not delivered significant additional pitches, but it was beginning to work. With time and support from Ministers and planning inspectors Circular 1/06 had the potential to substantially address the crisis in residential provision for Travellers. — We have deep concerns about some aspects of localism, which carries the risk of pandering to lowest common denominator anti Gypsy racism. We are also deeply concerned at anti Traveller messages coming out of Communities and Local Government Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State, through informal, political channels which threaten an intensified open season on Gypsies and Travellers with policy based around enforcement, criminalisation and demonisation. — Finally, we put forward principles for how a post RSS system can be made to work to provide adequate residential provision and begin to treat Gypsies and Travellers as equal and culturally distinct members of the Big Society. We particularly recommend that our communities are given a central role in planning for and providing for our own needs. 103 Inequalities Experienced by Gypsy and Traveller Communities, Research Report, EHRC 2009 http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/key-projects/good-relations/gypsies-and-travellers-simple-solutions-for-living-together/ gypsies-and-travellers-research-reports/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w113

The Inequalities Experienced by the Gypsy and Traveller Community For our people oppression and prejudice by the non Gypsy majority are so familiar and so much a part of every day life as to be not worth commenting on. A comprehensive summary of the disadvantage suffered by Gypsies and Travellers is provided in Inequalities experienced by Gypsy and Traveller Communities, Cemlyn, Greenfields, Burnett, Matthews and Whitwell for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2009. The following examples are taken from that report. They paint a picture of multi dimensional disadvantage and confirm the Commission’s conclusion that Gypsies and Travellers are the most disadvantaged ethnic group in Britain: — Life expectancy is shorter, infant mortality is particularly high—three times higher in one survey, maternal mortality much higher, yet access to health care, particularly primary health care, is much worse; — Travellers are hugely disadvantaged in education. Only 75% of children are regularly in education, the worst of any ethnic group. In 2007 only 16% of Irish Traveller children and 14% of Gypsy children got five GCSE A–Cs compared with 59% nationally.

The Central Importance of Inadequate Residential Provision A central dimension of the inequality from which we suffer is the huge difficulty we have in getting culturally appropriate accommodation. Based on the January 2010 Caravan Count around 21% of Gypsies and Travellers are legally homeless in that they are living on unauthorised sites (land which they own but for which they do not have planning permission) or are on unauthorised encampments (land which they do not own, including the road side). Even this figure is a major underestimate of homelessness and housing stress: — There is a systemic tendency to undercount Gypsies and Travellers because of the interest of many areas in avoiding provision (Southend Council always gives a nil return on its Caravan count, despite a significant Traveller presence). — Non Traveller officials do not know where all the families are. — The counts are much more accurate about authorised sites—families at the road side are easy to miss. — To avoid racism and enforcement action by councils many families do not announce themselves as Travellers. — Significant and uncounted numbers have been forced to live in bricks and mortar housing. — Many, particularly public sites do not represent acceptable provision in that they are in very poor condition or in locations that should be unacceptable—under motorway flyovers, next to sewage works and waste tips, vulnerable to flood, on left over highway land. By culturally appropriate accommodation we mean sites which allow people to live in the open air, in mobile homes or caravans with proper services and adequate space for visiting relations to stay, for children’s play, and with land nearby for horses. There is substantial evidence that an enclosed life in bricks and mortar housing is unsuitable for Gypsies and Travellers and causes psychological stress, illness, and in some cases contributes to early death. This may be odd to the settled community but should be respected. A helpful analogy is not forcing Jewish people and Muslims to eat pork. It may be odd but it is their tradition and as a civilised society we accept that it should be respected. Adequate housing is not only one of the most basic human rights, lack of it lies behind many of the other inequalities from which Traveller communities suffer. Children have no fixed address so cannot settle into education, are moved from school to school, and are vulnerable to bullying. People cannot register with doctors and dentists, so only go to hospital when someone is seriously ill, women do not get proper prenatal care etc.

Why the Planning System is so important for Gypsies and Travellers and how it is used in institutionally racist ways against us The planning system and the way it has been used in racist ways against us is central to the accommodation crisis and to the huge inequalities from which Travellers suffer. Employment in agriculture allowing families to move from job to job has fallen hugely since the war and traditional road side stopping places have been stopped up. In recognition that the old way of life was coming to an end and that Travellers needed somewhere to live the 1968 Caravan Sites Act gave a duty to local authorities to provide sites supported by grants. Most public sites date from this period. The 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act made unauthorised encampment a civil offence, abolished the duty on local authorities to provide sites, and made unauthorised encampment a criminal offence. The intention was that local authorities should make land available and that Travellers should provide housing for themselves. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w114 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

But no land was made available and in the large majority of cases when families acquired land for their needs planning permission was refused. Instead they were evicted by violent bailiffs from their own land and moved on from the roadside by the police. As we write Basildon Council and its bailiffs are moving families from Hovefields Drive and planning for the eviction from Dale Farm, the country’s largest traveller encampment, a site which is owned and has been developed by the families themselves on the spurious grounds that it is green belt. It isn’t exactly the North Downs, it’s an old scrap yard on the fringes of Basildon which has been converted into somewhere to live by the families themselves. This is the dark side of localism. Whenever proposals come up local residents and parish councils object vociferously. The levels of abuse and objection to development for our people are hard to understand but almost universal. Language and attitudes that have been unacceptable since the 1970s to black people, Jews and gays are commonplace in regard to Travellers, particularly when it is proposed that they should live within a community. This is why the planning system is at the heart of the inequalities from which Travellers suffer. Councillors are put under huge local political pressures. Typically basic planning applications take nine or 10 months. The planners demand very high levels of information—wildlife surveys, traffic surveys, flood risk assessments etc that would not be imposed on other applicants. Having taken the applicants through a maze the ultimate answer is nearly always refusal, often for inadequate planning reasons with the planning officers told by councillors to come up with reasons. any of our people have limited literacy and do not have the skills to find their way through bureaucracy so they are easy victims of the arcane complexities of the planning system. Where permissions are given they are temporary or personal or dependent on the expense of having to go to appeal. It is this dilemma that forces families to bypass planning. They are desperate for somewhere secure to live. There are no spaces on public sites. They cannot live by the side of the road and are in perpetual fear of being moved on, so they can be tempted to buy sites and move on to them and hope to avoid detection through the planning enforcement system. Such action is not criminal activity, but a logical response to a no win situation. Families are providing for themselves rather than being dependent on the state. It is no exaggeration that many Travellers are tortured by the planning system. Long delays, uncertainty, fear of eviction and having to live on the road side hangs over many, many families who are waiting for planning decisions from the local authority or quietly living their lives in fear of enforcement. The stress on families and the pressures leading to marriage breakdown, alcohol misuse, stress related illness and depression from the way that the planning system impacts on Travellers should not be underestimated.

How the provisions in Circular 1/06 were beginning to work and why abolition of RSS together with other measures risks a new dark age In the years after the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act with no additional public sites and families unable to get planning permission the crisis was getting worse. It led to an increase in unlawful development from families desperate with nowhere to go. John Prescott set out to defuse the crisis and Circular 1/06 was the result. It is worth remembering that John Prescott originally saw the problem as one of strengthened enforcement powers. He only gradually understood the basic principle that must underlie any revised policy framework.

No enforcement solution will work without adequate site provision We would observe that the present Secretary of State risks repeating the same mistake. Circular 1/06 recognised the urgent need for additional accommodation. It put in place a framework for planning additional residential provision based on three elements: Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments to establish the level of need; Regional Planning Authorities defining targets for regional and district provision through RSS; and local authorities identifying the sites through their development plans. It was recognised that this system would take time but the aim was to significantly increase sites to address under-provision within three-five years, paragraph 12c. In practice it took the planning authorities longer than Circular 1/06 anticipated to increase the supply. The first region wide reviews have been put in place in the South West, the East of England and the South East. Many local authorities were hanging back until their RSS was confirmed. They were seeing more Inspectors allowing appeals in the light of the Circular. Our strong perception is that more and more local authorities were reticently beginning to accept that they needed to begin to make provision. The tragedy for our people is that RSS and Circular 1/06 are being abolished just at the time they were beginning to work. The messages coming out of the coalition Government are at best ambivalent. Local authorities are hearing that the level of provision is for local determination and about stronger enforcement but not messages about the need for adequate provision. The message that Circular 1/06 is to be replaced by “light touch guidance2 is extremely unhelpful and local authorities are telling us that they no longer need to maintain GTAAs, plan for provision or approve proposals, if the local area doesn’t want it. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w115

So while many local authorities were slow to do what Circular 1/06 required,in the light of the messages now coming from the Secretary of State many have rushed to abandon the planning work they were doing.

How a post RSS system can be made to work Although there are honourable exceptions, many local authorities are incapable of taking fair decisions not based on anti Traveller prejudice and racism. Our experience is that our communities will never receive a fair deal through most of them. Our first preference would therefore be to take planning decisions on development for Gypsies and Travellers out of local authorities’ hands and place them with an independent agency, such as the Infrastructure Planning Commission or Planning Inspectorate. In a sense this often happens already. We come across many cases where the planning officers make clear that they (and indeed their planning portfolio holder) want to grant permission, but are unable to because of intense negative local political pressures. They privately welcome and support applicants appealing and the decision being going to the Inspectorate to approve (and be blamed for). If taking Traveller decisions away from local authorities is not acceptable, we need a robust policy framework which recognises the crisis in residential provision. Key elements would include: — A very strong emphasis on making adequate provision as a matter of urgency. — A continued emphasis on provision on sites owned by Travellers themselves. Like the settled community the large majority of Travellers aspire to own their own sites and provide for their own housing needs at no cost to the public purse. Many only live on public sites because they cannot get permission on land they have bought. — A requirement to have in place development plans making site provision based on evidence of need, say by 2011, but clear guidance on not waiting until then to granting approval. — Where RSS targets have been agreed, they should be used as interim guidance pending the adoption of new local plans. — Emphasising that it is totally unacceptable to treat applications for Gypsies and Travellers differently than for other parts of society, to take longer to determine them, or to require more information. — Approvals should normally be full ones and personal or temporary permissions should only be used where there are valid and exceptional circumstances, rather than as a matter of course. — This needs to be backed up by a very strong guidance to Inspectors that costs should be awarded against Local Authorities if they refuse permission or impose conditions they would not impose on other members of society. All this suggests that we need very strong, not light touch policy and that with amendments Circular 1/06 can form the basis of a strengthened policy. There is one dimension of 1/06, the emphasis on sustainable locations at paragraphs 64–65, which has proved an unhelpful additional burden. It has led many local authorities to focus strongly on sites on the edge of settlements, which are often those most at risk from anti Traveller prejudice and orchestrated opposition, while rejecting the slightly more rural sites, which are favoured by many Travellers and for which the land may more easily available. So the well intentioned sustainability advice needs to be tempered by an emphasis on the urgency of making provision in locations which reflect both the cultural needs of Travellers and those locations which are more acceptable for the settled community. (Of course for many in the settled community there is nowhere that is acceptable!) There needs to be an emphasis on good evidence. Local authorities must be required to keep Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments up to date perhaps every three years. We also welcome the 2011 Census including Gypsy and Irish Traveller as separate ethnic groupings for the first time. There needs to be funding support. We share the anger that many of the improvement and new provision projects funded in recent years through Gypsy and Traveller Grant represent very poor value for money. We would want to see the establishment of a small implementation unit to oversee grants, provide advice to local authorities, housing associations and Travellers on good practice and ensure value for money in site development and management. We want to see (and to be involved in) the establishment of housing associations run by Travellers themselves. An underlying theme in the above points is that services are provided to and for Gypsies by non Gypsies. The GTAA’s and census count need to involve Traveller groups to ensure accuracy and engagement by the community. Travellers are entrepreneurial with strong construction skills. As a matter of course procurement processes for new sites should seek quotes from Traveller businesses. Some of the best run sites are those managed by Travellers ourselves. This is how addressing the crisis in residential provision for Gypsies and Travellers links to the Big Society. Travellers have a strong sense of family and community. By carrying out the surveys, building the sites and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w116 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

managing them ourselves we can build up the skills our community needs to survive and engage fully in the modern world. By drawing on our entrepreneurial skills we can help make sure the limited public funding that is available is used effectively. September 2010

Written evidence from Eric Avebury, Professor Thomas Acton OBE, Professor Alan Townsend, Andrew Ryder and Marc Willers (ARSS 56) Notes for Submission to Select Committee on Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies and Localism Adequate site provision, both permanent and transit, is the answer to the problem of unauthorised encampments. The Caravan Sites Act 1968 required local authorities to provide sites for Gypsies and Travellers residing in or resorting to their areas. Unfortunately the duty was repealed in 1994, and although by that time 350 or so local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites had been constructed in England and Wales, there still remained a significant shortfall in site provision. Many local authorities had ignored their statutory duty and the Ministerial power of direction in S 9(2) of the Act had only been used recently and sparingly. The shortfall remains, caused by the failure of successive central governments and local authorities to ensure adequate provision. This has led to the endemic situation of unauthorised encampments and unauthorised developments, and it is essential that a policy of ensuring adequate site provision is promoted if any positive steps are to be made in tackling that problem. Experience over the last 42 years leads us to conclude that provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites or the allocation of land for sites in local authority plans, is the key to reducing community tensions and enforcement costs as well as improving the life chances of a highly marginalised minority. Conversely, failure to provide sites or to allocate land for them, inevitably leads to proliferation of unauthorised sites, with disastrous effects on the life chances of Travellers and disputes between Travellers and settled communities. To achieve the goal of eliminating unauthorised encampments, financial support needs to be combined with obligations on local authorities to provide sites based on accurate and fair assessments of need with the prospect of government intervention where councils fail to act. We therefore regret the Government’s intention to abolish the site targets developed by the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment, and refined by public consultation and redistribution of obligations between local authorities. We also deplore the erasure of the guidance contained within Circular 1/2006. These measures were slowly beginning to have some positive impact on reducing the shortfall. The Government is wrong to dismiss this policy as failed and we urge it to reconsider its pledge to repeal these policies. A key component of the government’s new policy is enforcement against unauthorised developments and encampments but there appears to be no reference to enforcement action that may be taken against local authorities who fail to lift a finger to help Gypsies and Travellers address their sites needs. Nearly one in five Gypsies and Travellers are on unauthorised sites, which are to be the target of stronger enforcement powers. Under the banner of localism councils are to be allowed to determine the number of pitches they need to develop. This is not “putting fairness back into communities” as Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for the Communities and Local Government (CLG) recently claimed (CLG Press Release, 28 August, 2010). The right way is to ensure that local authorities grant planning permission for enough sites to accommodate Gypsies and Travellers, for the simple reason they have nowhere else to go. Letting 368 councils decide individually how many pitches they will allow is a recipe for inaction, and promising undefined financial incentives to councils to develop sites themselves cannot have greater effect than the 100% new sites grant which Mr Pickles has abolished. The abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) will also wreck the work done to redistribute the need for pitch provision generated in some areas with large Gypsy and Traveller communities, such as Basildon. The end of such policies of redistribution are implied in the Coalition proposal that councils should make appropriate provision which “reflect local need and historic demand”. Redistribution via the RSS has proven popular with a number of Conservative councils who have seen their pitch targets reduced and neighbouring authorities compelled to develop sites, who it has been argued with some justification had managed to avoid their obligations to Gypsies and Travellers in the past. This begs the question of how widely the repeal of RSSs has been discussed with those responsible for local government. As noted the Coalition government says that site provision must be based on local need and historic demand. In London the Mayor Boris Johnson is seeking to drastically reduce London's identified pitch requirements by claiming that there is not enough land and by dismissing the needs of housed Gypsies and Travellers who have been forced into housing by the shortage of sites and who have a legitimate need to live on sites. The stance taken by the London Mayor is not acceptable in London or elsewhere and it is hoped that it will not creep into new guidance on who is to be included and excluded in Gypsy and Traveller accommodation policies. It should be noted that a considerable number of Gypsies and Travellers are facing eviction on unauthorised developments like Dale Farm. These Gypsies and Travellers have been left in some uncertainty since the general election and indications of major policy change. For example, talks between Essex authorities including cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w117

Basildon and the Local Government Association, Homes and Communities Agency and the Government Office East to find alternative sites within Essex for Dale Farm residents have been stalled by the announcement by Eric Pickles abolishing the targets for site provision set through the RSS and Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments; the announcement has encouraged all local authorities, not just those in Essex, to conclude that they have no obligation to identify suitable land for site development, or to identify sites which could be offered to homeless Gypsies and Travellers, such as those from Dale Farm. If constructive dialogue is to continue in Essex and elsewhere, then the government ought to encourage a moratorium on eviction action to give local authorities the opportunity to adopt and comply with its new policy and reassess the need for accommodation with their areas and to explore the new financial incentives that the government has indicated may be available for site provision. It should be noted that in its report of March 2010 the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance in its fourth periodic report on the UK expressed concern about the eviction of Gypsies and Travellers. The Commission found (para 153) that: “An excessive emphasis on enforcement (ie eviction), involving often protracted and expensive litigation, instead of seeking forward-looking solutions in consultation with all members of the local community, has also been shown to damage race relations”. The Commission recommended (para 156) that: “.. the UK authorities encourage local authorities to treat enforcement measures—legitimate though they are—as a last resort, and to privilege wherever possible an approach aimed at bridging gaps between communities and finding mutually acceptable solutions rather than approaches that will inevitably place groups in opposition to each other ”. Thus, in the interests of averting costly and dangerous evictions and having regard to principles of proportionality laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights we would argue that the government should discourage forced evictions so that Gypsies and Travellers can acquaint themselves with the proposed new policy regime and work within it to seek constructive alternatives to eviction. Given the reluctance of local authorities to allocate land for Gypsies and Travellers and the consensual support for the previous government’s policies, we believe that Mr Pickles’ decision to scrap the existing site targets and the prospect of government intervention where councils fail to act is wholly irrational. The policy which Mr Pickles now wishes to abolish would have ensured that sites would be provided, and thus unauthorised encampments eliminated. However, if there is to be change then in order to avoid a “Balkanising effect” of letting individual councils make planning and development decisions, the creation of local partnerships of sub-regions and city regions with statutory planning powers could offer a way forward (see Professor Alan Townsend, Guardian, 21 May, 2010). This is a compromise between RSS and localism. Such a framework could be delivered through the proposed Local Enterprise Partnerships which also form part of the remit of the Select Committee inquiry and which the government has indicated may have a planning role. An effective planning framework which can deliver the sites needed will continue to require monitoring and direction from central government. The Select Committee may wish to consider the idea of a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Commission first mooted in the Traveller Law Reform Bill which was drafted by Cardiff Law School and twice tabled as a private members’ bill by the former Conservative MP David Atkinson. The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Commission would promote equality for Gypsies and Travellers in accommodation matters and issue guidance on specific issues, including measures for consultation and the adequacy and suitability of existing accommodation arrangements. In particular the Commission would keep under review the adequacy of council accommodation proposals for Gypsies and Travellers in local authority Development Plans and their accommodation programmes. It may be the case that such a body will more effectively challenge local authority inertia on this issue and lead to greater momentum and consistency of policy. Finally, it is imperative that the Coalition government engages with Gypsies and Travellers and listens to their concerns and aspirations. To that end we would urge the government to ensure that the highly successful CLG Gypsy and Traveller Forum continues to meet regularly to advise the government on its policies. September 2010

Written evidence from Hallam Land Management Limited (ARSS 57) Summary — The majority of Local Planning Authorities are resistant to new housing development. — Over a period of more than 25 years housing land in the UK has been consistently and seriously underprovided leading to excessive rises in the cost of housing. — Such underprovision can only be made good through the allocation of significant numbers of new sites right across the country. — Many elected representatives at Local level are acutely aware that new housing is unpopular with their constituents. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w118 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— Local Planning Authorities have consistently over a period of 25 years resisted new development by seeking to reduce housing numbers through RSSs and Structure Plans before that. — Housebuilders require a continuity of supply of new housing land. — They are content to engage in the consultation process but require certainty that at the conclusion of such a process there will be sufficient land in the right places and at the right time. The considerable costs of engaging in the planning process for developers and housebuilders can only be justified if there are tangible results in the form of new planning permissions of sufficient number and quality in the appropriate locations. — Incentivising Local Planning Authorities with enhanced grant fundong is very unlikely to override their general hostility to new residential development — Whilst the funds will be gladly accepted by the Local Planning Authorities where development is proposed it is unlikely to in itself persuade the Authorities that such development is acceptable on a scale sufficient to make an impression on the shortage of housing land. — Local Planning Authorities do not have a good track record of working together to secure additional allocations of housing land and there is nothing to suggest that this will change simply because the Government are asking them to work together in the future. Hallam Land Management Limited is one of this country’s leading strategic land development companies. It currently manages about 8,200 acres of land on 120 sites across the whole of the UK. The company has been active for over 20 years and during that time has brought forward many sites mainly for housing and but also for other forms of development, such as retailing, employment and renewables. We are currently involved in the promotion of around 20 sites of more than 1000 dwellings; some on our own account others in collaboration with other developers including most of the major national housebuilders. Many of our sites are long term and we frequently are promoting sites over a 10 year or more period. We are not housebuilders but having obtained planning permission for our sites we then sell our land onto the housebuilders, sometimes having installed infrastructure. We have been involved in most of the RSS and have participated in many of the RSS EIPs. We have also participated in many LDFs and are involved directly in many of these EIPs also. We have also participated in many Structure Plan and Local Plan Inquiries in the earlier planning system. Most of our employees are town planners and all are very familiar with the planning system. I am a chartered town planner with over 35 years experience and have served on the National Council of the Royal Town Planning and on the National Planning Committee of the House Builders Federation. This consultation is concerned with four main issues and I will take each of these in turn.

1. The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development Most Local Planning Authorities are generally resistant to new housing development. New housing development is normally disliked intensely by existing communities. Those communities put their elected representatives under a great deal of pressure to resist such new development and new members are often elected from an anti-development platform. New residential development is possibly the most contentious matter affecting local politics in many areas of the country. Over a period of time dating back to 1974 with the introduction of the Structure and Local Plan system, Local Planning Authorities have by and large had the allocation of housing numbers imposed on them by a more strategic higher authority, which has ensured with relative degrees of success that at least a proportion of the land required for new housing has been allocated. Passing over that entire responsibility to the local planning authority is likely to lead to an overall reduction in the provision of new land. In most of the RSS EIPs, in which we have been involved, many local authorities have argued vehemently for a reduction in housing allocation numbers. This is no coincidence and simply reflects the political will of those LPAs to reduce the amount of development. Virtually, all responsible representatives of the development industry have long argued that the initial figures put forward in the RSSs were too low let alone the reduced figures argued for by the majority of LPAs It is, to our mind, inconceivable that these same LPAs will now take a more responsible view with regard to the allocation of land for housing. When the Local Government Act 2003 was introduced creating the current RSS/LDF system the Government said that it intended all LDFs to be confirmed before 2007. The reality is that by the time of the election in May 2010, there were hardly any fully effective LDFs in place. The reason for this is that there was simply no strong will on behalf of the LPAs concerned to actually get on with the process. For many authorities, stalling the production of the LDFs has been an effective way of stalling new housing developments. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w119

The RSSs provided at least some form of target, which the LPAs were required to meet. Left to their own devices we fear that housebuilding targets will be drastically reduced from a total that was in the first place critically low.

The development business is a very complex and time-consuming process. The volume of work, which is required to be produced in support of even quite modest planning applications can take between six months and a year to prepare and involving amongst other things exhibitions and public consultations exercise. All of this work can cost significant sums of money, which together with the now substantial planning application fees can equate to a substantial investment of time and money. Such an investment decision is not taken lightly, by housebuilders or developers and it is reasonable to expect a degree of consistency in decision-making. Regrettably a more localist approach to decision making is more likely to lead to more uncertainty and hence risk for developers. Frequently planning applications can take unto 12 months to determine and may easily span a change of political control within any particular council. A localist approach may legitimise a different planning opinion from the planning authority at the conclusion of a planning application to that that would have been available at the start of the process. Whilst this could be the case under the previous and indeed any regime, under the presently proposed regime it is a far more likely outcome and is in itself likely to put off developers from making applications on anything other than those sites which have an almost certain outcome. All of which is likely to lead to fewer developments coming forward. We accept that planning is at the heart of a democratic process and that there is always an element of risk but that risk, in a structured RSS LDF system, can be managed and understood, but there is a danger that a locally accountable decision based system will be open to frequent and unsubstantiated change.

The housebuilding industry requires a minimum amount of land in the appropriate locations to be able to provide the appropriate number of houses for the population of the country. It requires a reasonable amount of certainty that the sites that it needs to bring forward are actually going to be approved at the end of the process. Over a period of 25 years that situation has become progressively less certain and the volume of available land has become much reduced. It is unfortunate but in our view the new localism approach to planning is almost certainly likely to increase delay uncertainty and cost of bring forward even fewer sites than previously and this ultimately will be at the expense of the house buying public, or more properly at the expense of those fortunate enough to be able to buy a house because for the great majority of those people wanting to buy a house the planning system will actually prevent sufficient houses being made available.

It should be noted that there is a possibility that just the reverse of what the Government intends with its policies will actually happen. That is to say that instead of Local Planning Authorities taking more responsibility for decision making on planning matters, they will actually make less decisions or give more refusals which will lead to appeals against refusals or non determination which will inevitably lead to individual Planning Inspectors or indeed the Secretary of State himself actually having to make more of the decisions. So, instead of decisions being taken at a local level many will in fact be taken by external agencies or even by the Government itself.

2. The likely effectiveness of the Governments plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development and the nature and level of the incentives, which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing

Regrettably, for the reasons I outline in para one, above, incentives are not likely to work. If politicians are elected from a “no development” platform, then financial inducements are unlikely to have much material effect. If those politicians feel that they are likely to be voted out of office if they are seen to be encouraging development then no amount of financial inducement is likely to make them change their mind. Nor indeed is it likely to change the mind of the electorate who, generally, do not want the development. Until the electorate decide that new development is necessary and desirable, their elected representatives will take the same view. Clearly, in the past, Local Authorities have been keen to take advantage of Section 106 and other contributions but only where they have concluded that development is, in any event, unavoidable and they have taken the unsurprising view that they should take whatever financial contributions they can from the development, but it is not these contributions which have led the authorities to accept the development in the first place. The development has come because of the imposition of targets from RSS or elsewhere and not from the cash that comes with the development. In other words the local communities see the cash as compensation for the development rather than a justification of it. Furthermore what can be the logic of giving more cash to local authorities simply to grant planning permissions when there may not be any actual specific requirement for that cash? Can it be a good use of public money to proffer cash to those councils for giving planning permissions when they should in any event be granting the permissions without the need for incentives?

We are seeing a reverse incentivisation at the present time whereby Local Authorities are presently looking to hold back planning permissions because there is an awareness of the incentives which they think are to be made available shortly but the details are unclear and so there is a temptation to wait to ensure that councils are not missing out on windfall benefits. This is quite understandable from their point of view, but in the short term at least, is actually having the reverse effect from what is intended by the introduction of the incentives and so it is important to finalise these matters as soon as practicable. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w120 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

3. The Committee understands that the government intends to announce further details of its plans for incentives shortly and would welcome comments on the adequacy and appropriateness of those incentives when the details are available It is difficult to comment on the adequacy and appropriateness of the incentives without knowing the details of those incentives. However, as noted above the scale of the incentives is unlikely ever to be sufficient to bring about the responsible decision making that the government seeks. Historically, the majority of Local Planning Authorities have always sought to restrict the amount of growth in its own administrative area. There have been notable exceptions but normally development has occurred only where the Local Authority concerned believes there to be a real threat of losing appeals. The last Government had spent much of its time, especially in its early years, restricting development particularly on Greenfield sites (because of the unpopularity of such development). More latterly, the Government did seem to have accepted the argument that more land was required for housing and many appeals have been allowed over the last two years on the basis of the lack of a five year land supply. Crucially, however, the five year land supply has been measured against the RSS targets. Without the RSS targets there is a real danger that Local Planning Authorities will simply distort the five year land supply argument in their favour. Put simply, the carrot (contributions and incentives) as opposed to the stick (RSS targets and lost appeals) approach does not work with housing land because there is no carrot sufficient for local politicians to support housing growth when to do so is likely to result in a lost seat at the next election. Already we are seeing examples of up to 40% reductions in targets from RSS figures in authorities such as for example Rotherham and Leeds and this is being repeated in Local Authorities across the country.

4. The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies History shows that Local Planning Authorities rarely work well or cooperate together effectively. These arrangements are often at their worst when one authority is to accommodate what it sees as the growth requirements of a neighbouring authority although this is precisely where such cooperation is most needed. At best such arrangements can lead to significant delay and at worst they can be totally counterproductive insofar as policy making is concerned. Without some higher authority bringing together the respective parties it is likely that in many if not the majority of cases the LPAs, whilst possibly seeming to acquiesce to the notion of working together collaboratively are actually simply not able to come to a consensus view. These types of arrangements will almost inevitably be difficult and particularly so if different Local Authorities are under different political control. This difficulty will be exacerbated if councils change political control during the process, as will almost certainly be the case with a different and shorter political cycle to National Government. In the RSS arrangements, Local Planning Authorities had to become involved to have influence and the process would simply leave them behind if they were not constructively involved. Collaborative working between authorities under the presently proposed arrangements could become mired in disagreement and delay enabling LPAs to avoid making painful political decisions on housing allocations. It is essential therefore that any mechanism, which is put in place to enable cooperative working between authorities, incorporates some form of punitive action against LPAs who do not cooperate.

Conclusion Most LPAs, and particularly those in the parts of the country where there is most pressure for development, are driven by the desire to resist that development pressure. This desire stems from the general will of the local electorate to minimise any new development in what is often perceived by the general public as an over developed country. Frequently that public antipathy to new development hides under the banner of inadequate infrastructure and indeed this is in part the reason for the dislike of the new development but the reality is more fundamental opposition to the development in the first place. Therefore the government’s aim to sweeten the pill through financial incentives will in fact be no more than sweetening the pill and will not of itself persuade many LPAs to take the medicine, in the first place. Certainly if they have to have the new development the LPAs will be pleased to receive money for new infrastructure, but then this would be no different from the planning arrangements which are already in place with the S106 mechanisms. But under a regime whereby the LPAs decide for themselves whether they need the new development, the answer in the majority of cases is likely to be a resounding “No thanks” and no amount of financial inducements is likely to change that. The country has suffered from an under provision of land for new housing for 25 years. There has been little to prevent LPAs from allocating such land other than their own inclinations, but even when they have been under an obligation through housing number allocations being imposed from above they have more often than not chosen to under allocate. We would be very pleased if the Governments new arrangements lead to a significant increase in housing allocations but we regret to say that we believe that the reverse is likely to happen as over the next few years there will be even less allocations than has been the case recently and the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w121

Government will be obliged to review the position and bring in the sort of targets that the last Government themselves ultimately had to introduce. September 2010

Written evidence from Harborough District Council (ARSS 59) The fundamental problem is that of making a decision to abolish a core component of the Development Plan at a stroke with no replacement policy framework in place, either of a permanent, well thought out and endorsed nature or even of a transitional nature (ie a credible “stop gap”). Abolition of the RSS in this way takes out the “certainty” that the adoption of a regional strategy provides to both developers (the partnership of much needed investors and landowners) and the wider “stakeholder” community. Developers have invested both time and resources in the regional planning process in promoting their proposals and where regional strategies have endorsed those proposals, in the setting out of “enabling” policies, developers have a “right” (subject to matters of detail) to expect a degree of certainty about those proposals being successfully delivered through the remaining planning process (ie via the LDF and/or straight through to planning application). Removal of that “certainty” through the revocation decision is not surprisingly now subject of a “test” case Judicial Review (ref Cala Homes, Winchester which is now being supported by the House Builders Federation). The outcome of this is keenly awaited. The LDF’s that the planning authorities are charged with delivering now have to set out housing needs and delivery targets, to be delivered purely within their administrative areas. These housing “targets” have to be tested, and will almost invariably be challenged by local communities and developers alike. This is a huge step change from having to determine “merely” the distribution of a regionally set and evidenced housing target. The additional work required to undertake a robust assessment of all the relevant demographic evidence from which the local housing need can be drawn, simply across the LPA administrative area, will be difficult, expensive and unlikely to be sound in relation to the strategic overall housing market area context. It will now require additional, work to be commissioned to provide supporting evidence that has not been anticipated and therefore budgeted for, and will involve additional work in managing each stage in the LDF process to adoption. It will, for example, almost certainly lengthen the LDF final examination process and therefore overall cost of LDF delivery. There is a danger that different planning authorities in the same Housing Market Area (HMA) take a different approach to the assessment of housing need and its apportionment within their respective administrative areas. The absence of a consistent approach will increase the confusion of how actual local housing needs across the HMA are being met. In Leicestershire, some local planning authorities have made more headway with their LDF work than others. Those “ahead of the game” have had their RSS regional housing targets endorsed through the government office assessment of “soundness”, the public examination process followed by binding Planning Inspectors reports. Other LPAs have not got that far. Those LPAs are now picking up the pieces arising from the RSS revocation and are re-assessing their housing targets. We understand that some are intending to stay with the RSS housing figure because they feel it is “right” for their plan area whilst others are considering proposing a lower housing figure, (especially where they were unhappy with the outcome of the RSS process). Some of the LPAs who feel a lower figure is right for them may well wish to contest the housing figures being taken forward by neighbouring authorities where they feel those authorities should be taking a greater share of development to meet the needs of the HMA as a whole, including even those that have decided to stay with the RRS target. There is a prospect of those authorities challenging the approach of other adjacent LPAs through the formal Examination process. This can only happen to those LPAs that have yet to take their LDFs to formal Examination (ie those authorities having adopted, or now in a position to adopt their LDFs will be “immune” from challenge). It is a recipe for potential chaos and wasteful public expense in arbitrating what will be essentially a “re-run” of what took place through the RSS examination process when each districts share of the HMAs housing requirement was resolved. It is also evident that the combination of the revocation decision and the perceived ethos of “localism” is stimulating local political confidence into making decisions to resist unpopular development proposals, especially housing proposals, even in the face of evidence to suggest that the RSS related five year housing supply is lacking in those areas. The danger is of a hiatus in supply arising from the revocation when the housing market is already so troubled, compounding the increasing lack of accessibility to housing occurring within our communities. One direct aspect of this is that local authorities will have to “pick up the tab” in terms of its homelessness prevention endeavours, and where that fails, costly provision for the homeless where there are statutory obligations to make adequate provisions irrespective of budgetary constraints. Where LPAs have taken their LDFs through formal Examination and received binding Inspectors reports there are RSS policy tools that have become embedded in those LDF’s (eg the housing targets specified for the Principal Urban Area (PUA) of Leicester set out in the RSS East Midlands strategy for the Leicestershire Sub-region). LPAs taking their LDFs forward after RSS revocation have no obligation to adhere to such policies in their LDFs but must respect, and take account of, how those policies are being delivered by adjacent LPAs cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w122 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

who have taken them forward. The consistent application of other former RSS polices such as Green Wedge policy are also affected in this way. Other RSS polices are now lost and this is creating a serious policy vacuum—eg strategic policy guidance on renewable energy, flooding, minerals and waste. The abandoned partial review of RSS East Midlands on such matters is also significant. For example, there are spatial concentrations of development proposals for wind farms both within Harborough District and in adjacent LPAs in the M1/A14 corridor. Harborough District Council wanted the review of regional planning policy to address the need for policy guidance on the cumulative impact, sub-regionally, of these proposals recognising the disproportionate contribution to regional renewable energy targets from these developments in one small area of the Region. The opportunity for a coherent policy approach to this issue now appears lost. Arrangements clearly need to be put in place to ensure appropriate co-operation, on a sub-regional basis, between LPAs on such matters previously covered by the RSS as waste, minerals, flooding etc. It is suggested that the minimum spatial area should be the HMA sub-region but that arrangements to also consider cross boundary issues will also be required. The proposed Local Enterprise Partnerships, as suggested, may be dressed up to have the scope to fulfil some form of a strategic planning policy function but arrangements to deliver on this, not surprisingly, appear distinctly lacking in the submissions being made. The LEP proposal as submitted for the Leicestershire area only allows for cooperation and collaboration as currently exists through a partnership based Housing and Planning Infrastructure Group. This simply comprises representatives from the key stakeholder organisations (including the Leicester and Leicestershire Local Planning Authorities, the HCA, and HBF) which reports, via a co-ordination group, to the sub-regional Leadership Group. There is therefore absolutely no accountability at LEP level for planning policy decisions in the proposal as submitted. The issue of the democratic accountability of the LEP to deliver a strategic planning policy framework that would be effective in dealing with former RSS matters would need to be addressed. To be effective, such a policy framework would also need Development Plan status, either as ‘son of the RSS’ or through some kind of mandatory incorporation of the LEP policies in the LDF’s of those local authorities within the LEP area, or via some other mechanism to give appropriate “weight” to the policies as a material planning consideration through the introduction of new legislation. September 2010

Written evidence by Graham Pearce, Aston University, and Sarah Ayres, Bristol University (ARSS 60) 1. Summary This memorandum draws upon research conducted by the authors over the past decade into sub-national government in England supported by the Economic and Social Research Council. The abolition of spatial planning at the regional level and the transfer of this function to local authorities, as well as the establishment of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), are held to offer a more effective and accountable approach to sub- national planning. Nevertheless, there are potential contradictions, uncertainties and costs arising from changes to the planning system, which carry significant risks for the delivery of key policies. We contend that: 1.1 The legacy of regional working should not be dissipated. Indeed, there is a compelling case for establishing some form of light-touch region-wide partnerships of local authorities, business leaders and other key partners to mobilise around strategic issues and for the retention of regional data and intelligence capabilities. 1.2 The absence of a national spatial planning strategy and limited spatial awareness in key Whitehall spending departments will continue to undermine efforts to coordinate disparate public funding streams and provide the continuity necessary to deliver private sector investment at the sub-national tier. 1.3 There is no right scale of government at which spatial planning should be pursued. Nevertheless, there is an array of key long-term, cross-cutting issues that demands strategic responses from both public and private sectors and vary in their impact within and between regions, but which transcend the capacities of individual local authorities. 1.4 Removing the statutory regional planning tier will undermine efforts to secure sustainable patterns of development, especially in accommodating urban growth in the Greater South East and tackling regional economic inequalities. 1.5 The effectiveness of financial enticements for councils to encourage house building is untried and could have serious economic and social consequences, for which central government will be held responsible. At least a staged approach should be adopted that tests the effectiveness of such incentives, alongside some form of penalty for authorities that eschew housing land releases. 1.6 There are merits in promoting functional economic geographies as opposed to structures based on administrative boundaries for policy-making and delivery purposes. Nonetheless, in the absence of financial incentives, or the appointment of elected sub-regional bodies, securing lasting cross-boundary working between cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w123

individual local authorities will raise political, financial and technical challenges, with the risk of significant geographical variations. 1.7 The proposed LEPs could provide a mechanism for dealing with a range of cross cutting issues relating to economic development, but they will not be wholly elected and may not be statutory bodies. As such they are likely to replicate the same weaknesses of legitimacy associated with the unelected regional assemblies and RDAs. 1.8 The business sector is expected to voluntarily engage in LEPs, but business partners do not want to be part of bureaucratic “talking shops”. Local authorities will, therefore, face the dilemma of having to balance private business interests with public interests, including a complex array of social and environmental issues.

2. The Implications of Eliminating Strategic Planning at the Regional Scale 2.1 Many North West European countries possess comprehensive and long term spatial planning systems and in England regional planning has existed in various forms since the inter-war years as a way of tackling spatial inequalities, especially the north-south divide and managing the process of urban and rural change. Successive regional plans primed by groups of local authorities, but often issued by central government, have sought to link economic development, housing and transport issues. In recent years the statutory Regional Spatial Strategy and, latterly, Single Regional Strategies have became tools for aligning a range of other strategies and their associated funding streams at regional and sub-regional levels over a twenty year time horizon. They have the overall objective of promoting sustainable development by embedding regional action on issues such as economic development, education and skills, energy, the environment, health, housing, transport and waste into planning policy. Given the absence of any form of national spatial strategy, the abolition of structure plans and the slow emergence of local development frameworks, regional strategies have in practice provided a degree of continuity for local decision making. 2.2 There is no single or right spatial level at which planning policies should be framed and delivered and different approaches will be necessary to suit different areas. Nonetheless, there are key economic, environmental and social challenges that cannot be met solely through reliance on national or local decision- making, which underlines the need for a form of intermediate or “meso” level strategic planning. Our research indicates that even some Conservative local authority leaders with experience of regional working, who are philosophically unsympathetic to regions, acknowledge the benefits of regional collaboration in a statutory context to tackle cross-cutting strategic issues, provide a degree of spatial coordination and exert influence in Whitehall. 2.3 Interrelated and often contentious drivers of change transcend local authority boundaries, urban and rural areas and regions. For the foreseeable future, some regions (especially those in the North of England and the Midlands) face deep-seated economic problems that demand a collective response from both public and private sectors. In addition, there is a set of longer-term, but no less, significant challenges. These include economic competitiveness, migration, mitigating and adapting to climate change, the provision of infrastructure for the projected additional nine million people in the UK by 2031 (especially in the Greater South East), increasing pressures on natural resources and new technologies. The recent Foresight Land Use Futures Project (Government Office for Science, 2010) examined the implications of these developments for UK land use over the next fifty years and concluded that there is a strong case to develop a much more strategic approach. Moreover, though there are common land use and management challenges, the presence of spatial variation in the demand and supply of land resources confirms that responses need to vary considerably within and between regions. 2.4 Pressures on both public and private sector funding will intensify and the need to prioritise, align and deliver funding for development and infrastructure spatially will be essential. Individually, the 292 district councils outside London are unable to perform this function. Equally, important Whitehall spending departments remain “spatially blind” to the geographical implications of their decisions and actions (Pike and Tomaney, 2008). In these circumstances, the regional tier has emerged as an efficient and effective locus for the coordination and integration of sub-national spatial and investment priorities, where certainty is vital for both private and public sectors (see for example the contribution of Regional Funding Allocations).

3. The Potential Effectiveness of Local Financial Incentives to Bring Forward Land for Residential Development 3.1 Given the absence of sufficient resources for supporting infrastructure and the potentially adverse environmental impacts, it is hardly unexpected that local authorities and citizens should object to the imposition of Whitehall housing targets via regional strategies. Ministers have been highly critical of this top-down process, which they see as counter productive in terms of bringing forward the housing necessary to meet anticipated household growth, especially affordable dwellings. They favour a bottom-up approach using financial incentives for local authorities to release land for development so “that existing communities will genuinely benefit when they decide to develop” (Conservative Party, 2009. p.20). However, this is to ignore the scale of extant planning permissions for housing and the continuing impact of the banking crisis on credit availability and to underestimate the scale of public hostility to new housing developments in many areas. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w124 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

3.2 The role of strategic planning is not only about identifying housing targets. Its main purpose is to provide a basis for making decisions about how sustainable development can best be achieved, in the context of economic, environmental and social limits. Such decisions are frequently contested and parochial interests and rivalries often overshadow policy debates. Nevertheless, in all regions strategic planning has provided an effective mechanism for local authorities to reach agreement on a range of issues, including the location and scale of future housing. Removing the regional planning function will not absolve the need for decision-making in this key policy area. Indeed, in order to counter the balkanization of housing policy, alternative institutional arrangements are likely to emerge, if only to coordinate the outcomes of local authority housing needs assessments. Nonetheless, evidence drawn from separate districts provides a weak measure of aggregate need and, given the difficulties in drawing housing market areas and because of the variable and contested quality of local data, efforts to prepare assessments on the basis of housing market areas have proved hazardous (Coombes, 2009). 3.3 The statutory planning system is interconnected and there is already evidence that the abolition of its regional component is leading some local authorities to reduce their land allocations for housing. Whether the proposed financial incentives to local authorities for house building will be sufficient to encourage them and local citizens to support the release of additional land is a moot point. The assumption is that local communities, through a combination of financial inducements and the need to meet their own needs, can be persuaded to accept more housing developments. Nonetheless, there is a real prospect that in the absence of financial penalties, in areas of greatest demand where resistance to new development is strongest, additional land allocations may be minimal. The outcome of this market-drive approach to land-release is likely to be further house inflation, especially in more prosperous areas and a reduction in the already under supply of affordable housing for lower income households. “The spatial distribution of housing output is critical but without targets and some form of top-down pressure housing may not be delivered where it is needed most ….” The trick is to find a way of balancing these two approaches to meet both local and national objectives (Burgess et al., 2010). In sum, there is no guarantee that the level of provision will be sufficient to meet national needs, with serious economic and social consequences.

4. Achieving Collaboration Between Different Public and Private Sector Bodies Across Administrative Boundaries 4.1 The Government takes the view that the devolution of powers to sub-regions, comprising “natural” or “functional” units, in the form of LEPs offers a more effective reference point for the co-ordination of public policies and resources (New Local Government Network, 2009). It expects that they will tackle a wide range of policy issues that contribute to creating the right environment for business and growth in their areas including planning and housing, local transport and infrastructure priorities, employment and enterprise and the transition to the low carbon economy. The Labour Government also acknowledged the need to identify sub-regions that reflect economic geography and the functional relationships between areas not captured by existing local administrative boundaries and presided over the creation of fifteen Multi Area Agreements, covering 105 councils and including over one-third of England’s population (Russell, 2010). 4.2 Coordinating the activities of different public bodies has long been the holy grail of public administration. For example, despite their wide-ranging statutory responsibilities as planning bodies the unelected Regional Assemblies lacked executive power, political legitimacy, leverage and resources and were reliant on internal debate and partnership arrangements to broker consensus. In addition, efforts to tackle interconnected issues beneath the national scale have been frequently frustrated by Whitehall’s silo culture, in which policies and budget lines are fragmented and where local discretion is limited. Furthermore, the geographical boundaries of public agencies are not always co-terminus and different organizations have different planning cycles, hampering efforts to join-up policies and budgets. 4.3 The new LEPs will face the same set of challenges. Indeed, removing the regional strategic planning tier risks squandering the benefits of coordination and could lead to more disputes arising at the local level, where competition could well replace cooperation leading to greater uncertainty for both the private sector and public bodies. Ideally, local communities should have the freedoms to orchestrate policies to meet their own long-term priorities. But in the absence of local government reorganisation these business led, sub-regional partnerships will not be elected and, therefore, will lack visibility and accountability to citizens. Furthermore, the need for statutory planning across sub-regions is not currently recognized (Townsend, 2009). In addition, while LEPs will be expected to work in close harmony with the patchwork of public bodies involved in supporting economic development in its various forms, many face severe budget cuts or even closure and will have very different levels of commitment to the sub-regional tier. 4.4 Institutional arrangements at the local level are also already crowded and the potential contribution of established mechanisms should not be ignored. Local Strategic Partnerships, which lie at the heart of the Local Community Strategies, as well as Local Planning and Economic Planning Strategies, already provide appropriate mechanisms for joining up policies and programmes and engaging a wide range of interests, albeit at a local rather than a sub-regional level. Social and environmental partners, for example, are represented on LSPs but there are no plans for them to serve on LEPs. 4.5 The coordination of spatial planning across local authority boundaries is clearly desirable Nonetheless, the outcome of previous efforts to encourage local authorities to cede powers to joint bodies have been uneven cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w125

and variable in strength. Added to which are the difficulties of securing collaboration in predominantly two tier areas. There is also the risk of unproductive forms of “place marketing” to attract mobile investment and jobs. Local authority collaboration is most likely to be reached when there is collective agreement on the need for action on a particular issue or where there are financial advantages. However, in the absence of such incentives or a statutory requirement, the willingness of councils to voluntarily put aside local interests and provide a collective voice on issues that have a strategic dimension cannot be assumed.

5. Retaining Strategic Capacity and Expertise 5.1 Unlike other comparable North-West European states, the stripping away of the statutory regional planning function and the demise of structure plans in 2004 leaves England with very limited strategic planning capacity. Experience indicates that many districts, especially in two-tier areas, lack both the capacity to think strategically and the resources to execute their own local development plans. Furthermore, compared with local government internationally, English local authorities possess limited financial autonomy. 5.2 The small planning teams established initially by 1990s Regional Planning Conferences and, more recently, by Regional Leaders’ Boards comprising some 100 staff across England, provided a set of strategic planning skills that has now been dissipated. They not only assisted elected politicians mediate on a range of often controversial spatial planning issues, but also adopted a proactive approach in developing strong working relations with organisations responsible for a variety of public sector programmes and the private and voluntary sectors. 5.3 The transfer of planning and economic functions to the local level can be regarded as a response to the limited accountability of the Leaders’ Boards and the Regional Development Agencies. Nonetheless, tensions over the weight to be given to economic development, environmental protection and housing policies will remain, underlining the need for a coordinated rather than a set of singular local authority or sectoral responses. A key strength of the development plan system is that is that it provides a comprehensive approach to the development of an area in a publicly accountable environment, counter-balancing the tendency towards undue influence by single-issues. By contrast, LEPs are expected to have a business orientation and while business interests are important they should not automatically take precedence over other economic, social and environmental priorities. If LEPs were to take over a significant element of the development plan function this would not only give rise to alarm in communities, but also potentially discourage business sector involvement in policy areas in which they are neither willing nor able to engage. Indeed, the inclusion of planning and other key policy areas could threaten what will be new and potentially fragile relationships between business and local authorities in emerging LEPs. 5.4 A strong and shared evidence base is vital in identifying the factors that are influencing development in particular areas, in policy formulation and in monitoring and measuring performance. Considerable expertise has been developed at the regional level over the past decade in collecting and disseminating data and intelligence, which has underpinned the development of a range of strategies, eg climate change, economic, housing, energy, environmental, spatial and skills. This represents a huge store that cannot be replicated by individual local authorities or LEPs and it is vital that it is not abandoned. 5.5 From April 2010 all upper tier and unitary authorities, in consultation with other key partners, were required to assess the economic conditions in their local areas, which would provide the evidence to underpin a range of local and regional strategies. In July 2010, however, the Government announced its intention to remove statutory guidance on Local Economic Assessments (LEAs). Local authorities are still required to have a local economic evidence base, but there is a danger that the quality and rigour of evidence gathering may be jeopardized. Indeed, in the absence of statutory guidance indicating what LEAs should contain, there can be no guarantee that counties and districts within LEPs will apply a similar template to collecting, analysing and presenting data.

References Burgess, G, Monk, S and Whitehead, C (2010) How can the planning system deliver more housing? Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. Conservative Party. (2009) Control shift: Returning power to local authorities, Responsibility Agenda Policy Green Paper No.9, Conservative Party, London. Coombes, M (2009) “New policies for rural housing markets: some inconvenient truths”, Planning Practice and Research, 24, 2, 211–232. Government Office for Science. (2010) Foresight Land Use Futures Project, Final Project Report, Government Office for Science, London. New Local Government Network (NLGN). (2009) Bordering on prosperity: Driving forward sub-regional economic collaboration, NLGN, London. Pike, A and Tomaney, J (2008) The Government’s Review of Sub-National Economic Development and Regeneration: Key Issues 1, Newcastle upon Tyne: CURDS, Newcastle University. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w126 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Russell, H (2010) Research into multi-area agreements, Report for the Department for Communities and Local Government, DCLG, London. Townsend, A (2009) “The planning of England: Relying on districts”, Town and Country Planning, 78, 10, 425–428. September 2010

Written evidence from County Councils Network (CCN) (ARSS 61) The County Councils Network (CCN) is a cross-party special interest group of the Local Government Association which speaks, develops policy and shares best practice for the County family of local authorities, whether unitary or upper tier. CCN’s 38 member councils, with over 2,500 Councillors, serve 24 million people over 45 thousand square miles or 87% of England. The CCN has undertaken extensive policy and good practice work on sub-regional arrangements, economic development, and local government action to tackle the recession. The CCN therefore welcomes the opportunity to engage with the CLG Select Committee’s inquiry into the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies. The following response was agreed by elected members at CCN Council on 8 September 2010. In the “CCN Manifesto” published in advance of the 2010 General Election, the CCN argued: …that powers, functions and funding should be devolved from unelected regional and sub regional bodies to elected local government, and to county authorities in continuing multi-tier areas. This would include responsibility for strategic economic development, regional planning (both spatial planning and economic strategy) and learning and skills. In continuing multi-tier areas county councils would take responsibility for sub-regional spatial and economic strategies, working with other authorities in the region to ensure that where needed there is an overall congruent regional strategy which relates both to the specific needs of sub regions and to national strategy. The CCN therefore supports the devolution of a wide range of economic and business support functions from the regional tier to a geographic scale which more accurately reflects functional economic geographies, and provides for a balance between local knowledge and flexibility, and strategic capacity. As part of this, the CCN welcomes in principle the abolition of regional spatial strategies. Addressing the particular questions identified by the inquiry’s terms of reference, the CCN would make the following points: — Targets do not build houses, and regional totals in particular do not necessarily build the right houses in the right places. While some communities have felt that too much housing development has been planned for their area, there are other examples of locally-supported, locally-needed, housing development which has been rejected at Ministerial level because of a “regional plan” which was set remotely from those communities. — CCN considers that a sub-regional approach to planning grounded in local democracy and awareness of the aspirations and needs of local areas is more likely to result in sustainable housing growth and support strong economic performance than top down imposition of targets. — The impact of the Government’s incentive plan is, at this stage, hard to predict with confidence. The CCN supports a greater recognition of population growth in local government funding, and this is one way of achieving that, provided funding is distributed in line with service costs. However, as present indications are that the funding will be found from within the existing grant, the offer of “funding from the centre” is not all it appears, leaving local government potentially faced with a zero-sum game. It will be possible to comment in more detail when the proposed scheme is published. — The CCN supports flexible arrangements for ongoing work on issues such as flooding, waste, and minerals, identified as part of the RSS. In many cases there will be an existing plan at unitary or upper-tier level, such as a county minerals plan, or an existing amalgamation based on natural boundaries, as with lead local flood authorities and in some areas of the country amalgamations of Internal Drainage Boards representing a sub-catchment area. — Where more formal cross-boundary working is required, most CCN members are likely to feel that this should take place on a similar geographic footprint to the Local Enterprise Partnership, but should be led from the bottom up, rather than imposed by central Government. If LEPs were to fulfil a planning function as suggested, it would not be appropriate for that function to be exercised by a body which had only a minority of members with a democratic mandate. The CCN would be happy to discuss the future of sub-regional arrangements in more detail at the committee’s convenience. For more information, please contact. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w127

Written evidence from the Law Society (ARSS 63) The Law Society is the representative body of over 100,000 solicitors in England and Wales. The Society negotiates on behalf of the profession and lobbies regulators, governments and others. This consultation response has been prepared by members of the Law Society’s Planning and Environmental Law Committee. The Committee comprises 20 practitioners expert in these areas of law from a cross section of the profession, both public and private sectors, and from across the UK nations.

1. Summary 1.1 The Society believes that the abolition of regional housing targets will mean fewer dwellings are built. 1.2 Incentives may have some place, but there is much to be done on this. The Society has doubts that the current proposals will prove sufficiently attractive to make developments palatable to local communities. They may also lead to poorer decisions as planning permission is granted to the proposal which yields the greatest advantage for a community, or is even bought and sold. 1.3 It would be helpful to look at the sub-national systems which existed before the regional government experiment for examples of ways to cascade national figures down to authorities. 1.4 The duty to co-operate needs an effective sanction against non-compliance.

2. Response to Questions Posed 2.1 The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets 2.1.1 There is no particular legal aspect here, but common sense suggests that without a steer from Central Government as to how many dwellings are needed authorities will be reluctant to accept many new houses. The regional function simply splits the national figure down to individual authorities. Without that national and regional allocation, how are local authorities to decide how much they should take and whether they have reached an appropriate level? Are they for example to commission their own economic research? 2.1.2 Common sense suggests that there will be a reduction (the Society suggests of some significance) in housing supply at least in the short to medium term.

2.2 The likely effectiveness of incentives 2.2.1 This is largely a socio-economic and behavioural issue. Is the carrot tempting enough? There is a danger that this will turn into the buying and selling of planning permissions. The development which yields the highest will stand the best chance of obtaining permission. The matching of council tax sounds generous but it has been pointed out to us that this will take a long time to be felt tangibly by the electorate. The full effects will take more than six years. It will be a very far sighted councillor in a very safe seat to vote for a needed but unpopular development on that basis. 2.2.2 The Society would encourage the coalition Government to be clearer when it uses the term “localism” in the planning context. The determination of planning applications is likely to remain with the local planning authority, but much is made in press releases etc about the increased role of the “local community”. It is important not to overstate what the role and influence of local people is to be, so as to avoid disappointment when “incentives” become clearer. 2.2.3 Incentives may well work—but is the outcome of that always desirable? Local authorities, keen to attract the financial benefits of development, may be persuaded to approve certain types of planning application—but we must be careful to avoid inappropriate planning decisions. (A) For example, if the incentives for housing development are attractive, a local authority may be persuaded to approve applications in locations which are not sustainable. (B) Viewed strategically, the right location for housing development might be a neighbouring authority’s area so whatever the scheme for incentives is, it must avoid unhelpful “competition” between authorities as well as poor planning.

2.3 Arrangements for cooperation between authorities in relation to certain strategic matters 2.3.1 Before RSSs we had Regional Policy Guidance (RPG), but no regional government. Issues which had to be sorted out at sub-national level, but higher than counties, were arranged by groupings facilitated by central government. RPGs were informed by that process. And in the minerals field, the regional aggregates working party split up the national minerals requirements. Similar arrangements are obviously necessary.

2.4 Existing proposals on a duty to cooperate and the possibility of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) fulfilling a planning function 2.4.1 The effectiveness of a duty to cooperate depends (sadly) in the last analysis on the effectiveness of the sanction. All administrative decision making has to take relevant issues into account. So if a relevant issue is raised late it does not cease to be relevant. In the planning field there is the additional requirement to comply cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w128 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

with EU law on environmental assessment, both strategic and particular; where failure can lead to invalidity. Effective penalties for failure to co-operate will be needed.

2.5 Research and data 2.5.1 There should be no barriers to dissemination of existing material, and the LEP could take responsibility for ensuring work is kept up to date. This is likely to mean that different authorities within the LEP area are asked to take responsibility for different pieces of research, with the LEP coordinating. This may assist cross boundary cooperation. September 2010

Written evidence from the Residential Landlords Association (RLA) (ARSS 64) About the Residential Landlords Association 1. The RLA is a direct membership national landlords association representing landlords in the private rented sector (“PRS”) throughout England and Wales. We have some 8,000 subscribers representing a membership of 15,000. Along with the British Property Federation and the National Landlords Association we are one of the three national representative bodies for landlords. Our members rent out in all the sub-sectors of the PRS including families, working people, students, the elderly and benefit customers. Members acquire new properties to rent out and specialise in providing new accommodation by way of conversions.

Introduction 2. This submission sets out the RLA’s views on the abolition of regional spatial strategies, and the possible successors, in relation to housing provision. We start from the view point of there being a series of shortage of housing in England and Wales.

Under Provision of Housing 3. Since the implementation of the Housing Act 1988 PRS has grown from 9% of overall housing provision to just over 14% (source CLG English Survey of Housing). The social sector which has contracted (particularly due to buy to let sales) now represents around 18% with some 68% being owner occupied. The last Government set an ambitious target to increase the number of new units built each year to 240,000 up to 2,020. Not least because of the recession/credit crunch there are no prospects of this objective being achieved any time soon. 4. The social sector faces waiting lists of 4.5 million, although not all of these are active. At the moment there seems no realistic prospect of significant extra funding being available for new social housing. 5. So far as owner occupation is concerned difficulties in accessing mortgage funding coupled with the need for greater deposits means that more and more people struggle to get on to the property ladder. Often properties are out of the reach of first time buyers, even if they could find the funding. More are choosing to rent but because of this situation and also because it is a lifestyle choice. 6. Historically, average house prices have been at around four times average earnings. They went as high as over six times at the height of the boom before the credit crunch impacted. We are still down at around 5%. First time buyers cannot generally afford a purchase price of more than £130,000 but with average house prices at around £150,000 one can immediately see why we need more housing. Rents in the PRS have gone up by around 63% over the last 10 years or so whereas average earnings have bone up by around 47% over the same period. Complaints are made against landlords regarding supposedly high rents. However, the cost of housing provision has escalated and this inevitably reflects through in higher rents, exacerbated by the shortage of water. 7. The result is that there is more and more pressure on the expanding PRS. PRS landlords, in turn, are finding it much harder to raise the necessary funding. There are now only 260 or so buy to let products available (Source Northern Rock). There were two to three thousand before the credit crunch. Nevertheless, there are signs of improvement in that loan to value ratios as required by lenders are coming down. Historically, as the Rugg Review shows the PRS is relatively lowly geared. Obviously, if funding could be raised there is a huge opportunity out there for PRS landlords to buy new build/newly converted properties. Over time the available stock needs to be increased. In the UK we face a rising population with the population projected to grow to around 70 million. At the same time households are becoming smaller. There is therefore huge demographic pressure to increase the housing supply. This is needed also for economic reasons to try to smooth out the problem of inflated house prices followed by busts that we have been experiencing since owner/ occupation became so popular after the Second World War. Housing boom and bust is a significant factor in the economic downturns we have experienced and tends to be the trigger for these. 8. Attached in Appendix 1 is an analysis for three northern regions undertaken by King Sturge. We believe that this is representative nationally and demonstrates the pressing need for increased housing provision. Whilst, at this stage of the economic cycle, we are “bumping along the bottom” as the economy improves over time it is of fundamental importance that we increase the supply of housing including additional provision for the PRS as it is an expanding sector. We believe that the PRS has an increasingly important role to play to provide cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w129

“intermediate” housing for those who cannot access social housing and who cannot afford/choose not to purchase their own properties.

Constraints on Housing Supply 9. The National House Builders Federation has estimated that the regulatory costs attached to providing a new unit of housing are in the order of £40–£45,000 per unit. A key element making up this figure is the time trouble and cost associated with obtaining planning permission and related regulatory approvals. Complex submissions are required including design and access statements, plans, models, traffic analysis and so on. The list is endless, particularly for larger developments. Even smaller scale conversions have to be accompanied by detailed design and access statements. Significant fees are payable.

Opposition to Development 10. It is, however, not just a matter of the regulatory cost and the effort involved. Invariably, there are objections from neighbours to any development, even small scale development. The UK is a nation of Nimbys. No one seems to want change in their neighbourhood. This is even more so when a green field site is involved. 11. The RLA does wonder if sometimes objectors even pause and think for a moment. Once upon a time their own house was a green field site. If their neighbours objected at the time (and they probably did) had this objection been upheld they would not be living where they were now so as to be in a position to object! 12. Unfortunately this pattern of wholesale objection adds up on a site by site basis. One of the major victims of the current recession has been the construction industry. Our manufacturing base has been decimated so where do these objectors think the jobs are going to come from. The construction industry has traditionally of late provided a large number of jobs including those for young people, especially apprentices and trainees. If objections to new developments are to prevail then there will be no construction industry jobs and in turn even more unemployment.

Ensuring Quality Development 13. One of the consequences of recent policies has been the drive for higher densities. This has been target driven and is clearly one of the downsides of the target culture. In particular, there have been too many flat developments. This is an area where private landlords have tended to concentrate their investment activities. It is well recognised that the PRS has helped fund these developments through off plan purchases. Landlord investors were happy to provide deposits and to buy in bulk which has helped ensure the necessary funding was in place. At least for the time being and probably for a long time to come this phenomenon is at an end. It is, however, indicative of the importance of the PRS’s role in facilitating new development. 14. Whilst the RLA wants to see quality development, as already pointed out in the regulatory context, there are significant costs which mean that new development is not financially worthwhile. Increased building standards e.g. heat and noise insulation, Section 106 payments and the provision of affordable housing mean that a huge financial burden is placed on the developer over and above the cost of land, the cost of services and the cost of building (as well as leaving a profit for the developer). 15. One of the particular niches for the PRS has been conversions. However, the yardstick at the moment for the cost of a conversion taking into account much increased regulatory requirements and retro fitting is £100 per square foot. Increasingly, members who have undertaken conversions are telling us that this is simply no longer economically viable. The fear now is that more and more new building will also cease to be economically viable because of all of these various costs.

Targets 16. Like many others, the RLA has been concerned about the growth of the use of targets. We have already mentioned the adverse consequences of targets in terms of densities. Nevertheless, we do believe that targets can have a role to play in certain circumstances. Planning of any kind means that you do have to set objectives. Clearly, for all the reasons we have already outlined increasing the number of new housing (including conversions) must be a high national priority. We need more housing even to stand still as the population grows and households become smaller. The proposed substitution of agreement and co-operation between neighbouring authorities will not, in our view, work effectively. They will frequently be different perspectives from different local authorities which will make agreement difficult if not impossible. 17. The Coalition Government have decided to embark on a programme of “localism”. This includes returning decision making closer to local communities. The abolition of regional spatial strategies is seen as a part of this process. Alongside this is the intention to take away the power of the planning inspectorate when examining Local Development Framework Plans to override local decision making. 18. This means that the strategic power to determine the number of new dwelling units will ultimately be in the hands of the local planning authority and local politicians. As one would expect, local politicians react to the views of their local electorates; no bad thing one might way. Unfortunately, whilst there is a wish to return power to local communities what is meant by community? Is it the narrow neighbourhood which is opposing cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w130 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

a local housing development or is it the wider city or town which needs to promote economic growth, create jobs, provide housing which supports employment and so on. With a local politician with an election around the corner will he or she see the bigger picture or listen to the objectors. It is also common experience that frequently the local objectors are articulate members of the middle class who have time and ability to mount protests which can talk down the wider longer term interests of the wider community. 19. Landlords in the PRS have been particular targets of Nimbyism. The recent changes to the Use Classes Order introduced by the previous Government, although now mitigated to a limited extent by the new measures introduced by the Coalition Government from 1st October, is an example of this. Young people such as students, young working people and young professionals need accommodation usually in shared houses. Much of the enormous educational expansion over the last three or four decades has taken place without any provision for where students are to live. The private sector has stepped into the breach and provided the necessary accommodation. This is not something the social sector provides for in any case. In an increasingly globally competitive world it is vital that we have an educated workforce. Our economy has become much more knowledge based. Notwithstanding, articulate campaigning groups such as the HMO Lobby have protested vigorously and it is the narrow interests of local residents, who simply do not want students on their doorsteps, against the wider interest. 20. Even if local authorities can be persuaded to review matters strategically and provide the necessary new housing units, whether locally or in co-operation with neighbouring authorities, there is then the problem of opposition on a case by case basis as individual planning applications are made subsequently. These can delay and change proposals. 21. The fundamental problem that we face is how micro decision making (which will frequently be against development) influences the macro/strategic approach which clearly demands new development. As an analogy, if we were to allow such a process of plan making to determine where new power stations, particularly nuclear power stations were built, the lights would start going out around 2017. 22. The RLA has strong reservation about the abolition of regional spatial strategies. Whilst we share widespread concerns about top down targets imposed from above and the target culture that has permeated Government over the last 10 years or so, we do not believe leaving matters to local planning authorities and hoping that incentives based on Council Tax will suffice. Unfortunately, we face deep rooted objections at local level to housing development generally. Objectors do not seem to make any connection between the success of their objections and the fact that their children are having to stay at home much longer and cannot afford to move out and buy a property, if they want to. 23. It is useful sometimes to look at the lessons of history. Since the end of the First World War we have essentially had three perhaps visionary movements to expand housing. In the inter war years there was the pressing need to replace appalling slums and we had widespread municipal housing built by local authorities. This movement was assisted by funding being made available by Central Government at the time particularly through the Public Works Loans Board. In the aftermath of the Second World War the then Government under Harold Macmillan, as Minister of Housing and Local Government responded to the overwhelming need of new housing as a result of bombing by adopting a targeted approach, primarily providing municipal housing. Alongside this in the 50s and 60s we saw the implementation of the new towns policy, with a mixture of private and public housing. 24. Subsequently, essentially demand led rather than planned, we have had the explosion of owner/occupation fuelled by greater prosperity and we have also had this peculiar British attitude that a house or a flat is not just one’s home but an investment. The three movements we have identified took place in times when local authorities assisted and encouraged by national government had a rather more visionary approach. We might not always have liked the results and the architectural design and quality of the building in the 1960s is an example of this. On the other hand, it did produce the necessary increase in the number of dwelling units. At the moment we seemed to lack this vision and resources to implement it, even though for rather different reasons, the need is precisely the same. 25. The RLA believes that without setting objectives for housing provision even though this is urgently required it is not going to be met. We need the carrot and stick approach. We also need sensible planning policies in relation to densities. However, we are running out of brown field sites that are viable. You can only squeeze so much of a quart into a pint pot. The reality is that with a growing population and greater affluence we do have to look more and more at green field sites. Surveys have shown that England in particular is one of the, if not the most, densely populated countries in the world but we still have to remember that only six or 7% of the land area is urbanised, to put it into context. 26. We are not sure what impact the new National Planning Framework referred to in the Coalition Agreement will have and how far this will address this particular issue. However, in our view housing needs to be planned at least in general terms at a regional and sub-regional level to ensure that there is adequate provision going forward. 27. The problem at the moment with finding meaningful financial incentives to local authorities is the need to reduce the deficit and get the public finances back into order. The current proposal to give local authorities a sum equivalent to six years Council Tax for newly provided housing stock is, we feel, an insufficient carrot. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w131

28. In our view individual local authorities have to be given a positive mission to find the necessary land, to determine locations, to shape design, to shape house types, densities and so on. They have to respond to local demand for particular types of housing, for example. At the same time, it has to be remembered that the providers, be they house builders, landlords in the PRS or whoever have to make economic decisions in the interests of their business. We consider that this has to be done strategically in line with the national need for housing but planned on a regional and sub-regional basis. We consider that local authorities have to be given a mission in terms of overall numbers required in their area in the national interest. 29. We are coming out of a period where there has been excessive targeting. The danger is that when a new policy is introduced such as localism it is that we swing far too much in the opposite direction. Rather, we should be looking at a middle ground to mix the best of both approaches and housing provision is a key example where this kind of approach is needed. There also needs to be rewards/extra revenue to local authorities for implementing what is needed from them is a welcome approach and experience shows that it usually works. 30. Local planning can play a very important part in the overall process. For example, one of the current needs is more bungalow provision to meet the needs of an increasingly elderly population. This is something that definitely does need to be dealt with at a local level. However, the RLA still feels that the overall plan needs to be set on a regional/sub-regional basis and a national level. This is important to ensure that overall we have an adequate number of houses/flats provided to meet the ongoing increasing demand.

Conclusion 31. Landlords in the PRS have a vital interest in ensuring that there is a sufficient supply of housing. The current problems being experienced by owner/occupiers more as a result of the credit crunch and the recession mean that there is likely to be little growth in this sector in real terms in the short to medium term. We believe that with the relatively low gearing of the PRS there is significant opportunity for landlords in the PRS to invest and expand their portfolios to meet the increasing need. This is likely to happen more rapidly than a revival of the owner/occupier sector. However, by leaving matters simply to local authorities because of the strength of local opposition we believe that so far as housing provision is concerned the abolition of the regional spatial strategies will in time be seen to have been a mistake. September 2010

Written evidence from David Lock Associates (ARSS 66) Executive Summary of Evidence S1.1 The abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies has led to confusion and uncertainty in the planning process. It has led to delays and abandonment in preparing development proposals and in local planning functions. S1.2 Housing delivery rates will fall. This is a result of delays due to uncertainty, and as a result of planning authorities believing that they have the opportunity to reduce delivery targets. I do not agree that the presumption that housing targets can be reduced is well founded, and I believe that the disparity between housing need and housing delivery will increase. S1.3 Some important planning functions previously undertaken by the Regional Spatial Strategy will need to be addressed by different means. This includes strategic infrastructure planning and the mediation of national and local planning objectives. S1.4 The proposed community incentive fails to link housing need and delivery and instead establishes a crude financial incentive. There will be a need to establish a transparent and democratic method for managing communities’ expectations of incentives available, and to ensure effective delivery of community benefits in a way which benefits all parts of society. S1.5 I believe that the void created between national and local planning must be filled where a need for delivering specific national objectives arises.

1.0 Introduction 1.01 My name is Lawrence Revill, I am the Managing Director of David Lock Associates. I am a Chartered Town Planner and have more than 30 years of professional experience. My company provides consultancy advice on matters relating to town planning, urban design and master planning. It was formed in 1987 and operates nationally and internationally employing 47 professional staff. Our clients are drawn from the public and private sectors and include local planning authorities, non-departmental public bodies, other public agencies, private landowners and developers. 1.02 My firm is employed to advise on planning strategy and other planning matters and to prepare planning guidance, strategies and development proposals (including outline and full planning applications). It specialises in providing advice at a strategic scale and for proposals where complex planning and design issues arise. Our projects may last for just a few months to a decade or more. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w132 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

1.03 My colleagues and I deal with Local Development Frameworks and, until recently, Regional Spatial Strategies on a daily basis. We have represented a broad range of clients at Regional Spatial Strategy Examinations across the country, and previously provided an equivalent role in relation to Regional Planning Guidance. We are therefore very familiar with the role of regional planning and its interrelationships with and implications for national and local planning and the delivery of development. The health of the development sector has real and early consequences for the business performance of David Lock Associates. 1.04 My evidence is presented in the following order. First, I set out my and my colleagues’ experience of the immediate consequences of the abolition of the regional spatial strategies; I then consider the implications. I then consider the emerging proposals for housing delivery incentives and set out my views on what should then be done.

2.0 The Immediate Consequences of the Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies 2.01 The abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) has led to confusion, prevarication and uncertainty amongst those proposing development and to uncertainty and inertia amongst those responsible for planning for sustainable growth in planning authorities. This is particularly true for medium and large scale proposals (which I consider to be in the order of around 200 to 1,000 dwellings, and 1,000 or more dwellings, respectively). 2.02 In the case of the public sector, decisions (which have seldom been timely) on how to proceed, if at all, with the various Local Development Documents forming part of the Local Development Framework have been beset by further delay, uncertainty and political procrastination. In the case of the private sector, investment decisions have been delayed. I deal with these in turn. 2.03 There has been a well-publicised destabilisation of both the political and technical aspects of public sector forward planning functions. The removal of a key component of the statutory Development Plan has led to uncertainty about the validity and robustness of plans prepared in accordance with the now abolished RSS. It has caused uncertainty as to how to continue, if at all, with plans in preparation. 2.04 Our recent experience suggests that there is a widely-held expectation among local authorities of the emergence of further guidance about how to proceed. It is becoming evident that government believes that planning authorities have all they need to proceed with their forward planning104, but this has not been made explicit and so is not reflected amongst Councillors or planning officers. This has translated into planning paralysis. This in turn has compounded confusion in the private sector, reinforcing general uncertainty and perception of risk. Risk is the greatest disincentive to investment, irrespective of need and demand. 2.05 In terms of the private sector, my experience (and that of my colleagues) is that there has been massive uncertainty which has led to delays in decisions about whether to invest in drawing up proposals for new housing development and leading to a reduction in the level of investment. This trend is particularly acute where development is dependent on major upfront investment. This has meant stalling and, in some cases, the abandonment of development proposals. This is a consequence of a forward planning and development control process which has no clear or consistent understanding about which planning policy carries material weight, which may be subject to early review, and a lack of clarity as to whether any new (and decisive) guidance is to be issued. In simple terms, the rules by which any planning application may be judged are no longer clear to the judges, and the rules that govern how proposals should be formulated have yet to be re-written. 2.06 This has led directly to fewer new proposals being commissioned from companies such as mine, and a slow down in the progress of those proposals already being promoted. A number of clients have decided to defer the preparation or submission of planning applications, including delaying master planning work which will underpin those development proposals. 2.07 There has been much greater emphasis on progressing small scale proposals (typically those with fewer than 200 dwellings) which can progress without reference to a regional spatial planning perspective or emerging Local Development Frameworks. In the short term such proposals will make a modest contribution to housing supply, but it is likely that there will be a catastrophic reduction in housing delivery in the medium term as the gap in delivery from currently stalled strategic sites becomes more apparent. 2.08 The initial consequences of the abolition of the RSS has therefore been uncertainty among development promoters and the stalling of housing delivery.

Implications for housing delivery 2.09 The abolition of the RSS has created a gap in the hierarchy of planning policy whose functionality was steered by the existence of a regional planning process. That is not say that the RSS was always the most effective or appropriate tool (the regional planning process was undoubtedly flawed), but it was nonetheless the only link between the abstractions of national planning and site specific local planning. The LDF structure was the local manifestation of the Regional Plan. Its removal therefore gives rise to a vacuum in strategic 104 Steve Quartermain, Chief Planner CLG, remarks during closing speech, TCPA Planning Summer School, 10 September 2010. See also the reporting of this by the President of the Planning Summer School at http://www.planningsummerschool.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117:presidents-blog-friday-10- september&catid=3:newsflash&Itemid=111 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w133

planning terms. I return to the question of whether this void should be filled in subsequent sections of this submission.

2.10 In the absence of the RSS, and in the absence of anticipated guidance about what local planning authorities should do next, Councils have prevaricated. This situation has allowed some political posturing to occur that is unconstrained by a proper understanding of community needs. This, in my view, is regrettable. My company has direct experience of many local planning authorities where the production or approval of Local Development Framework documents is delayed because Councillors now believe that they are free to determine much lower development targets and Council officers have not been robust on the evidence that they already have on requirements and needs. Certainly, the previous system established a higher housing delivery target than many Councils may wish to meet, but that alone did not mean that those targets were wrong. Local evidence of requirements and needs regularly indicates targets higher than those adopted in RSSs. As yet the joy that comes with the freedom to set local targets is not tempered by awareness of the responsibility to plan properly for all members of the communities; those who have not as much as those who already have and shout loudest while pulling up the drawbridge.

2.11 So an impression that this was an entirely top-down target is inaccurate—the targets were generally based on discussions between constituent authorities, drawing on statistical evidence published by government and local research. The final RSS targets were usually the result of horse-deals between elected Authorities to address the forecasts of household growth and job needs that are not contested by the new Government. So the demographic that underpin the requirements and needs are unchanged. Reducing targets without having actually considered the reality of the underlying demographic and local community requirements and needs is a false dawn.

2.12 Powerful evidence is already available to planning authorities in the form of their Strategic Housing Market Assessments, although many elected members appear to be blissfully unaware of their existence, contents and their consequences. This evidence has usefully been collated by Shelter105 and provides a stark picture of the consequences of failure to meet housing need.

2.13 It is clear to our company that a significant number of planning authorities believe that the inevitable consequence of the abolition of RSSs is that housing delivery can and should reduce. We tend to agree that delivery rates are likely to fall, but needs will grow. A general housing shortage and continued house price inflation will turn this into a housing crisis.

Other implications

2.14 Alongside the matter of identifying what level of development is appropriate for an area sits the question of how that development should be served in terms of infrastructure? I consider the term “infrastructure” to encompass social, community, transportation and utilities networks.

2.15 The RSS provided a basis for the identification and co-ordination of strategic and cross-boundary infrastructure by providing a framework for assessment, investment and delivery, aligned with the spatial distribution of development proposed. This provided useful (though not faultless) guidance to infrastructure providers as to the broad location and scale of development for which investment would be required. The RSS process also allowed infrastructure providers—including those proposing strategic infrastructure as part of their development proposals—to have an influence over the spatial planning of the region in a single forum. I have direct experience where this forward planning of development and infrastructure has provided certainty to both Core Strategy Examinations and at Inquiry into Section 78 planning appeals. I do not believe that such certainty exists any longer.

2.16 It is not clear to me or to my colleagues how this coordination of infrastructure and development will now happen. This uncertainty may result in uncoordinated and ineffective infrastructure investment that will adversely affect the deliverability of new housing. Private sector developers alone do not have the capacity or capability to deliver strategic infrastructure. While it is right for them to contribute to the cost if its delivery, they cannot and should not be expected to coordinate, plan and deliver this infrastructure in response to other proposals beyond their control. This can and must be undertaken in response to an overall spatial plan.

2.17 The RSS also provided a mechanism for mediating between the local and the national interest. I firmly believe that securing an adequate supply of housing to meet demonstrated needs is a matter of national importance. I can only assume that in choosing not to revoke specific and relevant sections106 of Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) Housing in June 2010 (when other sections were removed), that the Government shares that view. The revocation of RSSs has eliminated an important balancing mechanism, removing the means of reconciling local and national interests when undertaking forward planning. This is a fundamental weakness which will give rise to considerable housing under-supply in the medium and long term. There is also considerable danger that short-term political influences will have a negative impact on housing delivery by disrupting supply or periods of instability relating to the local political cycle. 105 See http://localhousingwatch.org.uk/ 106 See paragraphs 10 and 33 of Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) Housing, CLG, June 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w134 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

3.0 Incentives for the Delivery of New Housing 3.01 Some details of the proposed housing delivery incentives have been announced, although there remain uncertainty about the affordability of that mechanism and how and when it is to be implemented. 3.02 It is unclear how the incentive scheme will relate to housing need—the mechanism announced so far appears to provide a financial reward for delivering housing, regardless of whether the amount of housing delivered is sufficient to meet identified local housing requirements and needs. Thus the mechanism appears to ignore any national objectives for housing delivery (in relation to demographic need and household formation rates), and will emphasise housing as a commodity rather than a fundamental human right. There is considerable potential for those authorities not in need of further financial support to simply turn away housing proposals and for those in need of financial support to find it difficult to refuse proposals, irrespective of local requirements and needs. This approach appears to fundamentally distort the principle that housing supply should respond to assessed housing needs and be underpinned by rational spatial planning. 3.03 Such additional financial demands could simply divert payments from existing mechanisms. It is not realistic to expect that existing S106 obligations, with or without a further or offset CIF contribution, can be maintained alongside a third mechanism for financial contribution to the mitigation of impacts of development. 3.04 It is also unclear if and how monies received to ring-fence them so that they are spent in a way that relates to the proposed development and its local context. There will be a need for Councils to define who benefits and how they should benefit—there is no clarity on what process will be used to manage this, or who should be the decision makers. There will immense pressure on Elected Members because of the very significant financial incentives which could conflict with other planning considerations. Sophisticated mechanisms will be needed to effectively balance financial considerations against environmental, infrastructure and social issues. 3.05 Information released to date suggests limited control or “ring-fencing”, which offers affected communities little certainty that they will benefit from the payments received by the planning authority and how a mechanism for accountable and transparent decision making will be established. Crucially, a mechanism would need to ensure that the widest needs of a community are met—not just the needs of those who present their case most forcibly or most eloquently. 3.06 Finally, I consider that this mechanism has the potential to encourage a disproportionate negative response. There is a significant risk of an increase in opposition to planning applications as a covert means of trying to extract further mitigation measures. This leads to the potential for corruption of true opinions of the acceptability of development that could divert monies away from mitigating impacts and delivering higher quality services and facilities. 3.07 In our view, increasing the scale of the incentive to ensure that all authorities deliver some level of housing is not a plausible answer. This will simply increase the potential for financial distortions and still fails to link housing need with housing supply. Much better to create an obligation to meet needs as the fundamental starting point. 3.08 Critically, we believe that any incentive to deliver housing must link to a demonstrable need for housing in a locality. We see no evidence of that in the proposals set out. We have little confidence that this mechanism is an appropriate or effective means of ensuring that housing needs are met.

4.0 Delivering a New Cooperative Planning 4.01 I believe that there is a need to bridge the newly created gap between national and local planning. This need not mean the creation of an alternative regional planning approach—there was much that was cumbersome and ineffective in the regional planning system and subsequent regional spatial strategies. What is needed, however, is a means of ensuring that national planning policy objectives are achieved, and of coordinating effort to deliver specific objectives within identified spatial areas. 4.02 The identified spatial areas may be defined by central government as areas in which change is necessary to meet national policy objectives, or could be defined by partnerships in local government as areas where change is sought and promoted. These would tend to be functional areas related to settlement patterns with social and economic relationships, unconstrained by administrative boundaries. In any event, there needs to be a basis for infrastructure investment decisions, and where necessary, effective cross boundary working and cooperation. It is in this context that a “duty to cooperate” would be necessary to ensure effective spatial planning. 4.03 Under a localism agenda the nature and scale of such change would be driven by local views, delivered in a “bottom-up” approach, in the context of local evidence of requirements and needs. However, it should be recognised that in some areas where critical issues arise, encouragement must be supported by enforcement and a formal duty to cooperate should be established. 4.04 These spatial areas would respond to a requirement to plan beyond narrow local interests, respond to national inequalities, provide for strategic and inter-local infrastructure or to address pressures arising from demographic change. The ambition must be to balance strategic and local interests to ensure that neither cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w135

dominates. The underlying principle however, is to recognise that unfettered localism has the potential to lead to isolationism and unenlightened self-interest. This should be avoided, and need not preclude collaborative and accountable local-decision making.

4.05 The issue of which organisations should be tasked with this supra-local planning will need careful consideration. The previous regional planning bodies developed a reputation for being cumbersome, remote and out of touch with local planning sensitivities. There was often antagonism between regional and local planning bodies. Locally-generated structures would conform to the localism agenda, but need to transcend a purely local standpoint—they should have a responsibility to wider interests and deliver in the context of wider needs. Critically, there needs to be adequate professional input, and a participative and democratic localism.

4.06 It is not clear to us whether Local Economic Partnerships are the solution—proposals were prepared to meet an unrealistic deadline at a time of significant change and uncertainty. Careful consideration needs to be given to ensuring appropriate and robust mechanisms for dealing with supra-local planning—this is unlikely to have happened in this first burst of restructuring. September 2010

Written evidence from Ashfield District Council107 (ARSS 67)

Summary of Key Points — Local people and district councillors considered they had little or no influence on the housing numbers and housing requirements which they felt were imposed on them by the Regional Spatial Strategy. This was reflected during the consultation period for the Core Strategy Preferred Option published earlier this year. There was very strong opposition to the larger urban extensions proposed from existing communities. The urban extensions were deemed necessary in order to meet the housing targets that had been provided by the RSS. — The Council is supportive of the RSS being replaced by a more localised system but simply abolishing the RSS has resulted in a number of issues for the Council. These include: a local policy gap, how to determine the long-term housing requirement, an infrastructure policy gap and issues over what now constitutes a five year housing supply. — The Council considers there is a requirement for some strategic planning. One of the principle benefits from the policies within the East Midlands Regional Plan (1) has been that it has initiated the working together of local planning authorities. Planning at a more strategic level is necessary to set out priorities for investment and to tackle issues which go beyond neighbourhood and district boundaries—ensuring sustainable and demand led growth. — Cross boundary working is likely to continue but a duty to co-operate does not mean that it will result in aligned plans. — If a bottom up approach to housing is to be adopted through localism, it has to be accepted that it may not achieve the housing figures identified by the research undertaken by the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit. — The revocation of the RSS has left a gap at a local level in terms of longer-term housing requirements. — From the Council’s experience, large scale development is usually controversial and it is unlikely that any reasonable level of incentives can persuade people to accept housing development when the reality is that it will change the local landscape which they value. Under the new proposals, Local Authorities may be put in an invidious position of trying to balance the much needed revenue from incentives against the concerns of local communities. — There are difficulties in getting local people involved in matters of strategic planning. From the responses received to the Council’s consultations it was clear that, despite all the consultation undertaken by the Council, local people were unaware of the housing requirements for the District or simply ignored it on the grounds it was unlikely to directly impact upon them. — The current system of LDF is too complicated and takes too long and it needs to be simplified. Change is required but this can be achieved through changes to regulations and simpler policy guidance to make the system more effective and easier to understand for Members, Officers and the community. — One of the key aspects raised by local people in relation to housing proposals was the inadequacy of the local infrastructure to take more housing developments. New housing needs to be accompanied by the appropriate infrastructure, particularly if local people are going to support further development. Clarity on this link is vital in order to overcome opposition and make development truly sustainable. 107 It should be noted that the response has been provided by Officers from Ashfield District Council and has not been formally endorsed by Members of the Council. To this end the comments provided are from a professional and not a political standpoint. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w136 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

1. Ashfield District Council 1.1 Ashfield District is located on the western side of Nottinghamshire. The Council serves an estimated population of 116,450 (mid-2008 ONS). The majority of this population together with associated housing, jobs and services are concentrated within the three main towns of Sutton in Ashfield, Hucknall and Kirkby in Ashfield together with three large villages in the substantial rural area mainly to the west of the M1 motorway. 1.2 As a local planning authority, the Council is under a statutory obligation to prepare local development documents under Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and is required to control development under Part III of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

2. Response Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) 2.1 There is little doubt that the RSS was remote from local people. The Council’s experience in undertaking consultations on the Core Strategy was that the majority of people in the district were unaware of the East Midlands Regional Plan (the RSS)(1) and its implications. Local authorities also became less relevant in planning terms as the housing numbers and their distribution were determined at a regional level. The Council’s Core Strategy(2) was substantially shaped by the East Midlands Regional Plan which not only identified the specific housing numbers but also their broad location. Policies within the RSS required new houses to be located in and around the urban areas of Mansfield-Ashfield and Hucknall (emanating from a policy of urban concentration). From the responses on the Core Strategy consultation and the comments of District Councillors, it is clear that both local people and Members considered they had little or no influence on the housing numbers and housing requirements were imposed on them by the RSS. 2.2 The Council would give broad support to the RSS being replaced by a more localised system which allows for meaningful consultation and for decisions to be made at a local level. However, simply abolishing the RSS has resulted in a number of issues for the Council which include: — A local policy gap—Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that applications for planning permission should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan consisted of two elements: (a) The East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS). (b) The Local Plan or where adopted the Local Development Framework. In accordance with Government guidance, a number of policies in the Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002 were not saved on the basis that they were repeated in the Joint Structure Plan, which in turn was replaced with policies with the RSS. The abolition of the RSS has resulted in not just the housing numbers being removed but also all the other policies within the Plan. Effectively part of the development plan no longer exists. Consequently, the Council is reliant on the saved policies in the Ashfield Local Plan Review,(3) which expires in 2011 and national planning policy statements/ guidance. This includes for example flooding, where the Council no longer has any local flooding policies. — Issues around the determination of long-term housing requirements. How are these to be determined and who provides the technical expertise for population/household projections? — An infrastructure policy gap—It has left a policy gap in relation to making major investment decisions in infrastructure. — Uncertainty on the five year housing supply—Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3)(4) identifies that the Council should have a five year housing supply and there is a presumption in favour of granting permission where there is less than a five year housing supply (PPS 3 paragraph 71). The letter from the Chief Planner at the Department for Communities and Local Government dated 6 July 2010(5) stresses that authorities should have a five year land supply of deliverable sites. What the letter fails to do is identify what the five year housing supply is to be based now the housing figures in the RSS have been revoked? This has created uncertainty and confusion for local planning authorities, agents, house builders and the local community. It also increases the likelihood of appeals against planning determinations until such time as there is some clarity on this issue.

Localism 2.3 Planning has always reflected the need to incorporate and balance international, national, regional, sub- regional and local issues. However, in recent years there has been an increasing prescriptive approach from national planning statements and regional planning. For example, Planning Policy Statement 4(6) emphasis economic issues over social or environmental aspects. It also states in paragraph 3 that “It is only necessary for the development plan to reformulate development management policies in this PPS 4 if there are specific factors justifying variation of these policies. “It is felt that “Place shaping” needs to be undertaken at a local level rather than being prescribed at national and regional levels. Therefore, the Council is supportive of a local approach to planning where planning reflects the aspirations of local communities. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w137

2.4 Nevertheless, the Council also recognises that there are distinct dangers if there is a total absence of any level of strategic planning. One of the principle benefits from the policies within the East Midlands Regional Plan is the working together of local planning authorities. This has been seen both in developing an evidence base and in an aligned Core Strategy for the Greater Nottingham area. However, since the Coalition’s announcements on the revocation of the RSS, the aligned Core Strategy across Greater Nottingham has been put on hold. Planning at a more strategic level is necessary to set out priorities for investment and to tackle issues which go beyond neighbourhood and district boundaries. This can include issues such as the local economy, transport, flooding, water resources and the protection and enhancement of the environment. Therefore, localism has to be seen in the context of where it is necessary to plan for some issues at a larger scale, recognising that meeting the needs of the wider community may have an impact on a more localised neighbourhood. This is recognised in the governments LEP proposals so there appears to be a policy discord in this respect. 2.5 To date local council’s in Nottinghamshire have worked together and this is likely to continue into the future as there as costs saving through providing a shared evidence base. However, without a duty to co- operate there is a danger that the benefits of cross boundary working may be lost in the localism agenda. Nevertheless, a duty to co-operate does not mean that it is necessary to produced aligned plans. If there is a significant need for housing development in Greater Nottingham, this may require substantial areas of green belt land around Nottingham to be released and for neighbouring authorities in Greater Nottingham to work together. Without some form of policy obligation, as was set out in the EMRP, it is much more questionable whether there will be an aligned Core Strategy for Greater Nottingham, for understandably, local councillors are concerned with their immediate area. 2.6 The taking forward of a localism agenda is likely to require a number of actions including: (a) The Council in terms of both Councillors and Officers in engaging with the local community in quickly producing a long term plan for the place shaping of the District. (b) Planning, and Housing Officers to provide an up to date evidence base of local housing needs. (c) Councillors to accept that there is a requirement for them to be properly trained on planning and development to support localism. (d) For Councils, developers and local communities to work together particularly on master plans and area action plans.

Future Housing Requirements 2.7 The revocation of the RSS has left a gap in terms of housing requirements. The “Open Source Planning” Green Paper suggests that regional targets and regional plans should be replaced with local targets based on assessments of housing need. However, with the revocation of the RSS no interim arrangements have been put in place and no guidance has been provided in relation to undertaking a “local” study of housing requirements. Under these circumstances, the Council has determined to put the housing requirements on hold until they are clarified by central government. This has resulted in a further delay to producing a Local Development Framework which relates to much more than just housing issues. 2.8 Local housing assessments are necessary but it is important that there is some degree of uniformity across councils in the techniques and methodology applied to identifying local housing needs. However, in our opinion it has to be accepted that if a bottom up approach to housing is to be adopted through localism, it is unlikely to achieve the level of housing building that research undertaken by the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit(7) has identified. 2.9 A more localised approach is likely to increase community buy in and may bring forward community–led development on a small scale. However, will this be the case if a significant housing requirement is identified? From the Council’s experience, large scale development is usually controversial. Proposals for large housing sites generate opposition from people who already have homes in the immediate vicinity of the proposals and are looking to protect the local environment in which they live from change. It is unlikely that any reasonable level of incentives will persuade people to accept the housing development required when the reality is that it will change the local landscape they value. What is often not heard from in our consultations is the silent element of the community for whom affordable housing is required or who are priced out of the housing market by the relationship between local incomes and house prices. Affordability remains a key element of delivering sustainable and targetted housing growth to support socio-economic change. 2.10 There is a need for a local evidence base of housing requirements together with infrastructure requirements which provides a base for formulating the LDF. The question that arises is how to take forward planning decisions reflecting the evidence base which may be opposed by local people in a specific neighbourhood? 2.11 Localism will put far more responsibility on local councillors and proper support and training is required. In these circumstances, local councils need to make difficult choices in the context of being fully informed by an evidence base and the interests of local people. Further, local councillors need to be able to participate in local decisions and engage with the community at both pre and post application stages. This means that issues relating to probity need to be considered and clearly set out as part of any future guidance. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w138 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

2.12 In essence, the housing requirement comes back to the traditional planning dilemma of balancing economic, social and environmental issues against the need for a democratic process that enables communities to influence how their local area develops.

Community engagement 2.13 There are difficulties in getting local people involved in planning. The Council took a number of steps to increase awareness in the District of the housing requirements (11,200 dwellings for the period 2006 to 2026). This included: a leaflet being distributed to every household in the District to highlight the issues surrounding the LDF and, in particular, the need for 11,200 houses in the District. Extensive additional consultation was also undertaken. Nevertheless, it was not until strategic sites were allocated in the Core Strategy Preferred Options document that local people became significantly involved in the consultation, opposing the proposed sites close to their homes. 2.14 Currently, community empowerment in Ashfield has focused on tackling key local objectives, eg community safety, environmental improvement and front-line service delivery. However, spatial planning, is vital to place shaping and people need to be engaged so that they feel they have a real stake in changes to where they live and work. In this context, the current system relating to the LDF is too complicated and confusing for local people and needs to be simplified and reformed as opposed to being abolished per se. Local communities and organisations have contributed towards the Council’s Core Strategy and this work needs to be carried forward. Reform is required but this can be achieved through simpler changes to regulations and policy guidance to make the system more effective, streamlined and easier to understand.

Infrastructure 2.15 A key aspect for any housing development is the associated infrastructure. From the consultations undertaken by the Council one of the key aspects raised by local people was the inadequacy of the local infrastructure to take more housing developments. Whether this was true or not, clearly new housing needs to be accompanied by the appropriate infrastructure, particularly if local people are going to support further development. This has a number of implications: (a) The infrastructure delivery plan needs to be retained if changes are made to the LDF. (b) There is a need for some strategic planning across district boundaries at a sub regional level across district boundaries. (c) How are improvements to the infrastructure to be financed given that: — low values in districts such as Ashfield limit opportunities for securing developer contributions to infrastructure, and — the public expenditure cuts will result in limited opportunities to undertake regeneration schemes? (d) Limited public investment in such areas as transport infrastructure programmes will impact on the local communities’ perception in relation to new housing and infrastructure requirements. (e) How will the proposed Local Enterprise Partnerships act as conduits for infrastructure investment into the district? (f) How does the government’s proposal for new schools fit into the localism agenda and infrastructure planning? It is stressed that it is important that the duty to co-operate does not simply relate to councils but on public bodies and on the utility companies such as Severn Trent Water if spatial planning is to be taken forward.

References (1) East Midlands Regional Plan 2009. Department of Communities and Local Government. www.gos.gov.uk/497296/docs/229865/East_Midlands_Regional_Plan2.pdf (2) The Core Strategy The Preferred Option. March 2010. Ashfield District Council. www.ashfield-dc.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=10873001& (3) Ashfield Local Plan Review. November 2002. Ashfield District Council www.ashfield-dc.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=5071143& (4) Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing. June 2010. Department of Communities and Local Government. www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/planningpolicystatement3.pdf (5) Letter to Chief Planning Officers: Revocation of Regional Strategies. 6 July 2010. Chief Planner, Department for Communities and Local Government. www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1631904.pdf (6) Planning Policy Statement4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Development. December 2009. Department of Communities and Local Government. www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/planningpolicystatement4.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w139

(7) More homes for more people: advice to Ministers on housing levels to be considered in regional plans. July 2009. National Housing and Planning Advice Unit. www.communities.gov.uk/documents/507390/pdf/1299593.pdf September 2010

Written evidence from the House Builders Association (ARSS 69) Summary Abolition of Housing Targets — the effects of revocation of RSSs are of more immediate concern to housebuilders than the abolition of regional targets; — short term, the effects of the credit crunch are more significant than target numbers; and — longer term, guidance is needed on how to produce policies with housing numbers that are not maxima and which allow them to be exceeded if proposed development does no “harm”. Planned numbers will probably be reduced in many places, requiring this compensating flexibility in policy.

Revocation of RSSs — the abrupt revocation of RSSs has left a planning vacuum, which will obstruct viable planning applications in many places; and — the new planning system will not be operational for four years, so interim guidance is needed to prevent a lengthy hiatus in planning for housebuilding.

New Homes Bonus — it is difficult to judge the impact of the New Homes Bonus until the scale of grant reduction is known; and — it is equally important that Ministers address development viability in addition to incentivise local authorities. If houses cannot be built profitably the bonus will not be achieved by local authorities.

Local Enterprise Partnerships — there should not be too many LEPs and they should be sufficiently strategic in scale; — they currently seem to be driven by concerns about local authority groupings rather than their purpose and goals determining their geographic boundaries; and — They should be statutory consultees on cross-border matters, particularly infrastructure.

The Implications of the Abolition of Regional Housebuilding Targets for Levels of Housing Developments In the short term, the policy vacuum left by the revocation of RSSs is of greater concern to housebuilders than the longer-term effects of the abolition of regional and other targets. Discussions about housing numbers at RSS level and the work done by bodies such as the NHPAU have changed the terms of the debate significantly over the last decade and the need for substantial numbers of additional houses is now widely accepted across the political spectrum; even if not in the locations where it is most needed. It would be easy to claim that the abolition of regional targets will result in lower housebuilding levels, but that would be to ignore market realities in which, at present and, for the immediate future, housebuilding levels are determined by the effects of the credit crunch, economic uncertainty and mortgage shortages. It is, therefore, fair to claim as Ministers have, that planning targets do not build houses. However the absence of adequate targets can, and has in the past, restricted housebuilding output to below market demand levels. Thus targets are important. The issue for the future, without top-down targets, is to ensure that artificially low figures cannot simply be substituted at local level without proper evidence and without any sanction. The Coalition Government, as well as introducing new planning legislation, intends to seek Parliamentary approval for National Planning Guidance. We hope this will determine how far local authorities will be free to reduce numbers, the evidence required to justify numbers and whether housing numbers are to be the sole criteria for policy in local plans and for testing planning applications, or whether other more flexible, criteria-based policies will be encouraged as well (eg whether a particular planning application involves sustainable development and it does no harm to the objectives of the plan). While it seems very likely that the policy targets in many high demand areas will be reduced, it will depend on the nature of planning guidance issued whether those numbers are absolute constraints (i.e. a ceiling not to be exceeded) or just one measure amongst others for determining planning applications and hence housebuilding output. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w140 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

The Revocation of RSSs The revocation of RSSs was clearly foreshadowed in the Conservative Party’s policy documents before the General Election and is also set out in the Coalition Agreement. It was therefore not a surprise. However what has surprised and greatly concerned housebuilders is the way revocation occurred, with seemingly inadequate attention being paid to the need for transitional guidance. The result has been an abrupt withdrawal of adopted and emerging plans by some local authorities, which has created a planning vacuum in many places and left housebuilders without the planning framework or plan backing required to make planning applications. This will both disrupt medium-term flows of land in the development pipeline and also block opportunities for smaller sites that could come forward for development now. There is a wealth of evidence of the range of local authority responses to revocation. Tetlow King carried out an initial survey for NHF and DPDS (planning consultants) have published a further survey of local authorities in the South West. Through its members, published sources and other contacts, HBA has compiled a short summary of responses from a range of local authorities across the country (attached). These sources reveal four broad categories of response by local authorities: 1. business as usual; continued support for Core Strategies based on RSS has tended to be the response in areas seeking regeneration mainly, not but exclusively, in the Midlands and North but including areas such as Dover while, in the same county, Ashford has suspended its Core Strategy; 2. existing approved or emerging Core Strategies suspended, without any indication what the result will be or when; 3. suspension in order to change policy—generally assumed to mean a reduction in housing numbers; and 4. suspension whilst waiting for guidance from Ministers. These last three are not mutually exclusive, often two are cited. In order to provide, insofar as possible in this difficult market, confidence that the planning system still supports the development of much needed homes, as well as the economic and employment benefits of building new homes, housebuilders had expected that Ministers would have provided: — a smooth and effective transition to the new system; and — instructions as to the evidence base and process required to make change. The lack of effective interim guidance has two particularly important consequences. First, housebuilders will lack the confidence to make planning applications during this hiatus and for as long as there is no enforceable timetable to end it. Second, the transition to a new system could last for at least four years, if local authorities, in the absence of anything to force their hand, continue to suspend local plans until the proposed new planning system completes its Parliamentary process and comes into effect (April 2012). This would then be followed by at least two years to produce a replacement plan. Planning for housebuilding cannot be left in limbo for that length of time. To enable the plan-led system to function and to provide a framework for planning applications, Government needs to provide local authorities with an indication of: — the timescale, preferably short, in which to make whatever changes they want to their plan; — in turn, Government should remove any doubts about possibly redundant work due to subsequent policy changes in eg the “Localism Bill”; — the evidence base that will be required for any proposed reduction in numbers previously in policy; — other tests of soundness eg, if reverting to old or saved plans, how out of date can they be; and — sanctions if the local authority keeps the plan in suspension. It is, of course, apparently in conflict with the freedoms the Government intends to allow local authorities under its localism agenda to impose any such requirements. However, allowing a hiatus which could possibly to last a considerable period, is also totally at odds with the Government’s own stated aim of securing high levels of housebuilding. Regardless of Ministers’ dissatisfaction with the target-led system, this cannot be switched-off overnight without effective and workable arrangements, leading into the new system which will only start to be fully operational in 2014.

New Homes Bonus We note and welcome the publication of the Government’s letter of intention to incentivise local authorities to build new homes. This is their proposed long-term antidote to the likely NIMBY-ism that would result from unchecked localism. We understand that local authorities can start to accrue the bonus from the next financial year which, in theory, should encourage them to start granting planning permissions now for building completions next year. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w141

We understand that the system is intended to be financially neutral, being funded from an overall reduction in grant funding to local authorities (the penalty), such reduction acting as an incentive to build homes to secure the bonus. However, although we can reasonably estimate the size of the bonus (eg if a local authority allows 500 homes to be built with a community charge averaging £1,500, it will receive £750,000 in year one and £4.5 million by year six; a total of £15.25 million in six years), we do not yet know the scale of the penalty. Thus it is impossible to judge its likely effectiveness at this stage although the views of local authorities will be more relevant than ours. However two points need to be made, reflecting matters of direct concern to housebuilders. First, Ministers will need to make clear in discussions with local authorities that the New Homes Bonus is part of a package of financial arrangements attaching to new homes, including CIL and S.106, if they are to understand the scale of incentive on offer. Second, in the current climate, with new house prices still 20% below 2007’s peak, the value of that package cannot be made too great or development viability will be further damaged. This requires that development viability be put at the heart of planning and that local authorities are issued with viability toolkits. So, while incentivising local authorities is one side of the coin, the other must be to reduce the burden of costly regulation which has been placed on housebuilders in recent years and which is now an obstacle to development. Incentivising local authorities by reducing their grants will be deeply unpopular with councillors and local communities if housebuilding does not increase, because homes cannot be built profitably. Government must therefore give as much attention to the problems of development viability as to the New Homes Bonus scheme, if it is to work in the marketplace. A consequence of abolishing regional level planning is the possible impact this could have on planning for the type of sustainable, low carbon energy supply that is critical to the achievement of zero carbon homes. Our work on this with major energy suppliers has highlighted this question and we believe that the loss of this aspect of regional level planning is deeply regrettable and that it is unlikely to be replicated under localism. We therefore believe that emerging Government proposals, as outlined in Grant Shapps Statement of 27 July, on the definition of zero carbon and to create carbon buy-out mechanisms, could also usefully incentivise local authorities. By supporting new build, local authorities could also obtain funding from this source to help them meet their own carbon reduction targets, either eg by retrofitting existing stock or building up funds for district level or other large scale energy schemes.

Local Enterprise Partnerships Too little is known about LEPs to comment sensibly at this stage but it is worth noting the wide variety of responses by local authorities (some of which are appended) and the pertinent comment in LGC which said that, “in recent weeks it had become increasingly clear that in some regions councils were involved in increasingly fractious disputes about who they ought to partner with as they put LEP proposals together ahead of the 6 September deadline”. It was concerned that, the more they became bogged down in arguments about geography, the less time they were spending on thinking through what a LEP should be for. Generally, LEPs should not be single authorities as that will result in too many to be effective: they should have a key role in advising on cross-boundary problems, particularly infrastructure and large scale development, and that the LEP should be a statutory consultee on development plans and major planning applications, which have cross-boundary impacts. September 2010

Written evidence from the Retirement Housing Group of the Home Builders Federation (ARSS 70) Summary — RSS policies were beginning to recognise the importance of providing housing suitable for older people. This recognition must be carried forward into National Planning Guidance; — A planning hiatus has arisen following the revocation of RSSs and CLG must clarify the role of local authorities until the new framework is put in place; — under the proposed new planning system housing targets must not be the only criterion for granting planning permission. Criteria-based approvals should supplement the policy numbers; — Local Enterprise Partnerships should support National Planning Guidance which recognises the housing needs of an ageing population and they should encourage local planning authorities to include suitable policies to provide such housing in their development plans; — it is difficult to evaluate the effect of the New Homes Bonus until 20 October when the outcome of the Spending Review is known but it must be structured in such a way that local communities see that it brings them direct benefits, unlike S.106 Agreements, which clearly did not address that problem or overcome local opposition; and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w142 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— in the light of the rapid growth in the number of older people as a proportion of the population consideration should be given to extending the proposed 125% incentive for social housing to specialist housing for older people to ensure an adequate supply of housing in the longer-term.

The Implications of the Abolition of Regional House Building Targets for Levels of Housing Development The widespread recognition at national policy level of the need to plan for an ageing and growing population (evidenced by PPS 3; “Lifetime Homes; Lifetime Neighbourhoods” and the Housing our Ageing Population: Panel for Innovation (HAPPI) Report)(1) was gradually being reflected in many regional spatial strategies, which were starting to acknowledge demographic trends and support the provision of suitable accommodation for an ageing population. Local planning authorities were required to take such regional policies into account when drawing up Core Strategies/Local Development Frameworks and no doubt they would have done so in due course. However as many have yet to be adopted it is difficult to assess how far that has been, or will be, taken into account at local level in future. This is a significant issue for local plan-making. Demographic modelling shows that many areas have high and growing numbers of older people. For example, in May the ONS published the 2008-based Sub-national Population Projections estimates(2) showing that 16% of the English population was over 65 in 2008, rising sharply to 2033, with some local authorities registering over 40% by then (West Somerset, Berwick on Tweed, South Shropshire and West Dorset, Rother and North Norfolk). We therefore hope that the National Planning Framework that government is to put before Parliament will not ignore the beneficial policy developments in RSSs, such as the recognition of the need to plan for housing for older people, and that this is included in the national guidance to which local planning authorities should have regard. Following the revocation of RSSs, we hope that local authorities will recognise existing national guidance and the extensive work carried out regionally and sub-regionally when they revise current plans or draw up new ones. However the hiatus caused by the revocation of RSSs and the confusion created by the abolition of the regional tier is a concern, with Government issuing no clear interim guidance for local planning authorities on how to proceed during the transitional period. Many local authorities have suspended the plan process or asked to withdraw plans so they can consider the implications of the potential changes to the system, and take these into account in preparing the consultation documents. For example, Hart DC said it wanted to avoid any decisions being taken that were later proved to be unsound or unnecessary. There could be a hiatus of at least four years if some local authorities suspend local plans until a) the new planning system completes its Parliamentary process and comes into effect and b) replacement plans are drawn up and adopted. Because of the current policy confusion neither local authorities nor retirement housing developers are clear how to proceed. If this situation persists for any length of time there will be a significant hiatus in the development pipeline. We therefore urge that that, as well as relying on the New Homes Bonus, Ministers issue fuller guidance under the new system to ensure local authorities know how to calculate housing numbers, even if they are totally responsible for the actual number, and that the criterion for determining planning applications will not be based simply on numbers but will also include the absence of harm to the plan to enable acceptable windfall sites to be developed.

Local Enterprise Partnerships CLG and BIS propose that Local Enterprise Partnerships, which should include groups of upper tier authorities, take over responsibility for planning and housing, local transport and infrastructure from RDAs and provide strategic leadership at sub-regional level. On 14 July Housing Minister Grant Shapps said: “We are scrapping regional planning... removing the regional tier of Government...Regional Spatial Strategies and top-down housing targets. Instead, through Local Enterprise Partnerships, we are placing responsibility for economic development with the people who really understand the challenges and opportunities their area faces.” So how large a role will LEPs have on housing and planning matters? Will they be adequately funded to play an effective part at sub-regional level? Will they undertake research and issue information and guidance to local planning authorities? We believe that their role should include the identification of the housing and social care needs of ageing populations in their sub-regions and the provision of an appropriate framework for policy implementation at local level. Planning magazine commented on 3 September “...a clear blueprint for what LEPs should be doing, how they will do it and how their performance can be judged is noticeable by its absence...Without thinking through cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w143

these basic ideas, ministers risk being forced to intervene further down the line. Without a proper remit, there will be no proper results.” Government has said that more information about the new sub-regional LEP structure will be available after the Spending Review in October. We hope this includes details of their relationship with local planning authorities and whether this will ensure that there is appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies. We would urge Government to devise such a blueprint, together with a framework to evaluate performance, before the Spending Review and any public announcement on LEPs, and we look forward to learning more about their role, funding and relationship with local planning authorities in the expectation that it will support positive policy making in this area.

New Homes Bonus We are also invited to comment on the likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing. It is difficult to judge the likely effectiveness of the Bonus because there has been little additional detail provided since Conservative Policy Green Papers Nos. 9 and 10 were published in 2009. Policy Green Paper No. 10 said: “...we will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built” and “We will therefore consult on how to build on and augment our council tax incentive scheme in order to increase the incentive for councils to deliver affordable houses.” Recently CLG Minister Bob Neill commented (8 September) that the new homes bonus scheme would include funding at 125% for social or other affordable housing. It could reasonably be argued that a similar, enhanced, incentive for local authorities who supported specialised housing schemes for older people should also be given serious consideration, bearing in mind the need to provide for our rapidly ageing population. If the building of more such properties were encouraged by local planning authorities, older people could remain independent for longer, with a better quality of life, thereby relieving the burden on NHS, welfare and social services and freeing up family-sized homes for families. It is very important that any incentive scheme is seen by local communities to be bringing them directly- related benefits arising from new development in their area. If there has been concern in the past that S.106 Agreements have failed to deliver this then the Bonus must identify and resolve the problem if, as the Government intends, it is to overcome opposition and win supporters for development. We would welcome further information on how the New Homes Bonus will work and how this will related to the Government’s revised proposals for a Community Infrastructure Levy which they say, together, will “send a very clear signal that local authorities that choose to go for growth...will receive substantial extra funding for doing so.”(3) We would be pleased to supply more information to answer further questions if the Committee would find this helpful.

References (1) The Government-commissioned HAPPI (Housing our Ageing Population: Panel for Innovation) to produce a Report which was published in December 2009, recommending that “Central Government prioritises the building of new homes for our ageing population as a key component of its housing, health and care policies”. (2) Subnational Population Projections (SNPP) for England Statistical Bulletin—2008-based www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=997 (3) Housing Minister Grant Shapps’ letter of 9 August to local authority leaders formally announcing the New Homes Bonus. September 2010

Written evidence from Building and Social Housing Foundation (BSHF) (ARSS 71) Executive Summary — The Building and Social Housing Foundation (BSHF) is an independent housing research charity which is committed to ensuring access to decent and affordable housing for all. — BSHF has undertaken research into the likely impact of the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) on regions in the Midlands and the North of England. The following recommendations are based on the findings of this research (summarised in this submission) and on previous work by BSHF on “the future of housing”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w144 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— BSHF welcomes the government’s acknowledgement of the broad need for additional housing supply but recommends that it should be clarified into a commitment to act to deliver sufficient housing supply to meet need. — BSHF recommends that the government should urgently act to reduce the current uncertainty by requiring local authorities to publicly register their housebuilding targets or timetable for revision. Proposed changes to the planning system should include a mechanism for local authorities to publish both their housebuilding targets and actual completions. — BSHF recommends that the RSS housing target be made the explicit default target in every area that has not formally adopted an alternative figure. This would not prevent local authorities from setting their own targets, but would minimise the potential for harmful policy voids as there would be a default target in place until and unless an alternative was set at the local level. — BSHF recommends that the government ensures that adequate technical and methodological support is provided to local authorities to ensure that their assessment of housing need is robust. — BSHF recommends that the government clarifies how it will monitor the impact of policy changes at a local and national level to ensure that they are having the desired impact. Sufficient data and analysis should be made freely available to local authorities and the public to ensure accountability and transparency. — BSHF recommends that the government should clarify how local authorities determine “local need” for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation with specific reference to when Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments should be updated. — BSHF recommends that the government should require each local authority to publish their targets for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and actual completions on an annual basis. As above, this information should be collated centrally and published by CLG, to improve transparency and aid monitoring. This will help to ensure that the costs of undersupply are minimised. The Building and Social Housing Foundation (BSHF) is an independent housing research charity which is committed to ensuring access to decent and affordable housing for all. BSHF holds Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. In June 2009 BSHF organised a Consultation at St George’s House, Windsor Castle. It was chaired by Lord Richard Best and brought together practitioners and academics from a wide range of housing-related backgrounds to examine “The Future of Housing”. This submission is based on the findings of that Consultation108 and on original research conducted by BSHF.109 More detailed information can be found on the BSHF website (www.bshf.org) or on request from the organisation.

1. Recognition of the continued importance of long term undersupply of housing 1.1 In their announcement of the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies the coalition government highlighted that housebuilding had dropped to its lowest levels since 1924 despite government targets to build three million homes by 2020.110 1.2 Since the announcement of the RSS revocation organisations such as the Royal Town Planning Institute, National Housing Federation and Planning Officers Society have expressed concerns about the proposed changes. The overwhelming concern pivots around the economic and social effects of a more restricted housing supply. It is clear that many feel that the removal of the regional layer of the planning system would significantly reduce the supply of new build houses and therefore limit the overall increase in housing stock of the England. 1.3 In this context it is important to recognise the urgent need for greater supply of housing. Kate Barker’s review of housing supply in 2004 highlighted the main economic problems surrounding an undersupply of housing within a UK context.111 It explained that an undersupply of housing can: — Constrain economic growth. — Create a greater risk of macroeconomic instability. — Worsen affordability. The social repercussions caused by an under supply in housing are also significant and include:112 — Affordability issues for first time buyers. — Limited accessibility to both the market and social sectors. — Greater housing pressure, as future housing requirements increase. 108 Diacon, D, Pattison, B and Vine, J (2009) The Future of Housing: Rethinking housing for the twenty-first century, http:// www.bshf.org/scripting/getpublication.cfm?thePubID=4FF3F1F7–15C5-F4C0–99959BAD3ED44A50 109 The full findings of the research will be published in due course and can be made available to the Select Committee on request. 110 Communities and Local Government (2010) Eric Pickles puts stop to flawed Regional Strategies today, http:// www.communities.gov.uk/news/newsroom/1632278 111 Barker, K (2004) Delivering Stability: Securing our future housing needs, http://www.barkerreview.org.uk/ 112 NHPAU. (2009). Housing requirements and the impact of recent economic and demographic change. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/507390/pdf/1221553.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w145

1.4 The coalition government has acknowledged that there is a need for additional housing. On the day that the RSSs were abolished, the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, said in a speech to the Local Government Association that “the country has a housing shortage. But it's time to concentrate on building homes, rather than dreaming up numbers.”113 He expressed similar sentiments in parliament, stating: “Imposed central targets will be replaced with powerful incentives so that people see the benefits of building. The coalition agreement makes a clear commitment to providing local authorities with real incentives to build new homes … Because we are committed to housing growth, introducing these incentives will be a priority…”114 1.5 BSHF welcomes the government’s acknowledgement of the broad need for additional housing supply but recommends that it should be clarified into a commitment to act to deliver sufficient housing supply to meet need.

2. Investigation into the impact of RSS abolition on housebuilding targets 2.1 BSHF has been undertaking an urgent review to assess the likely impact of RSS abolition on housebuilding targets in the regions of the midlands and the north of England. (Research had previously been announced, commissioned by the National Housing Federation and conducted by Tetlow King covering the southern regions. Consequently BSHF has not sought to duplicate that work.) 2.2 A questionnaire was sent to all planning departments across these regions. The questionnaire was used to gain information on the effects of new government policy on the assessment of housing need and subsequent housing targets in each local authority. Each local authority was asked to provide the following information: — Will the Local Planning Authority be changing its housing targets since the RSS revocation, or will it be staying with its RSS targets? — If the targets will be changing, which figures will the Local Planning Authority be adopting instead? For example, the Chief Planner has stated the possibility of using Option 1 figures (the figures originally submitted to the original Regional Spatial Strategy examination). — Therefore, what are the Local Planning Authority's future housing targets? — Are you also reviewing the RSS figures for provision of Gypsy and Traveller pitches (and if so, how and when will you be reviewing it)? 2.3 The first wave of research was conducted in the East Midlands, with the questionnaire subsequently sent to the local planning authorities in the West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, North East and North West. Consequently we have the fullest results so far from the East Midlands. 2.4 The questionnaire was sent to all 40 local planning authorities in the East Midlands. In the East Midlands the response rate to the survey was 85% of local authorities (34 authorities). Of those that responded, the indications were: — 38% of local authorities are keeping the RSS targets for housebuilding. — 32% of local authorities are undecided. — 21% of local authorities are intending to adopt a new target. — 9% of local authorities are using the RSS while they decide a new figure. — No local authorities have yet decided to adopt the Option 1 figures. 2.5 For the remaining regions surveyed (West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, North East and North West) the questionnaire was again sent to all local planning authorities, a total of 107. As these questionnaires were sent in a second wave the response rate at the time of writing is lower than for the East Midlands. These results should be viewed as interim findings and BSHF will publish the full findings in due course. The response rate to date has been 56%. Of those that responded, the indications were: — 48% of local authorities are keeping the RSS targets for housebuilding. — 30% of local authorities are undecided. — 13% of local authorities are intending to adopt a new target. — 5% of local authorities are using the RSS while they decide a new figure. — 3% of local authorities are using Option 1 figures.115 2.6 Of those local authorities undecided or intending to adopt a new target, only nine gave an indication of the likely direction of any change. Of these, seven indicated a reduced target; two other local authorities indicated that need for housing was higher than RSS targets and that any new target would be likely to involve an increase. Of those local authorities indicating that their targets would change, one provided an indication of the scale of that change, a reduction in the range of 11–24% 113 Pickles, E (2010). Speech to Local Government Association Conference 2010. http://www.communities.gov.uk/speeches/ newsroom/lgaconference2010 114 Pickles, E (2010) Written Ministerial Statements, 6 July 2010. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/ cm100706/wmstext/100706m0001.htm#10070623000003 115 Figures do not sum to 100% due to rounding. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w146 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

3. Confusion and the need for clarity 3.1 One of the major findings of the research was the level of confusion that exists at a local level. Some local authorities responding to the research were struggling to understand the nature and scope of their new responsibilities. This is despite the vital importance of avoiding undersupply of housing. 3.2 BSHF recommends that the government should urgently act to reduce the current uncertainty by requiring local authorities to publicly register their housebuilding targets or timetable for revision. Proposed changes to the planning system should include a mechanism for local authorities to publish both their housebuilding targets and actual completions. 3.3 Local authority housebuilding targets should be collated by Communities and Local Government (CLG) and published on their website. This could be done on a periodic basis, through a mechanism similar to the Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix (HSSA) spreadsheet published annually, or through a mechanism similar to the Live Table spreadsheets that CLG makes available on other housing issues. 3.4 Proposals from the Conservative Party prior to the election stated that during the interim period between the abolition of regional government and the introduction of a new planning system, local authorities would revert back to their Option 1 figures. They stated that: “Local planning authorities have already projected the number of houses they (as opposed to the regional authorities) believed would be necessary by 2026 for local needs—the so-called Option 1 numbers”.116 3.5 Of the local authorities that have responded to the survey, only three stated that they intended to use their Option 1 figures; in two of those cases the Option 1 figure was the same as that in the RSS, so the authorities could equally have responded that they were keeping their RSS figures. 3.6 There are indications that the definition of “Option 1” figures is either not sufficiently clearly defined, or that the definition is not universally understood in a consistent fashion. One professional involved in the former regional planning process told us: “My understanding is that Option 1 housing figures are those which LAs [local authorities] approved for inclusion in the draft RSS. … However, one could argue that option 1 figures generated by LAs are in fact those which came out of technical work done by the LAs themselves which were then modified through discussion with the then [Regional] Assembly. In some cases the figures agreed by LAs and presented to the Assembly were higher than those which eventually appeared in the draft RSS, which in the end represented politics and consensus.” 3.7 Some other local authorities stated that they did not have an Option 1 figure. 3.8 Given the inconsistent understanding of the term “Option 1”, and the fact that some local authorities do not believe that they have such figures, it is concerning that they have been proposed as an implicit default target. An alternative default would be the RSS figure, which is present in every local authority area. 3.9 BSHF recommends that the RSS housing target be made the explicit default target in every area that has not formally adopted an alternative figure. This would not prevent local authorities from setting their own targets, but would minimise the potential for harmful policy voids as there would be a default target in place until and unless an alternative was set at the local level. 4. Providing support to local authorities 4.1 Local authorities responding to the research expressed concern about their ability to accurately assess housing need in their area. One local authority stated that as it was a small authority it “did not have the capacity to produce anything of similar robustness [to the RSS]”. Local authorities have previously received support in this process from several sources at both a regional and national level. 4.2 Regional bodies such as Government Offices and Regional Assemblies provided support to local authorities in the assessment of local housing need. This took the form of technical guidance and scrutiny for local assessments of housing need. Further support to local authorities was provided by organisations such as the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU). The NHPAU provided free, independent information on housing provision and affordability. The NHPAU has been closed and much of the regional support has now finished. The withdrawal of this support is a major concern to some local authorities who fear that they do not have the financial or technical resources available ‘in-house’ to make a robust assessment of local housing need. 4.3 BSHF recommends that the government ensures that adequate technical and methodological support is provided to local authorities to ensure that their assessment of housing need is robust. 5. National assessment of policy impacts 5.1 The loss of technical support and knowledge at both regional and national level will also have an impact on wider assessment of housing need. 5.2 Another important practice, carried out by the Regional Leaders Boards, was the collection of local authority data. Through the RSS a comprehensive database of strategic targets was built up, this allowed greater 116 The Conservative Party, n.d. http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Green%20Papers/planning-green-paper.ashx cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w147

efficiency in analysing and researching different impacts of both regional and national trends. With the removal of the statutory functions from the Regional Leaders Boards, there is a risk that the compilation of data will be lost. There has been no announcement of a replacement for this function. It is important that central government, local authorities and the wider housing sector have access to good quality data on housebuilding targets and affordability. 5.3 The closure of the NHPAU in June 2010 led to the loss of impartial, evidence-based, expert advice and research about the impact of planned housing provision on affordability, and wider housing supply issues in England. This removed valuable research and expertise in a time of major policy change. There is an urgent need to monitor the proposed changes to ensure that they are having the intended impact on housing supply and affordability. The closure of research hubs such as the NHPAU also diminishes the transparency of both local and national government through reducing research on the impact of policy changes. 5.4 BSHF recommends that the government clarifies how it will monitor the impact of policy changes at a local and national level to ensure that they are having the desired impact. Sufficient data and analysis should be made freely available to local authorities and the public to ensure accountability and transparency. 6. Provision of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers 6.1 There is a major shortage of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers that has built up over decades. Evidence suggests that this undersupply leads to local authorities incurring significant expenditure for every pitch that is under-supplied in their area117, not to mention the social impacts felt both by travelling communities and the wider population. 6.2 Local authorities in the East Midlands have also responded to BSHF about their intentions in relation to the provision of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers. These results indicate that: — 71% of local authorities that responded were planning to keep the RSS targets for provision of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers. — 29% of local authorities that responded were planning to review the RSS targets for provision of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers. 6.3 The proportion of local authorities who intend to keep the RSS targets for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation is much higher than those intending to keep the RSS targets for housebuilding (71%–45% respectively). Comments from local authorities suggest that they chose to keep the Gypsy and Traveller targets because they were derived from the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments. They considered these to be a robust estimation of need and, therefore, were happy to retain these targets. Several local authorities who are reviewing their targets cited problems with the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments as their reason for doing so. Other local authorities highlighted the need to review their Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments from 2012 onwards. 6.4 BSHF recommends that the government should clarify how local authorities determine “local need” for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation with specific reference to when Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments should be updated. 6.5 BSHF recommends that the government should require each local authority to publish their targets for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and actual completions on an annual basis. This will help to promote transparency and ensure that the costs of undersupply are minimised. As above, this information should be collated centrally and published by CLG, to improve transparency and aid monitoring. September 2010

Written evidence from Freight on Rail (ARSS 72) Freight on Rail would like to thank the Communities and Local Government Committee for the opportunity to comment on the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies. Freight on Rail, a partnership of the rail freight industry, the transport trade unions, works with local and central Government to promote rail freight, the low carbon, energy-efficient safe alternative to long distance road freight which reduces road congestion. The sustained growth of rail’s share of consumer traffic over the past seven years demonstrates the demand for this alternative mode for trunk haul.

Summary As it stands, there are tensions between the Localism agenda and economic growth unless strategic planning structures are put in place as it is difficult to get planning permission, for a wide range of schemes to help regenerate the economy, if the schemes are opposed locally. We believe some form of strategic sub-national transport planning, in addition to local and national spatial planning is needed if the Coalition Government is to meet its commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and build a green economy. 117 Vine, J and Pattison, B (2009) Providing Accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers in Leicestershire: A Financial Analysis, http://www.bshf.org/published-information/publication.cfm?lang=00&thePubID=E84E09F7–15C5-F4C0–99D6F89557BC0263 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w148 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Transport projects are rarely confined to local authority boundaries which means that without a larger than local spatial planning structure it will be difficult to plan key infrastructure projects which cross local authority boundaries This could result in projects, ranging from, medium-sized and small rail freight terminals and wind farms not being granted planning permission, because of local opposition, even though there are wider benefits to society of these schemes.

We welcome the review of planning taking place and believe that strategic planning needs to be addressed in the Localism Bill. This level of transport planning is needed where decisions taken locally have a wider than local impact to give confidence to investors, infrastructure providers, community initiatives, transport operators, developers and local enterprises.

A supportive spatial planning framework is needed if rail freight is to play its role in reducing freight’s emissions; rail freight needs approval for a network of terminals, situated in the right places to meet market requirements.

Major infrastructure projects such as large Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges (SRFIs) will, in the longer term, be addressed through the Major Infrastructure Unit (MIU) which will replace the Independent Planning Commission. However, the threshold for schemes being considered by the MIU is 60 hectares and the majority of rail/road transfer stations are not of this scale. So we believe that the planning framework needs to recognise the importance of getting planning permission for medium-sized and small rail freight terminals without which freight cannot be shifted to rail and all the economic, social and environmental benefits to society cannot be realised.

Currently, with the abolition of the RSSs, there is a planning vacuum as there is neither national or sub national policy with only local plans, (which everybody recognises are crucial), in place.

National Infrastructure Planning This planning review is an opportunity to institute guidelines in both the National Networks Policy Statements and the National Planning framework which tackle climate change and road congestion. The National Policy Statements should state that any new freight interchanges/depots should be sited where they are capable of being rail served. It should also ensure that evidence based research with quantified study and calculations based upon modelling is taken into account in any planning approval process.

1. Why Sub-national Strategic Planning is needed for Rail Freight to Play its Full Role in Low Carbon Green Economy — To provide a long term land use and transport planning framework at a sub-national level to complement the national and local policy framework. — Sets out policies which address the needs of the region and key sub-regions, in particular investment priorities. For example to quantify how many terminals are needed. — These policies provide a development framework for the next 15 to 20 years. — District and Unitary Councils still deal with local planning applications, but an overarching policy framework ensure that their decisions do not conflict with the wider principles to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and stimulate the green economy. — Need to achieve integration between land-use planning, housing, health, education, energy and waste as well as transport. — Statutory documents ensure coherent policies are adopted by local authorities when drawing up Local Development Frameworks (LDF) and with planning applications. — To identify the need for terminals in a particular area and specify that local authorities must protect suitable sites and lines under their jurisdiction. This is very important as there are a limited number of suitable sites for rail freight terminals as good rail and road access is needed. — Sub-national guidance could provide policies supporting rail freight which stressed its wider social and economic benefits to the region and the nation as a whole. — Need to take account of the fact that rail freight flows normally cross authority and cross regional boundaries. — Other transport planning documents such as Route Utilisation Strategies (RUS), produced by Network Rail which guides provision of freight capability on the network use data from spatial policies including LDFs.

2. The need for a Planning Function in Local Enterprise Partnerships

LEPs will be crucial for promoting all development in the regions which does not fall under the auspices of the MIU, so we believe a spatial planning function is needed within LEPs. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w149

The economic regeneration benefits of rail freight investment have previously been widely recognised by local authorities so it is critical that Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) have a framework to support and fund transport schemes. — Humber Ports upgrades is an example of partnership of public and private sector Northern Way, a consortium of different authorities worked with Network Rail & ABP. The Hull Docks Branch upgrade—increases trains from 12 to 22 per day. (£15.5 million) on the Hull docks branch and improvements in network resilience with the re-opening of the Brigg Line for freight services.

Local Enterprise Partnerships are well placed to develop additional transport schemes as long as they are set up taking into account certain criteria: (a) LEPs need to cover a sufficiently large geographical area to be viable for developing transport projects. (b) LEPS need to have access to funding for rail freight schemes which regenerate the local economy and relieve bottlenecks eg the Ipswich Chord supported by Suffolk County Council. (c) As well as local authorities and private business, LEPs should include environmental groups, community amenity groups and trade unions. (d) Some form of sub-national strategic planning is needed for economic growth because strategic transport decisions, which affect several regions, cannot be dictated solely by local decisions if sustainable economic

3. We believe that it is important that the rail freight industry is consulted on changes to the planning regime at all levels including by LEPs to ensure the needs and opportunities for rail freight are properly considered.

4. We believe that local authorities should have a duty to co-operate with other authorities to support rail freight schemes assessed and supported by the rail freight industry which will help the Coalition Government achieve its sustainable objectives to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and promote the green economy.

5. Data from research collated by the regional Leaders’ Board, which was largely funded by public money, should be made put in the public domain for free access to the public. We believe that funding should be made available for resourcing the updating of this valuable data.

6. Transitional Arrangements

We believe that national infrastructure transport planning decisions should be made by the Secretary of State for Transport, in the absence of National Policy Statements. We note that two applications for Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges which were examined under the Town and Country Planning act rules, were turned down by the Secretary of State for DCLG, after the abolition of RSSs, largely because of local opposition. (In the case of the Radlett application, the Inspector had recommended granting Planning Permission for the SRFI.)

7. The Case For Rail Freight

Environmental

Rail freight produces 70% less carbon dioxide emissions than the equivalent long-distance road journey— DfT Logistics Perspective Dec 2008 P8 section 10

Safety

Rail freight is safer than road freight on major roads as HGVs are over three times more likely to be involved in fatal accidents than cars due to a combination of size, lack of proper enforcement of drivers hours, vehicle overloading and differing foreign operating standards. Source—Road Statistics 2008, Tables 3.2 and 3.6, Road Freight Statistics 2008 Section 5, DfT

Reducing road congestion

An average freight train can remove the equivalent of 50 long-distance HGVs journeys and the largest freight trains with aggregates can remove the equivalent of 160 long-distance HGVs from our roads. Source Network Rail 2010

Members are Direct Rail Services, DB Schenker, Freightliner, ASLEF, RMT, TSSA, UNITE, Rail Freight Group and Campaign for Better Transport September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w150 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from Young Planners’ Thought Leadership Group (YPTLG) (ARSS 73) 1. About the Young Planners’ Thought Leadership Group (YPTLG) 1.1 The YPTLG is not an organisation or body; it is a collective of opinions and ideas from a group of young planners (defined loosely as under 35 years of age). The group is open to all with an interest in attending discussion meetings with a view to generating ideas and influence on a range of spatial planning matters. Meetings will be held when necessary. The intention of YPTLG is to give a voice to young planning professionals, notably through the present period of planning reform. The outcomes of the group will be shared with other organisations who express an interest. 1.2 The YPTLG has no formal membership; the submission has been signed by individuals who are practising planning professionals. As such, within this submission “YPTLG” simply refers to those individuals who are signees to the submission.

2. The YPTLG’s Specific Comments 2.1 General: 2.1.1 England (with the exception of London) has become the only country in the UK and EU without an effective strategic planning system required to make strategic decisions at spatial scales below the national, but above the local level. This makes it increasingly difficult to ensure the sustainable management of the country’s natural resources. It also makes it difficult to coordinate and combat the effects of climate change below the national level, as local solutions may not be of significant scale to make a substantive impact. The YPTLG is concerned that while until now other countries have looked to England and the UK for inspiration and guidance in town and country planning best practice, in the future, this learning relationship may be reversed. 2.1.2 The art and science of Town Planning was borne out of the “localism” agenda with local communities and entrepreneurs taking direct action, as evidenced by the garden cities movement and philanthropically- delivered housing developments in the northern coalfields in the nineteenth. The YGTLG is concerned that the current “localism” approach is too “politically driven” without foresight into understanding the limits and restrictions on locally-led action, socio-economic impact on future generations, and the sustainability of town planning as a respected profession.

The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development; 2.2 Implications: 2.2.1 Many Local Authorities have delayed or restarted the production of Local Development Frameworks (LDFs), resulting in continued delay with local plan making. However in certain areas without adopted LDF Core Strategies there is now limited planning policy from which to direct sustainable development. As a consequence there is now much reduced development industry certainty to invest in development proposals (notably owing to the complete lack of any transitional arrangement). This is affecting development investment, and investment into the required professional skills to deliver sustainable places. The planning consultancy and urban design industries are shrinking. The YPTLG is concerned that future generations will bear the brunt and unintended consequences of these rushed reforms by not having access to affordable homes close where they work and to high quality of living. There is a need to understand how the newly formed Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) will integrate with spatial planning, to help ensure economic growth is continually fostered and supported across England at local, sub-regional and national levels. 2.2.2. Sub-national development redistribution has also now been curtailed (the former “sustainable communities plan”). The former RSS provided a mechanism from which to direct growth elsewhere in the south (essentially from the Home Counties to Cambridgeshire/Milton Keynes/Northamptonshire). Local level planning alone cannot achieve this spatial rebalancing, and may cause unnecessary development pressures in locations of environmental sensitivity. The YPTLG believes in a balanced and prosperous England and is concerned at the potential for increasing regional disparities in housing affordability and access to quality housing exacerbated by the reforms. The RSS was not perfect, but the vacuum caused by its loss is not helping. 2.2.3 There is now a severe threat to the art and science of Town Planning which will result in less individuals being attracted to the profession, which in turn will result in a major skills shortage in three-five years’ time. The driving principles of a positive spatial planning system, enshrined in reforms since the mid- 1990s have seemingly been lost. The principles are not important in themselves, but there is a hope in the profession that positive spatial planning will continue—we can make things better for local communities through good spatial planning. In addition, the ongoing uncertainty (and reduced planning applications) is resulting in job redundancies. Many experienced strategic planners currently in the abolished regional planning bodies and regional development agencies will have their employment terminated, and the YPTLG is concerned that future generations will not have the benefit of access to quality mentors and inspiration. We need new planners, but we need the breadth of experience from others too. This is true across local government and the private sector, where a drop in the level of development is reducing the pool of talent we will be able to draw on in the future. 2.2.4 Further uncertainty about the future of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and recent changes to planning obligations policy may result in reduced infrastructure delivery as few Local Authorities are cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w151

progressing with a Levy and the scope of Section 106 has been reduced. The general reduction in infrastructure delivery may cause more conservative development growth scenarios than required to enable wider economic growth or meet demographic needs (notably housing). The YPTLG would like to see the Committee clarifying the responsibilities and any potential changes to the infrastructure planning and delivery process with CLG.

2.3 Ideas as Solutions: 2.3.1 The YPTLG strongly believes that changes will be needed to ensure that new development and construction will help fuel the economic recovery, respond to the threat of climate change and create a more sustainable England, within a UK context. It will also permit current and future regenerations to have access to a decent home, responding to the acute housing crisis. These objectives need to be at the heart of the proposed reforms. 2.3.2 The YPTLG presents the following ideas for the Committee’s considerations: 1. National government should take a more proactive role in building more high quality homes for current and future citizens of this country, and not merely pass responsibility to local government, local communities or developers. 2. The proposed National Planning Framework (NPF) should be introduced as a National Spatial Framework (NSP) in order to a) benefit reduced level of PPS/PPG b) and critically also form a fully tested, consulted, and sustainable national strategic planning framework which outlines high-level strategic development principles. The NSP could also incorporate the emerging National Planning Statements (NPS). The NPS should be put into effect from 1 April 2012 once all LDF Core Strategies are adopted for transitional purposes (to avoid a policy deficit scenario of there being no PPS/PPG). The NPS should form part of the development plan, and where it may conflict with the LDF, it should take supremacy (when in the national interest). The NPS should be supported by evidence, building on the existing evidence base. 3. It would have been beneficial to retain the policies in the RSS on a transitional basis, to minimise the uncertainty we currently have in the system. The YPTLG await the outcome of the current court case with interest. The RSS system was however not perfect, notably with regard to the democratic deficit. Instead therefore a strategic planning system should be created which better links democracy with planning, for example through the introduction of city Mayors, or elected sub-regional authorities; 4. The proposed Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) should be provided with Government incentives to enable the “duty to cooperate”, notably via the production of effective sub-regional planning strategies and/or joint LDF core strategies. In doing so, LEPs as future strategic leaders for guiding sustainable development should be directly accountable, democratically elected bodies, and given housing and planning powers. 5. Local Authorities to be set national targets (with incentives) to have adopted Core Strategies by 1 April 2012. 6. The Infrastructure Planning Commission should be retained. 7. The Government should provide certainty over CIL or any new development tariff system at the earliest convenience.

The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing

2.4 Likely Effectiveness:

2.4.1 The new proposals for “Community Right To Build” or “Neighbourhood Plans” aspire to provide the link between local need and local delivery. However without a proper skills framework and oversight, they threaten the standing, and transparency of planning process. The YGTLG believes giving greater roles for regional and local community organisations (ie with the assistance of regional Planning Aid community officers) and utilising best practice tools for community engagement should be the pre-requisites for improving local housing outcomes. Planners want to work with communities to achieve positive outcomes and believe that improvements could be made utilising the existing planning system.

2.4.2 Proposals to allow developers to “compensate” local residents also risk undermining the planning process and could be viewed as bribery. The YGTLG continues to support the current fundamental principle of Section 106 planning obligations that “planning permission should not be “bought or sold”. Local government as a whole has worked hard to separate monetary gain from decision making processes and the current reforms are difficult to reconcile with these experiences.

2.4.3 YPTLG would like to see a programme of training for Member Review Panels and are concerned that, unlike the proposed enhancement elsewhere in the proposals, there is a risk to the legitimacy of the right to appeal. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w152 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

2.4.4 The principle of additional Council tax arising from new development is laudable; however, we would like to see the funding used to benefit the new development and those directly affected by it (i.e. mitigation and compensation) rather than simply being used as an overarching Council grant.

2.4.5 A coherent mechanism for greater than local spatial planning is required, particularly with regards to infrastructure and transport planning. It appears that the Government do not want to be overly prescriptive in their guidance to LPAs, however to think that the “duty to consult” will ensure that LPAs engage in greater than local spatial planning is naive. There is a suggestion that LPAs within regions could “co-operate” to prepare a spatial plan to sit above the LDF Core Strategy. The Select Committee should ask the how such a duty will operate.

2.5 Ideas as Solutions:

2.5.1 The principles for localism and greater democratic accountability or involvement can be achieved via modest alterations to the present planning process. Most of the measures announced may not be necessary to meet the Governments agenda, or to meet the aims of sound town planning. The YPTLG presents the following ideas for the Committee’s considerations:

2.5.2 Greater engagement and partnership working with businesses and the private sector to kick-start the step change in house-building. This includes ensuring the private sector has a greater long-term stake in local development.

2.5.3 LDF Statement of Community Involvements could be abolished as being time and resource intensive. Instead statute should make clear that the process of creating LDFs and all major planning applications should be accompanied by a minimum level of community engagement. A resource saving measure could be to require Councils produce a general community involvement statement that applies to all functions, including planning.

2.5.4 Improving the skills of Elected Members should be prioritised as a key area to enable them play a far greater role with the determination of applications, possibly by setting out core parameters for major schemes at the outset, or getting involved with the process. This could mean a shift from the present planning officer “recommendation” to Elected Members role to once of greater partnership with Members.

2.5.5 Permitted development rights should be extended further to save resources. This measure would have benefits of streamlining planning, allowing focus on more critical major or strategic issues, whilst also increasing the rights of individuals.

2.5.6 The role of Local Development Orders (LDOs) should be better incentivised to provide suitable (and local) methods to encourage sustainable development.

2.5.7 Greater certainty over CIL (and potential additional Government grant funding) would be preferential to the proposed Council tax incentive proposal as the monies generated from development would be directed to infrastructure and community needs associated with it. In terms of the “Duty to Cooperate’ the following questions should be asked: — What will the duty involve to ensure that LPA’s do co-operate on a spatial planning level? — What are the parameters for identifying if a LPA has not complied with the duty? — Who will regulate it and what are the penalties? — Of significant importance, with most LAs facing up to 40% budget cuts, how is this going to be resourced??? — What are the transitional arrangements to plug the gap between RSS policy and Core Strategy policy (as legislation dictates that DPDs cannot replicate RSS policy)?

2.5.8 In terms of ensuring greater democracy and planning, cities—or city-regions—led by a democratically elected Mayor could provide clear leadership and be highly effective for strategic planning as well as other functions. Where this model is not appropriate, LEPs formed on a sub regional basis could have a formal strategic planning role. The opportunity exists to radically rethink local government and governance arising from the proposed reforms to the planning system.

3. Signatories to the submission

This submission represent the views of the YPTLG who were willing to sign the submission. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w153

Written evidence from Boyer Planning Ltd (ARSS 74) Summary — This evidence has been prepared by Boyer Planning Ltd, an established environmental planning and development consultancy with long and extensive experience of the plan-making system and its operation. — The abolition of RSS has harmed the delivery of a wide range of legitimate development schemes in a number of ways. It has caused a very obvious hiatus in development planning, impacting on the delivery of these identified and established projects. Uncertainty is now endemic in the system; a number of local authorities are beginning to move away from engagement with developers, contrary to what is recognised to be the good practice of partnership working; and many are re- visiting well established and demonstrably sound planning strategies halting the progress of Core Strategies and other LDF work. — This is serving to undermine the rational framework to spatial planning that exists at the heart of the town and country system. Moreover it runs counter to the clear and demonstrable need for investment and land to support housing and employment growth and infrastructure improvements. At the present time it is difficult to see how the plan-led system will be able to deliver the Coalition Government’s policy objective to increase housebuilding. — The rationale for the planning system is and always has been to regulate development in the public interest. Decisions cannot, and should not, be decentralised to such an extent that local communities (any more than any particular interest group) are able to determine what the wider public interest is and dictate how it is best served. — The move to a local approach to plan making must, therefore, be accompanied by the commitment to adhere to sound principles of planning, based on a framework that adopts responsible assumptions regarding demographic change, economic growth forecasts, infrastructure requirements and environmental considerations. Co-operation between local authorities will be imperative if realistic development strategies are to properly reflect spatial influences that almost inevitably extend across administrative areas. This will require a means of conflict resolution and independent scrutiny of both process and planning judgement. — Absent a strong government lead to this effect there is a very real risk that the planning system will be governed by vocal minorities working to short term horizons. Difficult but necessary decisions will not be taken. — We are concerned that encouraging local authorities to accept financial inducements in return for permitting new housing will not ensure housing being built where it is needed but where it is wanted by local communities. That is not consistent with the underlying and traditional purposes of public interest planning in this Country.

1. Introduction 1.1 Boyer Planning Ltd is an established environmental planning and development consultancy, working on behalf of private developers, landowners and public sector clients throughout England (and Wales). Our work encompasses both the Development Plan and Development Control aspects of the planning system. 1.2 We have long and extensive experience of the plan-making system and its operation. We have been involved in the formulation and implementation of Regional Spatial Strategies in most regions of England over the past decade. 1.3 Our evidence provides information on the following, which we believe will assist the Committee in its understanding of the implications of the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies: — a historic context considering the role of the plan-led system; — the need for a co-ordinated approach to economic, social and environmental land-use planning at a strategic level; — the practical implications of revocation of Regional Strategies; — our view of the potential difficulties with implementing localism and preconditions to its introduction; — incentives; and — the imperative for co-operation and co-ordination between local authorities.

2. Historic Context 2.1 Throughout its history the town and country planning system in the UK has operated on the basis of a framework of development plans. Since the introduction of Section 54A in to the 1990 Planning Act, and reaffirmed by the 2004 Act, the Development Plan is the starting point in the consideration of planning applications for the development or use of land, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w154 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

2.2 The planning system, operating in this manner, helps to ensure that development takes place in the public interest, in economically, socially and environmentally sustainable ways. This has been, and must continue to be, the central tenet of the planning system. 2.3 The role of Regional Strategies (or equivalent) have their origins in historic discussions about the co- ordination of land-use planning at a strategic level—taking into account influences that extend across settlement and administrative boundaries. 2.4 The South East Study of 1961 was the first major post-war attempt to apply regional planning principles. It was followed by a series of similar documents, especially in the South East where development pressure, and hence the need for an overall framework, was greatest. A number of non-statutory regional and sub- regional planning documents were prepared in the late 1980s and early 1990s to ensure similar co-ordination of planning policies. 2.5 County Structure Plans, introduced in the 1971 Act and updated in the 1990 Act, were a similar tool to provide an overall structure or framework to guide development, environmental protection and conservation, and infrastructure delivery across a strategic area. This framework, as with all planning decisions, relied on balancing these various factors to ensure that the public interest was secured. 2.6 The process of County Structure Plans under the 1990 Act rested on strategic planning authorities (County Councils and latterly Unitary Authorities) being responsible for their preparation with approval, initially, by the Secretary of State. An integral element of this process was scrutiny prior to adoption by independent Panels. The Examination in Public (EiP) conducted for this purpose produced recommendations which underpinned the Secretary of State’s ultimate decision. 2.7 Once adoption of Structure Plans was delegated to the plan making authorities, a weakness of this system was that EiP Panel recommendations were not binding and could be set aside in the approval process. Government intervention was infrequent despite clear and justified reasons in favour of adopting Panel recommendations. It was regularly the case that recommendations concerning the level and distribution of development, and housing in particular, were not accepted either in whole or in part, yet the decision justified by the same arguments that had been found deficient by the process of independent scrutiny. The resultant levels of low housing provision through subsequent Local Plans have been a contributing factor to the undersupply of housing over recent decades. 2.8 Regional Planning Guidance (and thereafter Regional Spatial Strategies) provided the opportunity to rationalise the whole strategic development plan system by a single set of spatial frameworks covering the Country in a consistent manner, scrutinized independently and approved by the Government. 2.9 The Secretary of State’s involvement in this process has been portrayed by those opposed to it as a bureaucratic and undemocratic centralisation of the Plan-led process. However, in a system that requires checks and balances to ensure planning decisions are taken in the public interest, the role of the Secretary of State has been, and must continue to be, an important one as the person with ultimate responsibility for and oversight of the proper and legitimate operation of the planning system. 2.10 The rationale for the planning system is and always has been to regulate development in the public interest. Decisions cannot, and should not, be decentralised to such an extent that local communities (any more than any particular interest group) are able to determine what the wider public interest is and dictate how it is best served. 2.11 Without the framework described above, the Plan-led system and development planning become a meaningless concept.

3. Role and Function of Strategic Planning 3.1 Regional Spatial Strategies have provided guidance on all aspects of land use planning. However, our submission focuses on housing provision because of the apparent pre-occupation by the Coalition Government on the role of Regional Strategies in this matter. 3.2 Regional Spatial Strategies proceeded from an evidence based approach to housing provision within the context of the (still extant) policy objective to improve the supply of new housing. This requires account to be taken of a wide range of factors. PPS3 (para 33) identifies the following: — current and future levels of need and demand for housing including housing market assessments, affordability, demographic change; — the needs of the regional economy and expected economic growth; — the availability of land housing; — sustainability appraisals of the social and economic implications, including costs, benefits and risks of development, consideration of the most sustainable pattern of housing; and — an assessment of the impact of development upon existing or planned infrastructure and of any new infrastructure required. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w155

3.3 These are principles that have guided the preparation of Regional Spatial Strategies and are expected to continue to inform Core Strategies (or any subsequently titled replacement) absent the strategic tier of the Development Plan. We take comfort from the advice of the Chief Planning Officer in his letter to Local Authorities of the 6 July 2010 that Local Authorities will still be required to justify their housing supply policies in line with the current policy in PPS3. A local Development Plan must still meet the requirements for soundness under the current legislation. 3.4 The practical importance of a housing requirement within the Development Plan is the certainty that it provides. It guides land use allocations, providing a transparent understanding, to the benefit of the local community, development interests and infrastructure providers, of where development should and should not be located. It gives a clear framework for investment decisions and is a means of regulating supply. It is highly relevant to decisions on planning applications. 3.5 Morever, RSSs gave the spatial aspect to a range of national and regional strategies, eg Regional Economic Strategies and Regional Transport Plans—aimed at creating a clear framework for growth locations and investment by the private and public sectors. 3.5 It is within this context that we examine the practical implications of the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies.

4. Practical Implications of the Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies 4.1 Whilst the revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies was not unexpected with the change of Government, the absence of any transitional or alternative arrangements is a significant deficiency in the move towards a new locally focused form of planning. 4.2 Across the country there exists a wide range of legitimate development proposals, with a firm basis in a fit for purpose planning strategy, and derived from an evidence base stimulated by, if not directly part of, the relevant RSS. A great many of these are development proposals that were established through the RSS, often with LPA involvement, and endorsed by the Panels who conducted the respective Examinations in Public. Major investment has been made by public and private sector bodies to reach this stage and many outline planning applications have been submitted or are in preparation. 4.3 The abolition of RSS has harmed the delivery of these schemes in a number of ways: — It has caused a very obvious hiatus in development planning, impacting on the delivery of these identified and established projects with uncertainty now endemic in the system; — A number of local authorities are beginning to move away from engagement with developers, contrary to what is recognised to be the good practice of partnership working; — Many are re-examining well established and sound planning strategies halting the progress of Core Strategies. 4.4 All of this is serving to undermine the rational framework to spatial planning that remains at the heart of the system. Moreover it runs counter to the clear and demonstrable need for investment and land to support housing and employment growth and infrastructure improvements. 4.5 At the present time it is difficult to see how the plan-led system will be able to deliver the “golden age” of housing that the Coalition Government advocates. The Secretary of State’s interview with the Sunday Times (12 September 2010) is the most recent instructive confirmation of this agenda, declaring that “we’ve just got to get houses built. We’re at rock bottom—1924 was the last time we built this little number of houses”. 4.6 As the planning system regulates the release of land for housing, it will be through this system that permissions will be granted to achieve and sustain the intended increase in housing. Having dismantled the strategic element of the plan-led system—which determined the broad spatial strategy for the provision and distribution of development—the element of the Development Plan that provided that framework has been taken away. 4.7 What appears to remain is a locally derived planning framework with a short term horizon which will result in incremental, uncoordinated, and hoc growth. It is very difficult to see how this approach can deliver development where and when it is needed as distinct from development that a particular local community is minded to endorse at any point in time.

5. Localism 5.1 Decisions regarding planning and housing are to be returned to a local level. Local communities are to be able to establish the development needs of an area and identify the locations that are suitable for development. We recognise the value of local involvement and participation in the planning process and we do not seek to preserve the “business as usual” model. However, our experience suggests that localism will not deliver what is required without a mature framework in which all bodies—central government, local authorities, local communities, and environmental, social and economic interests—participate together. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w156 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

5.2 To take forward this approach requires a paradigm that hitherto has not existed in the planning arena. A pre-condition to the successful implementation of this system will be for all stakeholders to exercise realism as to the development needs not only of their own area but also the nation, region and sub-region. 5.3 Very often individuals who oppose a new housing proposal will cite an absence of need, yet almost always nowadays there is a Strategic Housing Market Assessment which indicates a requirement for housing in excess of what was being planned for in the first instance. Our experience of community consultation is consistent in revealing that the local benefits of development proposals—eg physical and community infrastructure improvements—let alone the wider contribution to meeting housing need, rarely outweigh the perceived objections. 5.4 A means of conflict resolution must be created that places obligations upon local authorities, the local community, development and environmental interests to work together within a protocol that ensures that broader issues are adequately reflected. It cannot be that wholesale opposition to a proposal from a local or parochial consensus allows required development to be prevented. 5.5 Absent a strong government lead to this effect there is a very real risk that the planning system will be governed by vocal minorities working to short term horizons. Difficult but necessary decisions will not be taken. 5.6 It remains imperative, therefore, that local development plans are subject to scrutiny to ensure that they are based on rigorous evidence and responsible judgements. This scrutiny must extend beyond procedural conformity. An appointed Inspector must be able to correct any deficiency in the plan in terms of the policies and proposals it contains. The true public interest of planning will not otherwise be served.

6. Co-operation and Cross-boundary Working 6.1 Spatial planning by definition extends almost always across local authority administrative areas, referring to housing market areas, areas of economic influence and travel to work areas. It is these factors, as identified earlier, that formed the reasoned justification for the emergence of strategic land use planning. 6.2 The need for cross border relationships will continue to exist and must be properly taken into account in future planning strategies. 6.3 There are wide-ranging examples of why local authorities will need to co-operate and work jointly to consider cross boundary relationships. A commonly experienced example is where the most sustainable direction of growth for a settlement involves development in an adjoining authority and therefore impinges on different development plans. It is a characteristic of many urban centres that they have tight administrative boundaries. Examples among our current strategic projects are Cheltenham, Worcester, Cambridge, Harlow, Derby, Tamworth. 6.4 In this, and other instances, the need to co-operate is paramount if the most appropriate and responsible planning strategy is to materialise. This will, of course, require a commitment to a strategic framework for the planning system to achieve its core purposes.

7. Incentives 7.1 The housing bonus referred to as a means of encouraging local communities and local authorities to support new housing development requires the benefits that accrue from new development to exceed the objections to it. Our experience of local authorities and their response to local reaction leads us to believe that the reality will be otherwise. New development is often seen as compounding rather than alleviating any existing problems despite evidence of mitigation and betterment. Sometimes this may justify rejection of a proposal but other times it indicates the need for a difficult decision in the public interest. Such points of principle will not be overcome by financial inducement. 7.2 Encouraging local authorities to accept financial inducements in return for permitting new housing will not ensure housing being built where it is needed but where it is wanted by local communities. That is not consistent with the underlying and traditional purposes of public interest planning in this country. September 2010

Written evidencerom South Worcestershire Local Planning Authority (ARSS 75) 1.0 Executive Summary 1.1 The local planning authorities for South Worcestershire (Malvern Hills District, Wychavon District and Worcester City) welcome the opportunity to jointly respond to the call for evidence. The following evidence is submitted by Malvern Hills District Council and whilst it has not been formally approved by the three Councils it is consist with the views of the three Councils expressed in response to the recent West Midlands RSS partial review, the West Midlands Regional Committee (Planning for the Future—reported April 2010) and other national consultations. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w157

1.2 Our non-technical evidence relates to: — The need to enable a smooth transition from top-down RSS driven growth requirements to locally developed housing aspirations following revocation of RSS and for this transition not to be undermined by “planning by appeal”. — An urgent need for interim guidance to address LDF production and land supply issues during the transition period. — A need to consider how regional policy gaps created by the revocation of RSS are addressed (such as High Technology Corridors, waste and minerals). — The revocation establishes a significant shift in resource and expertise demands to the sub-regional level which needs to be addressed. — The need for any incentive scheme for housing growth to enable the front loading of infrastructure provision. — Any scheme should be a genuine incentive scheme and not simply reward housing delivery that would have happened anyhow or is already in the pipeline. — Concerns regarding how regional transportation issues will be addressed and integrated with the land use process in the absence of RSS. — Local Enterprise Partnerships are a positive initiative and will have a major role in setting out sub- regional infrastructure requirements and priorities. But given the range and size of models currently being put forward it is premature to propose that they should be given planning powers. — It is essential that the existing RSS evidence base remains available (on-line) and arrangements should be made to facilitate future regional research, monitoring and sharing of data.

2.0 Introduction 2.1 The local authorities for South Worcestershire in 2006 agreed to work jointly on the preparation of a South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy (SWJCS) which addresses the same timeframe as the now revoked West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Phase Two Partial Review (WMRSS) ie up to the year 2026. 2.2 The need to address cross boundary issues arising from the emerging WMRSS and specifically the future growth of Worcester, has led to our decision to work on an informal joint basis on LDF production for South Worcestershire. 2.3 This approach to joint working carried through into the submission of joint representations on the WMRSS (phase 2 and 3 partial reviews) and the presentation of a single case at the Phase 2 Examination in Public. 2.4 The South Worcestershire Authorities generally supported the WMRSS review process and the overall direction adopted by the emerging strategy. However, this support has always been subject to a number of major caveats related to WMRSS growth figures for South Worcestershire, specifically the handling of migration requirements, the funding and delivery of essential infrastructure and windfall allowances. 2.5 In the light of the recent revocation of RSS the South Worcestershire authorities have publicly re- affirmed their intention to produce a joint core strategy for South Worcestershire. However, the revocation process has enabled a major rethink of the emerging strategy for South Worcestershire and the authorities have indicated a wish to develop a strategy which is economic prosperity led, not housing led, and enables our concerns regarding the appropriateness of WMRSS growth levels and infrastructure provision to be addressed.

3.0 Committee Issues “The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development?” 3.1 Transition period and essential guidance 3.2 The South Worcestershire Authorities have generally welcomed the opportunity to fundamentally review the growth requirements set by the emerging WMRSS and engage with local communities and stakeholders over the scope and content of a revised Strategy for South Worcestershire. 3.3 However, whilst much of the work undertaken to date in responding to the RSS process and developing a Core Strategy for South Worcestershire can be “banked” to support the review process there is a need to commission additional evidence and undertake additional community engagement. This will take time and additional resources not previously built into the Local Development Scheme. 3.4 The South Worcestershire authorities are concerned that whilst the RSS has been revoked much of the national policy framework regarding the delivery of housing remains in place and may serve to place continuing pressure on those local authorities genuinely wishing to now re-engage with local communities over the development of local housing aspirations (as opposed to previously holding a debate over the appropriateness and status of imposed RSS housing targets). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w158 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

3.5 We are conscious that whilst we are commissioning additional evidence such as a sub-regional review of the RSS evidence base, revisiting the Local Development Scheme, undertaking additional public engagement and necessarily undertaking an additional Preferred Options consultation into our Core Strategy there is an apparent “policy vacuum” at the local and sub-regional level. 3.6 Given the Government’s intentions regarding empowering local communities to set local housing aspirations it would therefore be inappropriate for the development industry to be enabled to circumvent the review process by encouraging planning inspectors at appeal to simply roll forward assumptions about previous and “locally unpopular” regional housing requirements as the local authorities have not been able to complete the review process. 3.7 We accept that the review process should not be a charter for inactivity or standing in the way of meeting housing need, but in areas such as South Worcestershire, where a significant level of RSS housing requirements were previously based upon demand as opposed to local need, sufficient time must be allowed to enable the review and community engagement process to be completed. 3.8 It is the suggestion of the South Worcestershire authorities that interim national guidance is urgently required to enable local authorities to take the opportunity to genuinely bring forward local housing aspirations. The South Worcestershire authorities wish to complete this process as quickly as possible however, we are locked into the LDF process which remains unchanged and just as lengthy. 3.9 Interim guidance would also serve to give local communities the confidence that engaging in the review process will be meaningful and not undermined by planning by appeal. In South Worcestershire it is a significant concern that the requirement to bring the Core Strategy and Site Allocations and Policies DPD (SAPDPD) to Examination in Public sequentially will add 12 months to the adoption date of the SAPDPD which will simply extend the period of uncertainty for rural communities and leave rural sites at risk from planning by appeal for an unacceptable period. 3.10 In addition to dealing with issues such as interpretation of five and 15 year housing land requirements, where a local review is being undertaken, national guidance could significantly improve understanding of the appropriate methodologies to be taken into account in developing local housing aspirations. As a model we are conscious that guidance was issued with respect to developing Housing Market Assessments and this could reasonably be extended to setting out a process for Housing Aspiration development. Guidance could include the technical evidential process, the weight, if any, to be afforded to previous statements, such as Section 4(4) advice and the related community engagement process.

3.11 Significant Policy Gaps 3.12 Much attention has been given to the revocation of unpopular housing requirements and little attention afforded to the implications of the revocation process on regional (RSS) land use policies which were working well and which were generally well received. 3.13 The South Worcestershire authorities would wish the Committee to consider the implications for the wider strategy process and role of Core Strategies with respect to how this gap can be plugged. 3.14 Advice to local authorities preparing Core Strategies and related DPD has been not to restate national or regional policy where this could simply be relied upon. 3.15 The South Worcestershire authorities have followed this advice but now recognise that key land use policies which previously complimented other regional economic development, regeneration, infrastructure or environmental strategies may now not be set out in an appropriate land use policy unless this role is now fulfilled by the Core Strategy. 3.16 A specific example of this process is the definition and protection of High Technology Corridors (Central Technology Belt—CTB) in the West Midlands. The CTB remains an active economic development initiative for the West Midlands but now has no corresponding regional land use definition or related policies. 3.17 The South Worcestershire authorities suggest that the Committee may wish to consider the role and weight to be afforded to other regional and sub-regional strategies (LEP/LIP/Sustainable Community Strategies etc) in dealing with such cross boundary policy issues and guiding Core Strategy policy development where they have spatial dimension.

3.18 Resources 3.19 Whilst the South Worcestershire authorities welcome the opportunity to revisit RSS housing requirements and increasingly see the benefits of strong sub-regional alliances on planning issues, we are conscious that the stripping out of the regional tier and the loss of the County Structure Plan function has served to remove a significant amount of capacity and important expertise with respect to evidence gathering and policy development on strategic issues. This is particularly so in Malvern Hills, which as a second tier authority, in planning terms we have relied heavily on the Structure Plan policies. Sub-regional groupings, such as that which exists in South Worcestershire, are willing to undertake such work sub-regionally and work with cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w159

strategic partners such as Worcestershire County Council however, consideration should be given to the resource and expertise demands that this shift in responsibility creates.

“The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local authorities to accept new housing development and the nature and level of the incentives that will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term of housing” 3.20 The South Worcestershire authorities generally welcome the outline proposals to provide an incentive based around the retention of Council tax receipts for new housing completed for up to six years. With respect to areas where strategic levels of growth are required such receipts could be significant and have a significant bearing upon enabling development to be assimilated alongside existing communities and to address infrastructure concerns and pressures. 3.21 However, we have a number of concerns and queries which the Committee is invited to consider.

3.22 Timing and infrastructure provision 3.23 Incentive payments may be used to support community and physical infrastructure provision however such incentive payments will only come forward once development has been delivered (i.e. completed and occupied). In the case of South Worcestershire it has been an ongoing concern of the three local authorities that key infrastructure needs to be provided “up front” to enable strategic developments to go ahead and the identified scale of infrastructure requirements are such that developer contributions alone will not secure the provision of minimum levels of essential infrastructure. 3.24 Furthermore, if the Community Infrastructure Levy does come forward this is dependent upon having an adopted Core Strategy policy which also puts back the gathering of contributions for essential infrastructure to later in the development process and risks some early or “off-plan” developments, which may be significant, not contributing to CIL. 3.25 Given this situation the only apparent way forward would be local authorities to consider borrowing “up-front” in lieu of incentive payments. In South Worcestershire the scale of the apparent infrastructure funding gap, when linked to the possibility of a 20 year delivery profile for housing, questions marks over other sources of public match funding (such as RFA), and development viability issues mean that borrowing at this level is unlikely to be a viable option for district councils. 3.26 There is a pressing need to consider creative options for the range of agencies and government departments involved in the formulation and delivery of Infrastructure Delivery Plans (IDPs—such as the South Worcestershire IDP which is being piloted with PAS involvement) to work collectively on the infrastructure funding and delivery in the light of the receipt of longer term incentive payments.

3.27 Timing of incentive payments/genuine incentive mechanism 3.28 As stated above the delivery of strategic levels of housing and individual sites may involve a significant lead-in period and lag between the decision to bring forward housing and its delivery on the ground. Local authorities need to have some certainty regarding the longevity of the scheme and that the incentives will ultimately be forthcoming, and not be subject to a further change in legislation before housing is delivered. 3.29 Additionally, we are conscious that an incentive scheme (such as the previous HPDG scheme) could simply reward housing delivery which is already in the pipeline and would have happened regardless of the incentive scheme. 3.30 We are also conscious that the development industry may view such incentive payments as an automatic development subsidy payment which could be argued to reduce developer contributions for essential “up- front infrastructure”.

3.31 Probity/Commitment to Plan based delivery of housing 3.32 Given existing national Government guidance regarding the delivery of housing there will be circumstances where local authorities will wish to consider expediting the release of land for housing in order to remedy a shortfall in housing land supply however, measured. This could reasonably be achieved outside of the LDF process. 3.33 However, local communities need to be assured through the processes involved and codes of conduct that there can be no perception of local authorities selling permissions in lieu of significant incentive payments and that those authorities which commit to the delivery of housing through the plan led process will not ultimately lose out in the incentive based system.

3.34 Cross Boundary issues 3.35 We have already stated above that there will be a need for agencies and government departments to work collectively over IDP implementation having regard to the possibility of incentive payments. Given the existence of situations where Council Tax receipts may be collected for new development in an adjacent local cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w160 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

authority area to the host urban centre there would appear to be a need for guidance or recommendations regarding joint working and how much income will be retained by District Council sin two tier authority areas.

“The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate co-operation between local planning authorities on matters formally covered by regional spatial strategies”

3.36 We have already suggested that consideration should be given to the role and weight to be afforded to other regional and sub-regional strategies in the absence of RSS (paragraphs 3.11 to 3.17 refer).

3.37 Across the West Midlands the 33 local authorities have agreed to continue co-operation through the West Midlands Councils organisation. This should provide a basis to broker cross boundary arrangements and share best practice, particularly in specialists areas of policy previously covered by RSS where no one authority has all the necessary expertise.

3.38 As stated above the provision of adequate community and physical infrastructure is a critical issue for South Worcestershire, particularly transportation infrastructure. We are conscious that local infrastructure requirements can be of national and regional importance where they have a bearing upon investment decisions and provision on the wider network, such as the motorway and rail networks. Clearly, the RSS by integrating with the RTS provided a mechanism for addressing both wider and local network demands which were articulated in the associated Implementation Plan. Whilst other strategies and plans may have a role in setting out sub-regional intentions regarding infrastructure provision it remains unclear, in the absence of RSS, how and where competing demands and priorities will be resolved for the region wide transportation network whilst allowing local input.

“The adequacy of proposals already put forward by Government, including a proposed duty to co-operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function.”

3.39 The South Worcestershire authorities have supported proposals for the Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership and await a response to our submission. We consider there is a significant role for such partnerships in establishing sub-regional priorities and proposals, particularly in relation to infrastructure provision. However, we understand that various models for the composition of partnerships are being proposed around the country and it would be premature to suggest at this time that partnerships universally should have a planning role. Furthermore, care should be taken, given the various models proposed and areas covered, not to undermine the intentions to enable local growth agendas to be developed by attributing over riding planning functions to new major sub-regional/regional groupings.

“How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Authority Leaders’ Board should be made available to local authorities and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries.”

3.40 Given recent advice that RSS evidence remains a material consideration in the preparation of LDF documents and the development of local housing aspirations it is essential that this evidence continues to be made available to local authorities in a free and accessible form. It is accepted that the West Midlands Councils organisation does not have the resources to assist in accessing data or its interpretation. However, as a minimum, data sets and related reports produced by regional bodies up to their demise should be made available on-line, along with evidence submitted by third parties to any associated Examination in Public.

3.41 In paragraph 3.19 we have already raised concerns over the shifting of research and policy development requirements from the regional level to the sub-regional level without consideration being given to the additional demands this creates for resources and specialist expertise.

3.42 Whilst there have been misgivings regarding certain aspects of the RSS process, the West Midlands has displayed a positive and strong track record over a number of years with respect to gathering data, monitoring and sharing information. This has resulted in a wealth of evidence to support understanding of past regional performance, projections of likely activity and the identification of both regional and sub-regional issues. It would be to the detriment of LDF work and wider strategy work if this resource was not maintained and carried forward, albeit in a stream-lined form to reflect resource constraints. The Government should be invited to consider how it can support this process. The issue is pressing. Whilst interim arrangements have been put in place in the West Midlands failure to secure a sustainable research and monitoring mechanism will hamper the continuity of regional data and gathering of essential local data to feed the process. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w161

Written evidence from Ropemaker Properties Limited (ARSS 76) Summary — The need for new homes across England, particularly in London, the south-east and east remains significant. — New homes, both market and affordable, are vital elements of the social infrastructure required to support economic growth and recovery. — The implications of the proposed abolition of Regional Strategies will depend upon the measures put in place to plan for and deliver future development. — Much greater detail is needed about those measures in order to be able to consider the longer term implications. — The revocation of Regional Strategies has had an immediate impact, with a number of authorities withdrawing or reviewing plans and in some instances refusing planning applications. — This will have the effect of reducing the supply of land for housing in the short term at least. It has also created uncertainty amongst developers, particularly in relation to strategic schemes. — In many quarters there is a concern that sufficient land will not come forward for housing. — Local communities must be involved in the process which leads to decisions being taken which will affect them, however, in relation to planning for development, there are often wider public interests to be weighed and taken into account. — In order for local communities to effectively engage in a constructive debate there is a need to provide evidence and information in an accessible format on matters such as affordability, demographics and economics. — The evidence base prepared for Regional Strategies remains relevant and material, often having been tested at examination and found sound. — That evidence should be accorded significant weight in preparing plans and in taking decisions on planning applications. — In bringing forward any reforms there is a need to put in place effective mechanisms for spatial and strategic planning across boundaries and for determining appropriate levels of housing provision. — A duty of cooperation should be enshrined in primary legislation. This submission is made by Savills on behalf of Ropemaker Properties Limited, the property nominee of the BP Pension Fund. The planning system has a major impact on land and property values and therefore is of significance to Ropemaker and the Pension Fund.

1. Implications of abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development 1.1 The need for new homes across England, particularly in London, the south-east and east is significant. We welcome Government statements that it will support people’s aspirations for housing. We consider that new homes, both market and affordable, are vital elements of the social infrastructure required to support economic growth and recovery in these areas and nationally. In many communities people are forced out of the housing market by the lack of availability or cost. Not only does this have significant social implications, but it also has negative environmental effects as people are forced to travel further, usually by car, compounding climate change impacts. Delivering new homes in the right locations has social, economic and environmental benefits. 1.2 The implications of the proposed abolition will depend upon the measures put in place to plan for and deliver future development. Much greater detail is needed about those measures in order to be able to consider the longer term implications. However, the revocation of Regional Strategies has had an immediate impact, with a number of authorities withdrawing or reviewing plans and in some instances refusing planning applications. This will have the effect of reducing the supply of land for housing in the short term at least. It has also created uncertainty amongst developers, particularly in relation to strategic schemes. In many quarters there is a concern that sufficient land will not come forward for housing. In moving toward a more community focussed approach, there are a number of factors which we consider will need to be taken into account.

Public Interest 1.3 The planning system was established in 1947 to control the development and use of land in the public interest. We agree that in any system, local communities must be involved in the process which leads to decisions being taken which will affect them. However, in relation to planning for development, there are often wider public interests to be weighed and taken into account in decision-making. It is right for Governments, both local and national, to consider all the evidence and come to “in principle” views on issues such as the level of house building in the public interest. That public interest might take a number of forms—social, economic or environmental. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w162 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Social disadvantage 1.4 The east of England contains a number of former new towns, which are in need of investment and regeneration. Local authorities in some of those areas have supported growth in order to help transform and regenerate their urban communities. In many instances this has required/requires expansion into neighbouring rural areas, often across local authority boundaries. In a number of cases the communities in those rural areas have opposed growth. An important facet of the planning system is, in the public interest, to consider and reconcile issues and if necessary take difficult decisions. There is a risk that communities, whose housing and employment needs are met, will resist development to the disadvantage of those less well-off.

Supporting economic growth 1.5 In our view, housing, both market and affordable, is critical infrastructure needed to support economic recovery and regeneration. An adequate supply of new homes is required to house the labour force. Failure to deliver sufficient new homes will act to undermine economic growth and recovery. A key objective of any reforms to the planning system must be to facilitate the delivery of development required to support economic growth of the country coming out of the recession and to sustain that growth in the longer term.

Environmental implications 1.6 Failure to deliver sufficient homes in locations of high demand and close to economic drivers is likely to have significant environmental implications. People will be forced to live further from the places where they work and will often be forced to commute by car, generating greater carbon emissions and contributing to climate change. 1.7 In bringing forward a more community-oriented planning system, care will need to be exercised to ensure that undue weight is not given to private interests over genuine public interests, such as addressing social disadvantage, supporting economic growth and tackling climate change.

Spatial & strategic planning 1.8 Planning for a community cannot be undertaken in isolation from other places. There is a need for spatial and strategic planning. For example, the influence of London is significant and extends well beyond its administrative boundaries. Communities in London’s hinterland have an important role to play in supporting the growth of London in the national economic interest. There can also be significant benefits for those communities, not always recognised, such as the income associated with jobs in London, which is spent in local communities. 1.9 It is not just London which exerts influence beyond its boundaries. In many places across the east and south-east of England, small to medium sized market towns have grown to their boundaries. Often these places are important economic centres, serving sizeable rural hinterlands. Given the range of services and employment opportunities they offer, such places have in the past been identified by local authorities as the locations most suitable to accommodate growth where the most effective use of transport, social and other infrastructure can be made. However, the future growth of such places cannot be planned for in isolation from neighbouring towns and villages. 1.10 Strategic decisions are also required to deliver the scale of new homes likely to be required. Society’s need for housing is a material planning consideration. There remains a need for the planning system to indentify the need for new homes and to plan for that growth. The planning system is key to reconciling the desires of local communities with the needs of society. 1.11 In South Cambridgeshire, for example, there are over 100 villages. If each village were to determine it should deliver say 50 homes over a 15 year period, 5,000 homes might be delivered. The Council’s adopted Core Strategy currently proposes to deliver 1,176 homes a year equating to 17,650 homes over a 15 year period. 1.12 In bringing forward any reforms there is a need to put in place effective mechanisms for spatial and strategic planning across boundaries and for determining appropriate levels of housing provision.

Certainty and Clarity 1.13 The development industry, investors. Infrastructure providers and communities all seek certainty and clarity from the planning system. The revocation of the RS has created uncertainty and a lack of clarity. Swift action is required to address this to ensure development does not stagnate whilst primary legislation is delivered.

Definition of Local Communities 1.14 Local communities are diverse and varied. Within an area there may be any number of local community interests. There are residential communities, business communities, sporting communities, urban communities, rural communities. All will have different perspectives on issues. Often those interests will cross local authority boundaries. Whilst we fully support the need to engage with local communities in determining the future of cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w163

their areas, that must encompass the full ambit of local community interests and there will remain a need for the planning system to reconcile the views of those different interests.

2. The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long term supply of housing The incentives 2.1 Underlying the Government’s proposed approach is a belief that incentives will ensure a long term supply of housing. Getting the incentives right will, therefore, be fundamental to achieving Ministers’ objective of meeting peoples’ housing aspirations. To date there has been limited information on what these incentives might be and how they might operate. 2.2 The New Homes Bonus Scheme intends to directly reward councils for new homes built. We agree that any such scheme must relate to the actual delivery of new homes, rather than the granting of permissions. The Minister for Housing and Local Government’s letter of 9 August 2010 announcing the New Homes Bonus Scheme advises that consultation on the detail of its operation will take place later this year. In the absence of this detail of its operation, it is difficult to comment on the likely effectiveness of the measures. Given the current spending climate, there is a need for clarity as to the level of funding which will be made available. 2.3 The Minister’s letter of 9 August advised that local authority finance does not adequately reflect the costs of growth. We agree that local authority financing should reflect the costs of growth. There are a number of issues which need to be factored in. Firstly, local government financing has operated on a basis of floors and ceilings to ensure variation in funding does not vary excessively. Dependent upon the scale of the incentives, there is potential for major winners and losers to be created if funding regimes are to be amended to reflect the costs of growth. Secondly, in the case of extensions to urban areas, growth may occur across local authority boundaries. Whilst development may occur in one authority, the actual impacts on communities may be felt in an adjoining area. It is clear that economic factors and development needs do not respect artificial boundaries. Whatever system is put in place, there needs to be far greater joint working and cooperation between local authorities 2.4 We have already noted that there has been an impact on progress with development plans following revocation of regional strategies. Given the current financial climate and the Comprehensive Spending Review, there must be a question as whether and to what extent the incentives will deliver additional funding. Clarity on this matter is required urgently to encourage local authorities and communities to start embracing and delivering new development.

3. The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, etc) 3.1 Arrangements are required in order to ensure appropriate cooperation between planning authorities. That is not just in relation to the matters identified above, but also in relation to economic growth targets, meeting housing needs and infrastructure requirements. 3.2 A duty of cooperation would be welcomed. Such a duty should be enshrined in primary legislation. Such a duty should extend to setting policy and consideration of cross-boundary issues, rather than simply being a duty to cooperate with other authorities operating within the same local authority area. 3.3 Advances have been made in recent years with local authorities cooperating in the preparation of the evidence base for development plans. However, we consider there remains scope for greater cooperation over matters such as infrastructure studies, development options, retail studies, housing assessments. Not only should this lead to better planning and a more consistent evidence base, it should also result in cost savings.

4. The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co- operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function Duty to cooperate 4.1 A duty of cooperation would be welcomed. Such a duty should be enshrined in primary legislation. Such a duty should extend to setting policy and consideration of cross-boundary issues, rather than simply being a duty to cooperate with other authorities operating within the same local authority area.

Local Economic Partnerships 4.2 We consider that Local Enterprise Partnerships could and should have an important role in the planning and development of areas. Businesses are vital elements of the local community and its right that business interests should have a say in how communities grow or develop. It will be important that LEPs are seen as bodies which are involved in and can influence the development of policy and decision-making or there is a risk that they will fail to attract business leaders. The duty to cooperate should include a duty to engage with the LEP in the preparation of development plans. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w164 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

5. How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection for further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries

5.1 Whilst the policies of the RS no longer form part of the development plan, the evidence base which was used to prepare published RS has been tested through Examination in Public. Such tested evidence is not without significant weight and should not be discarded lightly. It is likely that in many cases re-assessments of housing need will demonstrate that evidence to be sound. Accordingly, the RS evidence based should be used therefore not only to inform the preparation of development plans, but also decisions on planning applications during the transitional period unless and until there is evidence to the contrary.

5.2 In order for local communities to effectively engage in a constructive debate about the future of their communities there is need to provide evidence and information in an accessible format on matters such as affordability, demographics and economics. Without such information, debates over the futures of local communities risk being uninformed and polarised. Information such as that prepared by the Leaders’ Boards may well have an important role to play in educating and informing local communities so that they can give informed views.

6. Conclusions

6.1 It is right that local communities play a role in the debate over the future of places. It will be important that in increasing the role of local communities in decision-making that all voices can be heard and that debates are fully informed by evidence presented in accessible formats.

6.2 Whilst incentives for accommodating new development is welcomed, the planning system must look forward, identify issues to be addressed, forecast development needs and make provision for new development and supporting infrastructure. That requires planning authorities to take a wider view in the interests of society as well as taking into account the wishes of local communities.

6.3 At the heart of any system must remain the principle that planning seeks to weigh and reconcile competing interests and that decision-makers act in the wider public interest. In modern society, where economies do not respect artificial boundaries there is a need to ensure that mechanisms are put in place to secure effective spatial and strategic planning across areas. September 2010

Written evidence from Ecotricity (ARSS 77)

Summary Responses to the Questions Posed By the Committee — Targets set for renewable energy development are an important tool in ensuring the delivery of generating capacity. The removal of these targets from the development plan will weaken the ability of the industry to deliver this capacity. — We do not believe that the fiscal proposals suggested by the Coalition will persuade to accept new development in their environment. In any event the significant elements of the fiscal measures proposed appear to be rebranding of measures that were already in place under the previous administration. — We do not think that the measures proposed by the Coalition are adequate to address the policy vacuum that has been created. Without further detail it is difficult to distinguish how the concepts being considered will fill this vacuum. There remains a requirement for a policy framework above the local level which has not been described. — The disbanding of the Leader Boards will ultimately lead to local authorities having to collect and manage their own data at their own expense.

Introduction

1. This submission provides evidence to the Communities and Local Coalition Committee Inquiry into the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies. It is provided on behalf of Ecotricity. Ecotricity is a Stroud based renewable energy company which has 51 wind turbines generating 193MW electricity. We have a growing portfolio of sites in construction, consented and in the planning system.

2. To inform the Inquiry, the Committee has posed the development industry a number of questions which, whilst weighted towards the housing sector have similar application across all sectors. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w165

Question 1 The implications of the abolition of regional renewable energy targets for levels of renewable energy development 3. In response to the decision of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to revoke and ultimately abolish Regional Spatial Strategies most reaction has focussed on the implications for the housing market and the delivery of housing required to meet local demand. However, the Strategies contained targets for a wide range of development types and this submission concentrates on the implications for the delivery of renewable energy in the form of onshore wind. 4. The requirement to prepare RSS’s came out of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and when adopted they became a formal part of the Development Plan. Section 36(6) of the Act requires that determinations on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 5. As the RSS formed part of the Development Plan this created a strong and statutory relationship between national targets and local authority decision making. The removal of the RSS’s removes that relationship between national targets and local decision making. In our opinion the result will be a reduction in the weight that local decision makers will give to the delivery of national targets. The outcome will be that decisions will focus entirely on local impacts and these will no longer be balanced against national targets. 6. Prior to the revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategies the situation was that Government set national targets which were translated at regional level by the Regional Assembly. Local planning authorities then determined individual planning applications against criteria based policies where these had been adopted to deliver projects towards regional targets. 7. This approach acknowledges that, because of a range of constraints, no single region could deliver all of the renewable energy required to meet the established targets and the regional approach allowed for a disaggregation of supply across England. The targets were based on a robust assessment of the capacity of each region to deliver renewable generation capacity with input to this process from the renewable energy industry and local communities. 8. In recent years an important element of environmental and energy policy-making has been the establishment of targets for the achievement of given outcomes by a specified date. Targets do not, of course, determine which means might be used to deliver them, but they do give a clear indication of ends. In this context the end is the achievement of a global objective through the delivery of projects at a local level. In this respect the achievement of renewable energy targets cannot be compared to the delivery of residential or employment land allocation. 9. Given the global imperative to reduce emissions and as a consequence climate change the case for continuing to set targets is strong. They provide an obvious means of focusing both policy makers’ and market participants’ attention on areas where new policy measures may be required or existing ones adjusted. For example the Open Source Green Paper identifies that the planning process is an obstacle to the delivery of renewable energy projects and needs to be speeded up. 10. The UK targets for renewable energy generation first appeared in 2000, and were contained in New and Renewable Energy.118 This strategy document set a target of 10% of energy from renewable sources by 2010. It also established the strong relationship between a positive, strategic approach to planning for renewable energy, including targets for renewable energy provision, from the regional level downwards to facilitate its development while continuing to protect the countryside. 11. The Government therefore proposed that regional renewable energy assessments should set the framework for a more strategic land use planning approach at regional level, itself providing the framework for local authorities’ development plans and decisions on individual energy projects. It is important to note that at no time did Regional Assemblies have the power to determine planning applications. 12. This commitment to target setting and delivery towards these targets had already been established in Government policy in the form of guidance within Planning Policy Statement 22-Renewable Energy (“PPS22–2004”) in respect of regional targets. This states that:

“Targets should be set for achievement by 2010 and by 2020. Progress towards achieving these targets should be monitored by regional planning bodies. Targets should be reviewed on a regular basis…”119 13. In 2007, the EU Heads of State agreed to legally binding targets for the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a corresponding increase in the proportion of energy derived from renewable sources. Reducing greenhouse gases and increasing renewable energy according to the targets agreed by the Heads of State and Government will make the EU much less dependent on imports of oil and gas. This reduces the exposure of the EU economy to rising and volatile energy prices, inflation, geopolitical risks and risks related to inadequate supply chains that are not keeping up with global demand growth. 118 DTi New and Renewable Energy: Prospects for the 21st Century. 119 CLG Planning Policy Guidance Note 22—Renewable Energy Para 3. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w166 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

14. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009120 establishes a target of renewable energy of 15% by 2020, almost a seven-fold increase in the share of renewables in scarcely more than a decade. This target relates to a legally binding EU obligation entered into by the UK Coalition under the 20–20–20 Directive. 15. 2010 is a significant milestone on the route toward this target. The interim target for renewable energy set for 2010 is 10%. Data prepared by Renewables UK illustrates how there will be a significant shortfall of 45% in the delivery of renewable energy against the interim 2010 targets. 16. With the removal of the RSS targets and the policy vacuum which this has created, local planning authorities will be at best treading water waiting for the transitional guidance to emerge, and at worst abandoning work prepared to date with a view to re-evaluating housing targets. In either scenario renewable energy proposals will fall foul of this hiatus as local planning authorities will be focussing their energy on other priorities. 17. PPG3 Housing advises that evidence of current and future levels of need for housing should be based on local and sub-regional evidence of need and demand. In contrast, until the national target of 10% by 2010, or 20% by 2020 are achieved, there is a need for every renewable energy project. In the absence of regional targets and measurement of progress against those targets the difficulty will be in persuading local planning authorities that there remains a need for individual projects presented to them. 18. In revoking the RSS, the Coalition has made clear the duty of local planning authorities to continue to bring forward plans such as Core Strategies which contain growth for their area. Although local planning authorities now have the freedom to create their own growth targets local planning authorities must base this on robust evidence. 19. As it stands local authorities will still have to maintain a five year supply of housing land for their district and this is confirmed in the revised PPG3. They will have to establish this without reference to a regional target which will mean undertaking research into local need and demand. If the localism proposals are pursued for all development sectors then the burden on local planning authorities in terms of justifying allocations would multiply accordingly. 20. We have serious doubts about the ability of local planning authorities to identify the capacity of their particular area to accommodate a particular form of development across the whole range development types in terms of resources and/or expertise. 21. In his letter of the 29 June 2010 to all local authorities the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Coalition introduces the concept of Local Enterprise Partnerships. These sub–national amalgams will take time to evolve and we are concerned that in the meantime the decision making process will suffer. 22. Our submission, in response to the specific question, is that the abolition of the RSS’s will result in a significant slowing in the delivery of renewable energy capacity.

Question2 The likely effectiveness of the Coalition’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate level of renewable energy development 23. It is clear from the Conservatives Green Paper on planning that the revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategies is driven by a belief that householders and local communities resist development proposals because they are brought forward as a result of targets formulated in Whitehall or Regional Assemblies. This is clearly a flawed belief as development proposals attracted opposition long before the introduction of RSS’s in 2004. 24. The Green Paper also suggests that to date, local communities have not had the ability to influence their environment proactively but have just had to react to proposals as they are brought forward by developers. This is also clearly not the case as, since 2000 there has been the facility for towns, villages and parishes to develop plans which would identify where the community would prefer development to be located and what local character should be retained. These plans would then feed into the formulation of Local Development Frameworks. In an urban context these have taken the form of Sustainable Community Strategies. The availability of these tools has not led to communities universally engaging in the process to influence their environment or prevented them opposing development which they find objectionable. 25. To remedy this situation the Coalition is proposing purely fiscal measures. The Green Paper on planning sets out the Coalition’s intention to allow communities that choose to host wind farms to keep the business rates they generate for six years. They also announced an intention to examine how community ownership of wind turbines can be introduced, as on the Continent, and how discounted electricity can be available to communities in the vicinity of wind farms. 26. In relation to housing, the Coalition incentive proposed to match the council tax raised from each new property by 100%. This, in the submission of the Coalition, would reassure local residents that by allowing new housing the cost of any new services required to support those properties would be adequately funded. 120 DECC The UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w167

This misses the obvious argument which will be adopted by local residents which will be that if we do not have the housing in the first place the existing services would be adequate. 27. It is understood that the money to finance this incentive will be sourced from the Housing and Planning Delivery Grant. The principles of HPDG were described as being to:

Strengthen the incentive for local authorities to respond to local housing pressures by returning the benefits of growth to communities; and Incentivise efficient and effective planning procedures 28. The grant allowed local authorities to employ additional resources within planning departments to improve the through flow of planning applications and the quality of decision making. The Coalition’s proposal as outlined in the Green Paper is to reintroduce this grant under a different name. 29. The ring fencing of business rates from renewable energy development for deployment in local communities seems sensible but in our opinion this will not reverse opposition to development proposals. 30. In response to the specific question it is our submission that the incentives proposed by the Coalition will not assist in persuading local communities to accept new development.

Question3 and4 The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, &c); The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co-operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function; 31. As a development company we have concerns about the way in which the reformation of spatial planning has been handled on a number of counts. Given the content of the Conservatives manifesto, the Green Papers on planning (Open Source) and Local Government (Open Source) it was evident that a fundamental change was being signalled. However, what has surprised the development industry is the absence of transitional arrangements in the short term and paucity of detail of what will replace the existing structures in the longer term. 32. There are clearly issues which require consideration at a spatial level beyond the boundaries of a single local authority. These issues include housing, transport, the economy and the environment and need to be addressed at a scale higher than local. In 2007, Keith Mitchell, the Conservative chairman of the South East England Regional Assembly, said “The assembly gives elected local councillors the power to make decisions on housing, transport, the economy and the environment that are too big for a single local authority to make. Without the assembly these decisions would be made by quangos or remote civil servants.” 33. In August 2010, the RTPI and 29 other national bodies involved in spatial planning at various levels wrote to the Secretary of State to express concerns about the withdrawal of the RSS’s and the absence of any specific framework to replace them. The legal challenge to the withdrawal of the RSS’s submitted by CALA homes and endorsed by the HBF suggests that the development industry is not prepared to roll over and let the change happen without a fight. 34. The RSS’s which had been adopted had been the subject of consultation with the development industry and local communities during their evolution. For example the North East Strategy was subject to four rounds of public consultation. They were not therefore conceived in isolation of community input and then foisted upon them. 35. We understand that the Government has invited submissions from groupings who would like to form Local Enterprise Partnerships and not surprisingly we understand that many of these are from collections which correspond closely to the former regional boundaries. The Secretary of State suggests that these bids are from people “finally freed from the shackles of regionalism”. We would suggest that the submissions are more likely to be from people staring into a policy vacuum and reacting out of necessity to fill that vacuum. 36. We support the concept of a National Planning Statement but do not feel that any objectives or target set out in an NPS can be or will be achieved by local communities acting alone. A further level of planning is needed between the national and the local, which sets priorities for investment and solutions to problems which can only be addressed beyond town or borough boundaries. This sub-national level is required to ensure that investment in major infrastructure best serves both the needs of local communities and the wider area. 37. An intermediary level is necessary to ensure an integrated approach to the protection and enhancement of the environment and to prevent loss of biodiversity and where any decisions taken locally have a wider than local impact. This level of planning is important to ensure that climate change is addressed at a level where intervention can be most effective. Importantly, this level of planning can assist in making the delivery of infrastructure more cost effective. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w168 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

38. The Green Paper suggests that regional spatial guidance has been withdrawn in Germany and Switzerland, but that is clearly not the case as this, tier (the Lander and the Canton) continues to be an important element of the planning process in both countries. 39. In response to the specific question we would submit that RSS’s were delivering a spatial framework for the delivery of infrastructure, development and investment. They had been the subject of consultation with the development industry and local communities and were an important element of the development plan. We agree with the Secretary of State’s assertion that people relate to their environment on different levels from street through neighbourhood through to country but that region forms an important part of that relationship. Prior to the introduction of the RSS’s the regional identity of for example the North East, North West or Midlands was deep rooted. We feel that any new arrangements should continue to reflect these historic alliances. 40. In our opinion the proposals put forward by Government are inadequate and without further illumination it is difficult to distinguish how the nebulous concept of the LEP can properly deliver the planning function that was previously provided by the regional plans.

How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries 41. With the disbanding of the Leaders Boards there is a further vacuum in terms of research and monitoring. The Government will no doubt argue that in the absence of regional targets the monitoring of delivery against targets is less critical. Nevertheless, over time the existing data will become redundant and it will be the responsibility of each authority to carry out the research and monitor across each development type at its own cost. September 2010

Written evidence from Anglian Water Services Ltd (ARSS 78) The following submission is Anglian Water’s memorandum to the Communities and Local Government Committee Inquiry into the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS).

Summary 1. Anglian Water is geographically the largest water company in the UK serving over six million customers in what is the flattest, most low-lying and driest area of the country. 2. Safe and secure water supplies in the future depend on long-term planning. 3. Our business is managed in five-yearly regulatory cycles against the framework of a 25-year Strategic Direction Statement. Both require the approval of our regulators and are strictly scrutinised. 4. Our business plan submissions are subject to extensive consultation and are heavily influenced by strategic engagement with a wide range of bodies, including consumer and community groups, elected representatives and other key stakeholders. 5. Our ability to plan and invest in infrastructure helps to underpin regional growth and tackles the impact of climate change—both of which are acknowledged as particular challenges to our region. 6. We operate within a defined framework to an agreed policy position. This certainty has helped us to deliver over £5 billion of private investment between 2005 and 2015, and a reduction in average household bills for the period to 2015. 7. Until a new local planning framework is in place there will be significant uncertainty in the planning system, which we see as detrimental to strategic planning and decision making processes. 8. We are concerned that the current policy void will lead to stagnation and delay the development of local plans. 9. We believe that it is imperative for there to be active co-operation between local planning authorities (LPA) on strategic (larger than local) planning issues. For example, river catchments and water resource zones extend beyond LPA boundaries. Therefore, growth within one LPA area will impact upon the environmental capacity within another. If the implications of growth and climate change for such cross boundary issues are to be effectively and efficiently managed, then we strongly believe that there is a need for planning at a strategic, sub-national but larger than local level. 10. We consider the proposed Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) to have the potential to fulfil a strategic planning function such as this. 11. Long-term water and wastewater infrastructure planning is dependant on having a robust forecast of future housing supply. Therefore, we recommend a continuation of Annual Monitoring Reporting (AMR) for cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w169

housing delivery and supply, which was previously a statutory requirement for tracking progress towards RSS housing targets. 12. The twin challenges of growth and climate change, coupled with the sensitive nature of our wetland conservation sites mean that in some areas of the East of England it is becoming a major challenge to serve new development sustainably. Therefore, it is important to consider the implications of local development upon the water environment. To facilitate this we strongly recommend that the current support for Water Cycle Studies continues.

Anglian Water—Challenges we Face and the need for Long Term Strategic Planning Figure 1 IMPACTS OF GROWTH AND CLIMATE CHANGE ON ANGLIAN WATER (2007)

Anglian Water is a statutory undertaker for the provision of water and wastewater services, and is geographically the largest water and wastewater company; providing services to over 6 million people and 125,000 businesses in the east of England and the town of Hartlepool in the north east. Our operational area is bounded to the south by the River Thames, to the north by the Humber Estuary, and extends from the east coast to Daventry and Milton Keynes in the west. The characteristics of the area that we serve make it particularly vulnerable to climate change. Predominantly rural it is also low lying, with around 25% being below sea level. Of our major assets, 60 are vulnerable to a 0.4 metre rise in sea levels, and more than 1,000 of our pumping stations are at risk of flooding. Our area is the driest in the UK, and the Environment Agency has assessed it as being one of “serious water stress”. This cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w170 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

area also has one of the fastest rates of housing growth in the UK, with a number of growth areas having been defined by the previous government (Figure 1). We recognise that under proposed changes to the planning system, housing targets are likely to change from those outlined in the former RSS. However, the need for us to continue long term planning, at a strategic (defined in this context as sub-national but larger than local) level to meet the challenges of growth and climate change remains.

Anglian Water—Strategic Planning for Investment to Support Growth In our role as a statutory undertaker we have a duty under Sections 37 and 94 of the Water Industry Act to extend our services and provide for growth. For our current five year business planning period (AMP 5) over £450 million is planned for investment in our water and wastewater services to support growth. This includes a “step change” in our level of wastewater investment (Figure 2).

Figure 2 “STEP CHANGE” IN ANGLIAN WATER INVESTMENT IN WASTEWATER SERVICES TO SUPPORT GROWTH AMP4 (2005-10) AMP5 (2010-15) 180

160

140

120 n

o 100 i l l i

m 80

£ 60

40

20

0 Sewage Treatment Sewerage Developer Contributions

In line with our long term strategy it is likely that this increase in investment to support growth will need to be sustained over a number of subsequent business planning periods. This will require support from a wide range of bodies, including consumer and community groups, elected representatives and other key stakeholders.

Wastewater Services Below, please find a case study that is typical of the challenge we face in planning for long-term investment in our wastewater infrastructure. We believe this underpins the case we make for long-term co-ordinated strategic planning.

Case study—North Northamptonshire (Broadholme catchment) Government targets are for 52,000 new homes and 43,000 new jobs in North Northamptonshire by 2021 making it one of the most concentrated areas of growth in the country. The challenge of delivering this has prompted a new local partnership with the five districts coming together to form a joint planning unit to produce the Local Development Framework (LDF). This work identified the wastewater infrastructure as a key constraint to growth. As a result, the Environment Agency lodged objections to the Core Strategy to ensure this would be addressed. A team involving the local delivery vehicle, joint planning unit, the Environment Agency and ourselves have worked to deliver a water cycle study to address this objection and move the planning process forward. As well as treatment capacity, there is a need to provide major reinforcement to the linked sewerage system connecting the market towns of Desborough, Kettering and Rothwell. Therefore, we included a proposal for a £17 million Kettering East Trunk Sewer within our Business plan submission to Ofwat. To date this is one of cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w171

the largest sewerage schemes we have undertaken, but without this infrastructure development at the head of this wastewater catchment will cause unacceptable increases in flooding and environmental detriment. The evidence that such reinforcement is both deliverable, and contained within our Business plan, enabled the Core Strategy to pass through the public examination process. Indeed, the collaborative approach was commended within the Planning Inspector’s report. It is also this strategic approach, and the lateral endorsement from such a wide range of bodies that ensured support for funding by Ofwat. This collaborative approach is typical of how we manage strategic development across our region for the benefit of customers and the wider community.

Water Resources Since 2007, water undertakers have had a statutory duty to prepare and maintain a Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP). Our plan informs our regulators how we plan to maintain a balance between supply and demand for water over the next 25 years, it is based on the 12 Water Resource Zones (WRZ) that make up the area within our statutory water supply boundaries. As directed by the Environment Agency, our latest WRMP and our business plan submission to Ofwat used policy and trend based projections of population and property growth. These projections are aligned with central and local government growth projections. This enabled us to allocate population and property growth, based on Office of National Statistics population projections, and RSS/LDF projections respectively. Using this forecast Ofwat approved funding of over £200 million for the next five years to meet challenges of growth, climate change and environmental legislation in the Anglian Water region. This investment is required on a strategic scale (sub-national but larger than local) across a number of our WRZ and includes resource development, strategic transfers, alongside demand management activities such as enhanced metering, water efficiency measures and additional leakage control.

Implications Having regard to our statutory duties we have the following comments to make on the implications of abolishing RSS. These comments are in line with specific questions posed by the Committee:

1. The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development We have identified a number of challenges that face the area that Anglian Water serves. The most significant are: — Faster rates of housing and economic growth. — The need to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Our business is long-term, requiring us to plan often years ahead for the delivery of some assets, such as reservoirs and wastewater treatment plants. Hence we need to invest now to prepare for the future. This investment requires a robust evidence base, which will require a degree of certainty to be associated with housing targets. This is particularly important for investment in wastewater infrastructure, the need for which is also highly sensitive to the location of development. Regional house building targets provided a degree of certainty that facilitated infrastructure planning, particularly at a strategic level. Once local plans are in place, they will provide a similar degree of certainty for infrastructure planning. However, until then there will be significant uncertainty in the planning system, which will make it difficult to secure regulatory support for our investment proposals. This may in turn have implications for the timely delivery of new housing stock. It is important that the current policy void does not lead to stagnation in the development of local plans.

2. The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing In principle Anglian Water supports the proposals to incentivise new housing development. However, we strongly believe that this should not be at the expense of long term sustainability. Therefore, we consider it to be very important that the proposed presumption in favour of sustainable development is based on well developed national standards, which have been subject to a rigorous process of consultation.

3. The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, etc) The East of England has one of the highest long-term economic growth rates in the UK, with seven of the UK’s top 15 companies choosing to base themselves here, alongside over 430,000 other businesses. Taken together, they represent a significant engine for growth and attract thousands of people to come and live in the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w172 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

area. This sustained level of economic growth provides an area of focus for housing developers, and the strength of the local economy delivers to the Exchequer an annual contribution of around £6 billion year-on- year (East of England Business Forum, “Space for Ideas” 2010). Although RSS have been abolished, the challenges that face the former East of England region remain. To tackle them and underpin economic growth will require the consistent application of policy across all 63 district councils within our area. Such policy will need to be specific to the particular challenges that we face at sub- national level. Achieving this consistency will require support from government. However, it may be difficult to incorporate such specific support within a simplified National Planning Framework, and we consider it unlikely that this framework will have the capacity to make specific provision for the particular strategic issues that we face. Therefore, we would be very supportive of any provision that is made for co-operation between local planning authorities (LPA) on strategic planning issues. River catchments and water resource zones extend beyond LPA boundaries, so growth within one LPA area could impact upon the environmental capacity within another. For such cross-boundary issues to be effectively and efficiently managed, we believe that a strategic planning function should be established.

4. The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co- operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function We support the principle that LEP could fulfil a planning function. However, we believe that this function will need to take full account of the wider strategic perspective required for water and wastewater planning. In our view, investment decisions on issues like housing growth, transport infrastructure and water resource planning require this broader, more strategic coordination.

5. How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries We recommend that the current statutory requirement for local planning authorities to produce an AMR on progress towards delivery of their local plan continues. This would ensure ongoing visibility of this information for infrastructure planning purposes. The twin challenges of growth and climate change, coupled with the sensitive nature of our wetland conservation sites mean that in some areas of the East of England it is becoming a major challenge to serve new development sustainably. This has been recognised in work previously carried out to support the review of the East of England Regional Plan, which called for a properly resourced programme of Water Cycle Studies to determine whether growth at a local level is sustainable. We recognise that under proposed changes to the planning system, housing targets are likely to change from those outlined in the former RSS. However, the need to consider the local implications of development upon the water environment remains, irrespective of any revisions to housing targets. Therefore, we recommend that the current Water Cycle Study approach to local planning continues, as it will help facilitate sustainable growth, and long term water planning.

Recommendations 1. That in line with current guidance, to fill the planning policy void at local level, we recommend that planning authorities are encouraged to continue allocating sites for development using the Local Development Framework process. 2. To fill the planning policy void at sub-national level, we strongly recommend that a strategic planning function be established to ensure co-operation between local planning authorities on strategic issues, such as the provision of water and wastewater infrastructure. 3. If Local Enterprise Partnerships fulfil a planning function, we would strongly recommend that it is a strategic one that takes full account of the wider implications of growth and climate change upon long term water and wastewater planning. 4. That planning authorities continue to be required to produce an AMR for delivery of their local plans. 5. That a properly resourced programme of Water Cycle Studies continues to inform long term planning for the delivery of sustainable water and wastewater infrastructure.

References 1. Anglian Water (2010) Water Resource Management Plan http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/environment/water- resources/resource-management/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w173

2. Anglian Water (2007) Strategic Direction Statement. http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/about-us/statutory- reports/strategic-direction/index.aspx 3. Space for Ideas (2010) Blueprint for growth. http://www.eastofengland.uk.com/blueprint September 2010

Written evidence from Devon County Council (ARSS 79) Summary — In the absence of regional housing targets it will be important to demonstrate how the cumulative levels of provision made by LDFs address wider housing need and demand at the sub regional level as individual LDF areas do not relate in any way to Housing Market Areas or economic functional areas. — Government needs to re-assess national forecasts to ensure their robustness and regain ownership of them at a strategic level. This national framework needs to be the starting point from which more local (sub regional or LEP area) assessments are be undertaken in order to underpin LDF preparation. — The concept of incentivisation is welcomed in principle. The concept does however need to be accompanied by clear rules about apportionment as there are distributional issues, particularly in two tier local authority areas. — It is essential that LDFs are not prepared solely on the basis of the individual planning authority’s area, but rather in the context on the surrounding areas, utilising a shared evidence base. Government should therefore ensure that there is a focused but robust sub-regional approach underpinning LDF preparation, based on a consensus established through a clearly defined “duty- to cooperate” between local and strategic planning authorities in order to address major cross- boundary strategic investment and planning choices which need to be made. — A “duty to co-operate” would help to promote consensus but the scope and nature of such a duty needs to be clearly set out and the specific responsibilities of co-operating authorities defined. Local Enterprise Partnerships do offer a potential mechanism through which a strategic context can be established for LDF preparation, but this role should be formally identified, if and when such partnerships are endorsed by Government, as a key element of the “duty to cooperate”. — It would be helpful for upper tier authorities to be given a duty to monitor cross boundary strategic issues and maintain the evidence base necessary to inform a shared and agreed sub regional evidence base for LDF preparation. This could be secured through the LEP mechanism or cross boundary cooperation of upper tier authorities. — It would be helpful for Government to ensure there is a clearly defined duty-to-cooperate between upper tier authorities to achieve sub regional minerals aggregates apportionment and waste facility provision.

Question 1—The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development; Historically, the publication of population and housing forecasts at national and regional level by central Government has provided a broad framework within which overall housing supply could be assessed against housing need. More recently, however, the targets included within emerging regional strategies have been driven more by policy aims and aspiration than technical evidence. Regional targets have therefore become less robust, and have been based on short term trends that cannot be use as a foundation for long term planning. It is critical that housing provision within LDFs takes account of patterns of population change, migration pressures and assessments of housing need and demand. In the absence of regional housing targets it will be important to demonstrate how the cumulative levels of provision made in LDFs address wider housing need and demand. These assessments can be undertaken at a sub regional scale, but individual LDF areas do not relate in any way to Housing Market Areas, or indeed economic functional areas. In areas such as Devon, the pressure and need for new housing is not derived from within each locality but primarily from migration and movement between Districts. In the absence of regional targets a purely “bottom up” approach will therefore tend to focus on development constraints and fail to provide a sound basis for assessing need and demand. The essential relationship between housing supply and demand would be lost. Current evidence suggests that while some LPAs are retaining their previous regional targets, a number are looking at significant reductions. As a result, even assuming every LA meets their own targets the overall level of provision is bound to be below the original regional target. In reality, however, the former regional targets were not fully deliverable and not related either to the capacity of the development industry or the availability of essential infrastructure investment. In areas such as the SW, cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w174 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

the removal of the regional targets may not therefore necessarily reduce actual housing development rates in the medium term. In the longer term context, two key issues need to be addressed. Firstly Government needs to reassess the national forecasts, ensure their robustness and regain ownership of them at a strategic level. Secondly, this national framework needs to be the starting point from which more local (sub regional or LEP area) assessments are be undertaken in order to underpin LDF preparation. This will ensure that the planning system secures a level of housing provision that is deliverable and can be seen to meet the immediate and longer term needs of the wider community.

Question 2—The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing The concept of incentivisation is welcomed in principle. Development brought forward should however be done so within the context of adopted Local Development Frameworks which have been tested for sustainability. The concept does however need to be accompanied by clear rules about apportionment as there are distributional issues, particularly in two tier local authority areas. Whilst it will be District Councils preparing and adopting LDFs, the County Councils will bear the major cost of upgrading key infrastructure particularly for transport and education provision. This also needs to take account of the impact of development across local authority boundaries where development is close to the boundary with another authority and may have significant impact in terms of issues such as transport and education on the adjoining authority.

Question 3—The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, &c) It is essential that LDFs are not prepared solely on the basis of the individual planning authority’s area, but rather in the context on the surrounding areas, and utilising a shared evidence base. This is especially the case where there are major cross-boundary strategic investment and planning choices to be made (eg on strategic housing and employment growth, transport and communications investment, education and green infrastructure, renewable energy and the management of the natural environment). Individual LDF authorities need to be able to make informed decisions about these strategic choices, or understand the cumulative effects of their decisions. This does not require an additional level of plan making—but consensus must be formally agreed, and tested through the LDF examination process. Government should therefore ensure that there is a focused but robust sub-regional approach underpinning LDF preparation, based on a consensus established through a clearly defined “duty-to cooperate” between local and strategic planning authorities. A broadly defined duty to cooperate would not be sufficient to ensure the effective use of resources or secure efficient and joined up decision making. The duty to cooperate must ensure that advice is both sought and acted upon if it is to be effective. Without the direct involvement of upper tier authorities there is a real danger that LDF authorities, while willing to “cooperate”, will not be able to reach agreement on major policy choices. County Councils and Unitary authorities already have the knowledge, expertise and experience to inform LDF preparation at the sub regional level. In order to address major infrastructure choices and strategic delivery issues, it must be recognised that upper tier authorities have extensive experience in assessing strategic housing needs and economic growth, mineral and waste planning and, critically, infrastructure planning across LDF authority boundaries. County Councils already take a strategic view in relation to minerals and waste Local Development Frameworks, Local Transport Plans and economic assessment and strategy. Experience in Devon’s “Growth Points” has shown the significant benefits of formal co-operative strategic planning by groups of local authorities and other partners as a pre-requisite for delivering sustainable economic and housing growth. County Councils continue to have a lead role in infrastructure planning in relation to their own service provision, and in relation to the responsibilities of other agencies and authorities, and the phasing and delivery of this infrastructure is critical to the delivery of development proposed in Local Development Frameworks. Mineral and Waste Development are matters which are already determined by upper-tier authorities. Minerals Planning: In planning for minerals supply there is a strategic balance to be made to ensure that supplies in one part of the country are secured to meet economic needs in another part. The abolition of RSSs creates a risk that, in those regions such as the South West where the sub-regional aggregates apportionment is not yet formally resolved, the apportionment may stall. Failure to complete the sub-regional apportionment could cause uncertainty and delay to mineral planning authorities in preparing their development plan documents and to the minerals industry wishing to seek planning permission for new resources. The existing Regional Aggregate Working Parties (RAWPs) are technical advisory bodies and determination of the apportionment is outside of their terms of reference and they are not publicly accountable. Government cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w175

should ensure there is a consensus established through a clearly defined “duty-to cooperate” between upper tier authorities to achieve this. Waste Planning: There are similar issues with Waste development. Waste development is determined by higher-tier authorities, but even at this strategic level, it is still necessary to work with other Counties/ Joint Waste Partnerships. Since the 1990s Waste Technical Advisory Bodies (TABs),have provided planning authorities with information and data the need for waste facilities. This strategic overview of provision has to be maintained.

Question 4—The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co-operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function A “duty to co-operate” would help to promote consensus but the scope and nature of such a duty needs to be clearly set out and the specific responsibilities of co-operating authorities defined. Co-operation across local authority boundaries could help inform the evidence base and the context for progressing Local Development Frameworks within sub regions. Given the critical importance of strategic infrastructure delivery, to support the delivery of major housing and other development, upper tier authorities must however be required to play a direct role in supporting coordinated LDF preparation. Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) do offer a potential mechanism through which a strategic context can be established for LDF preparation, but this role should be formally identified, if and when such partnerships are endorsed by Government, as a key element of the “duty to cooperate”. A Local Enterprise Partnership submission has been made covering the areas of Devon County Council and the unitary councils of Plymouth City Council and Torbay Council. Through LEPs the strategic authorities and their partners would be able to provide a clear link between the strategic remit of Local Enterprise Partnerships and the delivery of economic development through Local Development Frameworks.

Question 5—How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries For the South West Region the data and extensive studies which were used in preparation of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy, and supporting it at public examination, have been archived and will remain accessible by local authorities, other agencies, academic institutions and the wider public. While it will remain an interesting “snapshot” and resource base, the data is now becoming out of date. The future of the South West Observatory appears uncertain, and in the current economic context it is unlikely to be easy to assemble funding to maintain such discretionary activity. Upper tier authorities will need to conduct a certain amount of data collection and analysis to support their local economic assessments, and plan for their ongoing responsibilities in relation to functions such as transport, waste management, education, social care and perhaps health care. However, this may fall short of the needs of the planning system. It would be helpful, therefore, for upper tier authorities to be given a duty to monitor cross boundary strategic issues and maintain the evidence base necessary to inform a shared and agreed sub regional evidence base for LDF preparation. This could be secured through the LEP mechanism or cross boundary cooperation of upper tier authorities. September 2010

Written evidence from SJ Berwin LLP (ARSS 80) Introduction We are a firm of solicitors with significant experience in the field of planning law and practice. We act for land owners, developers and funders in relation to major development proposals including residential and mixed use development. We also act from time to time for private individuals and interest groups. We believe that we have a well-rounded understanding of the issues. We wish to comment on the first four issues raised by the Select Committee.

Summary 1. Housing issues cannot be separated from wider planning, development and sustainability issues. 2. Clarity is needed as to whether the Government places as much weight as the previous Government did on the importance of securing new housing, whether it has a figure as to the amount of additional housing that it regards as necessary or desirable and as to whether it has any strategic preference as to its strategic location. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w176 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

3. The approach taken to amendment of existing Planning Policy Statements has caused confusion and should be clarified. 4. The RSS revocation caused unnecessary confusion and there should be due consultation in relation to future policy changes. 5. We remain to be convinced that the National Planning Framework will, if it is to be useful, be any less bureaucratic than the previous system of RPSs and PPSs. 6 References to “Option 1” housing numbers require clarification. 7. Further detail of the proposed New Homes Bonus is required—there are a number of unanswered questions. 8. We wish to see progress in relation to the concept of Infrastructure Plans. 9. We wish to understand any formal planning role that is proposed for Local Enterprise Partnerships.

Focus on Housing Whilst the Committee will be focusing particularly on the implications for housing of the abolition of the regional strategies, we note that housing issues cannot be separated from wider planning, development and sustainability issues, for example in terms of labour markets and retail catchment areas, the need to provide appropriately for infrastructure, distribution and other strategic development and the need for housing development to come forward within sustainable communities, with an appropriate mix of uses.

Implications of the Abolition of Regional Housing Targets for Levels of Housing Development The Government’s thinking in abolishing regional house building targets appears to be as follows (see 6 July 2010 Parliamentary Statement): 1. They were an “unnecessary bureaucracy”. 2. “They alienated people, pitting them against development instead of encouraging people to build in their local area”. 3. The new Government will make the planning system “simpler, more efficient and easier for people to understand”. The Government has not indicated that it places less weight than the previous Government on the importance of securing new housing and has not indicated that it wishes to see a reduction in the level of new housing that is achieved. Its proposed National Planning Framework is intended to set out “national economic and environmental priorities, and how the planning system will deliver them”. We are not aware of any Government statement as to the extent that it intends, whether in the National Planning Framework or elsewhere, to set out a figure for the additional housing that it regards as necessary or desirable or to express any strategic preference as to the strategic location for residential development (north/south, urban/rural, new settlements/urban expansion/urban infilling) or whether this is for local communities up and down the country to address and for any strategic need to be met by individual community expressions of preference. We ask that the Select Committee seeks clarification on this fundamental issue. In making limited amendments to PPS3, cancelling PPS11 and removing references to regional strategies from the remaining PPSs the Government has retained in current national policy statements various expressions of such need and expressions as to the importance of making strategic locational decisions, for example:

PPS1 Paragraph 13 (iii): “A spatial planning approach should be at the heart of planning for sustainable development…” Paragraph 23 (ii): “Planning Authorities should “recognise wider sub-regional or national benefits of economic development and consider these alongside any adverse local impacts”.

PPS4 Paragraph 10: The Government’s objectives for planning include to “reduce the gap in economic growth rates between regions, promoting regeneration and tackling deprivation”. Either statements such as these, contained in extant national policy documents following specific amendments by the Government, are to be relied upon or they are not and should be cancelled as there will be continuing confusion until the National Planning Framework is in place (which we understand is not likely to be until 2012. We ask that the Select Committee seeks clarification on this fundamental issue. We also consider that the revocation of the Regional Strategies on 6 July (heralded by a widely circulated letter the previous week from the Secretary of State to the Chancellor) without any detailed replacement policy or guidance, save for the short “questions and answers” document published on that date by CLG, was not cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w177

conducive to a smooth transition from the previous system to the very different system that is now in effect. The lack of guidance has led many authorities to cease work on draft plans or to adopt a different approach to application for planning permission before them and we do not know whether or not this was in line with the Government’s intentions. It is important that there is due consultation in relation to future policy changes.

It is correct that the Regional Strategies process was “bureaucratic”. However: (a) the bureaucracy lay in the extent to which options and proposals were consulted upon and subjected to sustainability appraisal; (b) in describing the Regional Strategies approach as “top-down” the Government is understating the level of consultation, appraisal and stakeholder participation that took place; (c) consultation and appraisal was required in any event to comply with the Aarhus Directive and EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive; and (d) we have not yet seen any indication of the extent of consultation, appraisal and stakeholder participation that will underpin the National Planning Framework.

The Government has indicated that local authorities “may base revised housing targets on the level of provision submitted to the original Regional Spatial Strategy examination (Option 1 targets), supplemented by more recent information where appropriate”. We find those “option 1” figures difficult to ascertain in relation to specific local authority areas. It does not appear to us that there has been any published assessment as to whether the implications on a national basis of these figures being adopted or whether by the “invisible hand” of individual local authority decisions as to local needs the national picture will be that too few homes will be built or that development will take place in a spatial pattern that is economically and/or environmentally unsustainable. We ask that the Select Committee seeks evidence as to what these figures amount to on a national basis and seeks clarification as to whether, if met, they would amount to an adequate response to the country’s housing needs.

The likely effectiveness of the government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the level and nature of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing

There are two separate issues: the extent to which incentives may lead local authorities to accept new development and the extent to which incentives may lead local communities to accept new development.

The degree of influence that financial incentives will have on local authorities will depend on the level of incentive, the financial pressure that the authority is facing due to other funding constraints and the degree to which councillors consider that allowing development will affect their prospects of re-election.

Financially secure authorities in areas where further residential development is essential due to the extent of needs, increasing unaffordability and pressures on the labour market, may decide to restrict development to an unreasonable degree. Undoubtedly resisting development plays well with local electorates. Without firm targets—whether based on average house building rates (as was the case with the 1980’s “double presumption” in favour of development where an adequate housing land supply could not be demonstrated) or along the lines of the previous Government’s regional strategy targets—it is difficult to see how authorities can be called to account.

On the other hand, there is the possibility that certain authorities may “go for growth” for financial reasons by encouraging major development that in environmental, planning or (in the case of retail development) trade draw terms is not sensible and without clear national or sub-national policies that may be difficult to control. We would be concerned at the quality of planning decisions made by authorities were financial incentives to be a significant factor in their decision making eg “We don’t like the proposal but we will otherwise need to make x number of redundancies”.

We do not believe that incentives provided to local authorities will necessarily lead local communities to accept new development which they would otherwise have opposed. We believe that there is a degree of cynicism as to whether additional money going to the local authority is seen as likely to lead to improvements to the local environment. To the extent that it may be intended that part of the incentive be directed to the local community itself we would wish to understand how the “community” is to be defined and how it can be ensured that monies are spent efficiently and appropriately. It is also often simplistic to envisage the “community” either being capable of easy definition or as necessarily having a uniform stance on any particular issues. Most development proposals lead to a spectrum of different responses.

We reserve further comment until detail of the proposed incentives is available. We do however have a number of questions which we hope the detail will resolve: — will applications submitted before the incentives arrangements become law potentially qualify authorities for incentives? If not there is a risk that authorities will seek to persuade potential applicants to postpone application submission until the system is up and running; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w178 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— what will be the anti-avoidance mechanisms to prevent the unintended outcomes that we have seen with the previous Planning Delivery Grant Regime? Particularly, what will trigger the incentives: grant of permission or commencement of development and if the latter how will phased schemes be dealt with? — how will council tax banding or the appropriate level of business rates be determined for the purposes of the formula before the relevant council tax/rating assessments have been carried out? — if the scheme is intended to be revenue neutral (ie the winners will be matched by the losers) has modelling been carried out to ensure that (a) the likely consequence of the regime is not to remove funding from areas that are subject to lower development pressure ie to widen the gap between the “richest” and “poorest” authorities; (b) the level of incentives proposed in Open Source Planning (six times the level of additional council tax and/or business rates) has been appropriately costed?

We would also wish to understand what amendments are proposed to the Community Infrastructure Levy.

The proposed duty to co-operate and a possible planning role for local enterprise partnerships

A proposed “duty to co-operate” was first referred to, in Open Source Planning, in the context of a proposal to “encourage unitary or upper-tier authorities to take a strategic view and take the lead in compiling Infrastructure Plans, which will set out how those authorities intend to deliver infrastructure (eg waste, roads etc) consistent with the local plans adopted in each area” It was proposed that all local planning authorities and other public authorities should be subject to a Duty to Co-operate which will ensure that they consult all the relevant parties, including all bordering local authorities, in drawing up their plans including infrastructure plans.

We consider that infrastructure plans will be essential and are concerned that we have not seen any announcements about them since the election. There is particularly no reference to them in CLG’s 6 July “questions and answers” document. Without such plans—and indeed without a requirement for local development plans to be consistent with, and deliverable in the context of, such plans—we believe that there will be severe problems with infrastructure delivery.

We await details of the proposed duty to co-operate but will be particularly interested to understand how, and by whom, the duty may be enforced.

Similarly, as bodies with a more than local focus, Local Enterprise Partnerships will have an important role in influencing local policy—and decision-making. We would be interested to understand any formal planning role that is proposed for Local Enterprise Partnerships. September 2010

Written evidence from Covanta Energy (ARSS 82)

Summary — US-based Covanta Energy Corporation (Covanta) is the world leader in developing and operating Energy from Waste (EfW) power stations to generate renewable and low carbon energy from residual waste. — Typically, projects of interest to Covanta will be scaled to meet the needs of more than one waste disposal authority (WDA) or to cater for joint municipal/merchant requirements. Consequently, they tend to be of at least sub-regional or regional significance. — EfW is recognised within EU and UK legislation and policy as having a valuable part to play in meeting cost-effectively important objectives in driving the move towards a low-carbon economy and towards a more resource-based approach to waste management. — Historically, the biggest single barrier to the development of new EfW facilities has been planning. — In recognition of the difficulties that the waste management sector in general (and EfW developers in particular) have faced in the planning system, government has in recent years worked to put in place a comprehensive and cohesive policy framework to guide planning decisions. — Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) were conceived, at least in part, to provide a mechanism for giving spatial expression to the development parameters of these national strategies and policies, especially for projects of greater than local significance. — It is clear from the announcements made by the new government in the lead up to RSS abolition that their main focus was on the housing aspects. At no time, ahead of their abolition, was any statement made either to show that the government appreciated the wider role of RSSs, especially in relation to wider infrastructure provision. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w179

— The abolition of RSSs leaves a potentially serious gap between broad statements of policy and approach at the national level and the detailed land-use frameworks that will be set out at a local level by LPAs. It is essential that LPAs are obliged in their plans to take into account wastes streams arsing outside their area. — A duty to co-operate on its own will not be enough to ensure that realistic co-operation takes place. — It will be incumbent upon government to put in place strong powers and guidance to ensure co- operation. It will also need to be willing to intervene to secure co-operation and solutions where it becomes apparent that the imperatives of local decision-makers will lead them to fail to deliver on wider regional and national priorities. — We are very sceptical that the proposed Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) will be able to play significant role. It will be some time before LEPs are up and running, and possibly as long as four years before any would be in a position to exercise any meaningful planning role.

Introduction US-based Covanta Energy Corporation (Covanta) is the world leader in developing and operating Energy from Waste (EfW) power stations to generate renewable and low carbon energy from residual waste. The company operates 44 EfW plants internationally, handling around 18 million tonnes of residual waste every year—equivalent to around two thirds total UK municipal waste arisings. Most of these plants have been built to meet the needs of local authorities, enabling them to divert from landfill waste that cannot be recycled, generating beneficial renewable electricity and, where practicable, heat and reducing harmful carbon emissions. Covanta has been active in the UK waste market since 2005, pursuing a combination of local authority and merchant development opportunities. The company’s current plans envisage inward investment to the UK in excess of £2 billion to renew the UK’s waste management infrastructure and create significant renewable and low carbon generating capacity. Typically, projects of interest to Covanta will be scaled to meet the needs of more than one waste disposal authority (WDA) or to cater for joint municipal/merchant requirements. Consequently, they tend to be of at least sub-regional or regional significance.

EfW and Planning EfW is recognised within EU and UK legislation and policy as having a valuable part to play in cost- effectively meeting important objectives in driving the move towards a low-carbon economy and towards a more resource-based approach to waste management. Such policies recognise that EfW is a means of securing renewable and low-carbon energy production form residual waste streams that cannot viably be recycled, contributing significantly towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The new UK government has confirmed its commitment to securing future EfW development. For example, the terms of reference of the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) review of waste policy sets an objective to “maximise the cost effective generation of renewable energy from residual waste.”121 Historically, the biggest single barrier to the development of new EfW facilities has been planning. In part this has been a consequence of public opposition resulting in concerted ‘NIMBY’ pressure on planning committees to refuse planning consent, even where the material considerations in support of such a decision have been flimsy. Such decisions mean that applicants face the additional burden and delay associated with making an appeal to the Secretary of State. A significant problem that has compounded this has been a long-standing inadequacy in the regional and local development plan system which has meant that most Local Planning Authorities (LPA) have not had in place an effective policy framework to provide guidance on the appropriate level and location of new waste infrastructure. In the absence of this kind of policy framework, it is more difficult for LPAs to resist well- orchestrated and vocal local opposition to proposals. One result of this is that the planning lead-times for EfW projects typically lie in the range of three to seven years. New plants take around three years to build and commission once planning consent is obtained. However, the UK faces a number of immensely challenging legal obligations, including: — Reducing by 2020 the proportion of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill to just 35% of the level in 1995; and — Increasing the proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources from around 6.5% in 2009 to 30% by 2020. EfW has a vital contribution to make to meeting these obligations, but will only be able to do so if decisions on future planning consents are made in a timely manner that attaches significant weight to the wider regional and national policy priorities. 121 http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/waste-review/index.htm cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w180 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

RSS and an Effective Planning Framework

In recognition of the difficulties that the waste management sector in general (and EfW developers in particular) have faced in the planning system, government has in recent years worked to put in place a comprehensive and cohesive policy framework to guide planning decisions.

At a national level, this has included: — Waste Strategy 2007. — Low Carbon Transition Plan 2009. — Renewable Energy Strategy 2009. — Planning Policy Statement 10, planning for sustainable waste management.

These documents have established the broad need case for the different waste management and renewable and low-carbon energy technologies and considerations that should govern site selection and the determination of planning applications for them.

Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) were conceived, at least in part, to provide a mechanism for giving spatial expression to the development parameters of these national strategies and policies, especially for projects of greater than local significance. This is a vital consideration for EfW projects where larger scale facilities can deliver substantial economic and environmental benefits over smaller ones. For example, the cost to customers of using a 600,000 tonne facility could be as much as 50% lower than for 200,000 tonne one, while its energy efficiency will be significantly higher, delivering important carbon benefits.

Such projects often will be of a size that exceeds the municipal waste arisings of a single LPA. They may also be conceived to cater for both the municipal and commercial and industrial (C&I) markets. The key benefit of the RSSs was that they provided a reasonably robust assessment of the long-term arisings across both of these sectors, typically over a 20 year horizon. This statistical base had the potential to provide a sound rationale for large-scale projects which individual LPAs otherwise would be highly likely to resist, if only on the grounds that they were not necessary to meet purely local needs.

Impact of RSS Abolition

The critical role of the RSS in informing the scale and nature of provision for future waste infrastructure to be made by LPAs in their waste plans is set out in paragraph 17 of PPS10 which states that: “Waste planning authorities should identify in development plan documents sites and areas suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities for the waste management needs of their areas. Waste planning authorities should in particular: — allocate sites to support the pattern of waste management facilities set out in the RSS in accordance with the broad locations identified in the RSS; and — allocate sites and areas suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities to support the apportionment set out in the RSS.”122

It is clear from the announcements made by the new government in the lead up to RSS abolition that their main focus was on the housing aspects. At no time, ahead of their abolition, was any statement made either to show that the government appreciated the wider role of RSSs, especially in relation to wider infrastructure provision.

The 6 July letter from DCLG’s Chief Planner providing guidance to LPAs on the way forward following abolition of RSSs sought to address this gap. With regard to waste management it calls upon them to press ahead with preparation of waste plans and “provide enough land for waste management facilities to support the sustainable management of waste (including the move away from disposal of waste by landfill.”123 It notes that data collected by the authority, industry and other partners through the Regional Waste Technical Advisory Bodies will continue to be available to inform plan preparation. In future, it says, that the function of collecting this data will be transferred to the local authorities themselves. This inevitably means that the focus of future waste planning will become more narrowly focussed on the immediate needs of local planning authority areas, rather than on the wider regional and even national priorities and requirements.

Responses to Committee Questions

We provide below short responses to the specific issues raised by the Committee and relevant to our future development interests. 122 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningpolicystatement10 123 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/letterregionalstrategies cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w181

The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, &c.) As noted above, the abolition of RSSs leaves a potentially serious gap between broad statements of policy and approach at the national level and the detailed land-use frameworks that will be set out at a local level by LPAs. It is essential that LPAs are obliged in their plans to take into account wastes streams arsing outside their area. The regional areas covered by the RSSs provide a reasonable proxy for the kind of geographical area that should be considered in order to maximise opportunities for economically and environmentally beneficial handling of wastes, especially residual wastes. Going forward, in the absence of RSSs government will need to ensure that this wider view is taken by: — Enshrining within the Localism legislation a duty for local waste plans to assess waste arisings across the relevant region and indicate broadly where they can best be accommodated. Where an authority proposes to adopt a policy that would preclude bringing waste into its area for treatment, it should be obliged to provide a robust justification for that. — Providing within a revised PPS10 strong and specific guidance on local waste plan preparation to ensure that this obligation is required and intervention where necessary through the Examination in Public (EiP) process to secure compliance. In addition, PPS10 should include guidance on how LPAs within a region should work together to develop an agreed approach that will ensure that sufficient capacity is identified in plans to meet regional needs. — Placing an obligation upon a suitable competent authority—probably the Environment Agency— to make periodic regional assessments and forecasts of waste arisings across all waste streams to be drawn upon by LPAs in preparing their plans.

The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co-operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function A duty to co-operate on its own will not be enough to ensure that realistic co-operation takes place. Under existing arrangements a duty of co-operation exists between, for example, the Greater London Authority and the surrounding regions in respect of the apportionment of waste that may need to cross regional boundaries for treatment and disposal. At each plan iteration and revision there is conflict between these bodies that is left to government-appointed experts to resolve at EiP. Given that the planning process in future will be much more fragmented, such conflict is likely to become more, not less, endemic. It will be incumbent upon government to put in place strong powers and guidance to ensure co-operation (see response to question above). It will also need to be willing to intervene to secure co- operation and solutions where it becomes apparent that the imperatives of local decision-makers will lead them to fail to deliver on wider regional and national priorities. We are very sceptical that the proposed Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) will be able to play significant role. At the time of writing, the deadline for submission of proposals has just passed and some 56 LEP proposals have been submitted. It is clear that they vary enormously in the geographic coverage and the nature of the partnership underpinning them and in their aspirations. Not all of the country is covered by the proposals. It will be some time before LEPs are up and running, and possibly as long as four years before any would be in a position to exercise any meaningful planning role. In the meantime, there will be a critical gap in regional planning policy coverage that could significantly impede development needed to meet key landfill diversion targets in 2013 and 2016 and 2020. September 2010

Memorandum from Bristol Friends of the Earth (ARSS 83) Bristol Friends of the Earth is a local branch of the national pressure group Friends of the Earth. We are activists involved in local planning and transport issues in Bristol and the surrounding countryside of the West of England. We work with local green organisations including South West Save our Green Spaces Groups. We would be happy to attend a hearing of the committee if appropriate. Living in Bristol (a vibrant city aspiring to be a Green Capital) we have the benefit of close proximity to attractive countryside. This has helped us see the vital links between town and country and the need for joined up planning, housing and transport policy which meets the future needs of both. Below are our answers to the Inquiry’s questions followed by the three economic standpoints informing our views and our three guiding principles of “Small, Green and Local”.

The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development The SWRSS and its housing targets were only ever projections bearing no relation to the real economics of the South West. There was some public rejoicing when both were abolished. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w182 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Having reacted to the public disquiet at the previous Government’s system of centrally imposed housing targets, the current Government risks going to the other extreme of giving local councils and parishes the responsibility for new housing construction without either the tools or funding to create the sustainable communities and quality housing to which our planning system should aspire. The Government appears to share a similar view to the previous one that providing new housing is the main issue whereas the allocation of social housing, the operation of the existing housing market and affordability have a far greater impact on meeting housing needs.

The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept housing development, and the nature of level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long term supply of housing FOE believes that decentralisation and local involvement are vital to success in planning but not on the cheap. If the Government has less money for rural housing that it would wish, it should fund less housing of a better quality and abandon targets altogether. It should use current funding to achieve 1. Good practice models for new housing and employment in rural communities 2. New forms of local funding and community investment and new bank lending to rural enterprises and small businesses and then 3. Use 1 and 2 to encourage a more widespread take up of the successful models across the UK. The Government wishes to release community enterprise and energy. Here in Bristol, the voluntary sector is strong and there are a string of voluntary sector organisations that have been set up locally and have transformed the national scene for example Sustrans in cycling and the Soil Association in organic agriculture. Members of the Bristol Food Network are creating Community Supported Agriculture schemes to cut out the supermarkets and connect farmers direct to customers. Local residents are fed up with a planning system which allows supermarket chains to foist unwanted new supermarkets on local communities and local councils who simply want to protect their local shops and resist more traffic. Communities and councils have to spend time and money opposing supermarkets who come back when they are refused planning permission in the hope that their cash and superior strength in the planning system will finally beat local residents and councillors into submission. The Government should announce a nationwide scheme of funding rural housing in 20 localities and ask villages to bid for funding in a similar fashion to the Cycling City/Cycling towns bidding process overseen by Cycling England three years ago. This could be overseen by the Homes and Communities Agency . A new housing scheme should meet the five principles outlined by the Rural Coalition in their “The rural Challenge” document along with a travel plan agreed with local transport officers to outline how car use could be minimised. We also support the Planning Officers Society’s proposal that both the Local Planning Authority and Parish council need to be involved in the planning of new settlements. Planning and transport officers need to adapt to meet the needs of a new more community minded planning system including employment and transport provision.

The Committee understands that the Government intends to announce further details of its plans for incentives “shortly” and would welcome comments on the adequacy and appropriateness of those incentives when the details are available Incentives for communities The Community Right to Build would allow those communities who want to increase their village by up 10% to do so more easily within the planning system. While this is welcome, it doesn’t get round the major problem of how to fund the new building and the amount of professional advice and expertise required by local residents to achieve it. Only a small number of rural residents have the drive, inclination and long term stamina to undertake the arduous job of planning new housing in their community and getting local agreement. This may involve paying someone with local knowledge to co-ordinate a project of several years duration. However, the right person in the job could achieve far more than local housing. The right mixed development could transform a village. Villages often rely on local farmers to give land free or cheaply which is an act of generosity to the community. A fair trade off is for some of the housing to be allocated to those who work or wish to work on the land or in vital local services/ businesses and for it to be affordable for local people in perpetuity .In addition the Government should offer to fund new model developments to the tune of 95% to make sure they happen.

Incentives for Councils We understand that the Treasury are already concerned that the cost of the New Homes Bonus to be given to local councils would be too high. We consider that the sums involved are far too small to persuade a reluctant council to embark of allowing planning permission. It appears to be a dangerous precedent that smacks of the selling of planning permission. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w183

The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies(eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy) Producing a South West strategy for housing and the above matters for an area from Gloucester and Wiltshire down to the tip of Cornwall was never going to achieve effective decision making. Planning, transport, waste etc are much more local issues and a more local grouping on a county or group of counties or travel to work area would be more sensible on an adhoc basis for each subject. In Bristol, we expect that the current West of England Partnership (the four authorities that used to be Avon County Council) will put itself forward as the Local Entreprise Partnership.

The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co-operate and the suggestion that Local Entreprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function We have not heard anything in the press about a proposed duty to co-operate so we are not sure what it is. We assume that the Government will not create any more quangos/ bodies due to the cost and that the Local Entreprise Partnerships will comprise the same councillors, officers and representatives of local business already involved in local partnership working (here the West of England Partnership). We are not happy with our current West of England Partnership as the three non-Bristol Executive members, disagree with our view that Greater Bristol needs an Integrated Transport Authority to improve our public transport system. However, joining strategic planning and transport in an ITA would seem to us to be a sensible move.

How the data and research collated by the Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries We are not aware of what detailed research was undertaken which would be of use to local councils. Very little of the public information produced regionally we have read would appear to be relevant as it was based on predictions now shown to be incorrect. Sharing of information should be undertaken on a case by case basis when it is useful to local councils. A final report outlining the achievements of the South West Regional Assembly and the South West Development Agency might help to inform future decision making.

Our Views Our standpoint 1. The primary purpose of farmland/countryside is for food production not the building of large new housing estates Green land is our ultimate finite resource and due to erosion of soil, desertification, expansion of cities and climate change, land for agriculture is reducing everywhere including the UK while population expands. The UK is only fed because other countries produce the bulk of our food .Our balance of trade will get worse as the prices of imported food,oil and raw materials rise.We can either develop a long term strategy for more food self sufficiency and more jobs in a less oil dependent agriculture or carry on in the hope that increased income from manufacturing exports and other services will somehow meet the increasing costs of imports of raw materials and food. We consider that it is time for the Government to declare all farmland off limits for future housing development subject to exceptions of proven need where the expansion will create a “more sustainable” village or locality in terms of 1. services, 2. housing for a wider range of folk (particularly the young, old or those involved in rural employment particularly agriculture), 3. transport or 4. jobs. These four critieria along with an assessment of the quality of the design and a micro-generation assessment could form a complete package for new model rural communities to be funded by the Government. A blanket ban on housing development on farmland would force a rethink of our assessment and use of brownfield land in towns. There is a need for an urgent debate on the definition and use of brownfield land and how to achieve quality housing development at a higher density. A longer term assessment of economic trends in our towns and cities would enable us to identify potential brownfield earlier and plan local development better.

Our stand point 2. Volume house building is no longer deliverable at previous prices as the price of new housing will increase sharply in the next decade. New models of housing development need to be adopted by the building, development and planning professions which uses brownfield land more efficiently and promotes mixed development The future capacity of the building industry is limited by the cost and availability of building materials many of which are imported particularly steel, timber and concrete. All are affected by rising oil and transport costs. The building and development industries needs clear Government policy and support to re-orient itself away from volume house building towards smaller quality developments using less land, housing renewal, repair and micro-generation in new and existing homes. Away from monolithic single use developments to more energy cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w184 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

and land efficient mixed developments particularly in towns and towards car free housing developments which increase the patronage of local shops and local transport. The previous Government set up a “Zero Carbon by 2016” mantra for the building industry with no clear and reasoned timetable of how to get to 2016 and no definition of the milestones for the industry to follow allowing it to train its workforce to meet that target. Setting carbon targets for an industry that has no way of tracking carbon imbedded in its imported materials is a nonsense. The only tracking/sustainability system that so far exists for our building industry is FSC timber promoted initially by the voluntary sector. In Bristol previously a hotbed of development, all major development projects have now ground to a halt. Planning applications now proceeding are likely to be land grabbing of agricultural land in the event of a future economic upturn or by those who have the ready cash to fund development (the supermarkets) and don’t have to borrow from the banks.

Our stand point 3. We (the UK) have reached “peak everything”. Those trends used by Government to indicate “economic growth (and health)” will be now be on downward curve due to lack of finance (Government and household) So planning and transport policy needs to adapt to the change and new indicators of a “sustainable and healthy” society adopted It is clear to a growing number of professionals and members of the public that the “usual” indicators of economic growth/health are now on a downward trend. Jobs, car ownership, car use, home ownership and house prices, personal spending on travel and recreation and non-essential goods are all affected by the economic downturn. Shortage of capital and bank lending has led to stagnation in the housing construction industry. Funding for big Government capital projects for school, hospitals and transport are coming to an end. We need a new set of guiding principles for planning and transport for recessionary times to come up with integrated policies to use the best of our now limited resources. Our three guiding principles are “SMALL, GREEN and LOCAL” all principles which fit well with the Coalition’s Government Big Society theme and spending limits. These principles can be used in a city like London or in the South West’s towns and countryside to allocate scarce resources. The Bristol public are fed up with the pressures of constant development and threats to green spaces. A longer term, more organic, better informed approach with emphasis on quality and community involvement will benefit both town and country. September 2010

Written evdience from Chris Skidmore MP (ARSS 84) 1. The Abolition of the RSS is to be Applauded The abolition of regional spatial strategies by the new coalition Government is extremely welcome and cannot come soon enough. Returning powers on where to build housing to local communities and democratically elected local councillors, rather than unelected quangos and Whitehall bureaucrats, is the right thing to do. For too long, local people have felt trampled on by central Government decision making and have felt that decisions have been done to them and imposed on them, rather than being made with their consent. For too long, local people have felt that their voice has gone unheard. The abolition of the RSS will begin to undo this trend towards increasing centralisation- however it can only be the start of a longer process of strengthening local communities and reducing the power of central government and unelected government bodies that has previously done so much to frustrate local community engagement.

2. The Abolition of the RSS Must Take Place as soon as Possible to Avoid Further Applications to Build on Greenbelt Land which are Still Taking Place In my constituency of Kingswood, there is an urgent case for the abolition of the regional spatial strategy as soon as possible. As a direct result of the previous Government's south-west regional spatial strategy, green belt land in my constituency is coming under threat from development through speculative applications in Oldland Common, Mangotsfield and Longwell Green. Two applications-to build on green belt land on Barry road, Oldland Common, and on Cossham street, Mangotsfield—have already been fought off at a local planning level yet a new application to build on green belt land at Williams Close, Longwell Green, has been submitted, and will be heard at a local planning level later this autumn. The application to build on greenbelt land in Mangotsfield had gone to appeal with the Planning Inspectorate, however this appeal has recently been withdrawn. Despite the Secretary of State’s letter to planning authorities that they should regard the intention to abolish the RSS as “emerging policy”, developers are still seeking to use the existing framework as a means of getting around the government’s future plans and build on greenbelt land. In Kingswood, we have witnessed the efforts of developers to thwart local democracy in action: thousands of letters have been written and thousands of signatures against these applications have been collected. I have been working alongside the fantastic Save Our Green Spaces groups in Oldland Common, Warmley and Mangotsfield, whose tireless commitment to saving their local green belt has been tremendous. Yet we should not have our hands forced by cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w185

developers who are continually allowed a right of appeal to a planning decision, when local people feel that they have none, without recourse to legal advice which is often prohibitively expensive. The link between scrapping the RSS and preserving our green belt is clear. To this end, I tabled early-day motion 168: That this House notes that regional spatial strategies removed green belt protection and caused environmental harm; believes that it was right for the Government to announce its early intention to abolish regional spatial strategies and to return decision-making powers on housing and planning to local authorities; welcomes the Government's clarification that local planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to this emerging policy as a material consideration in any planning decisions they are undertaking; and calls on the Government to bring forward primary legislation abolishing regional housing targets outright as quickly as possible.

3. The Abolition of the RSS does not have to Impact on the Building of Affordable Housing Local people recognise the need for extra housing, and more affordable housing, for the future. In fact, there has been cross-party agreement in South Gloucestershire council to build 21,500 houses over the next 15 years and at the same time protect and preserve the Kingswood green belt. It is only due to the imposition of 32,800 homes in the local area under the south-west RSS that the green belt has come under threat from being bulldozed. What is clear is that local councils, and above all local people, should have the freedom to determine where houses are built, and should be allowed to protect local greenbelt land for generations to come.

4. The PPS3 Framework and the Five-year Land Bank Depsite the proposed abolition of the RSS, there are issues that must be resolved with the current planning framework. Currently, there is an instruction to planning inspectors in paragraph 71 of planning policy statement 3 to “consider favourably” applications for housing where the local authority cannot show a five- year supply of housing land. That requirement is counter-intuitive in the current challenging housing market and in the context of the Secretary of State’s recent announcement on the abolishment of regional spatial strategies. Under the PPS3 framework, local councils are being challenged by developers to make good the housing shortfall by approving applications for housing, often in unsustainable locations such as the green belt, on the grounds that the council cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply. However, even though many developers are now experiencing low market demand and have therefore reduced housing delivery, that is not stopping the sector claiming that the land supply in south Gloucestershire has significantly worsened, with that claim being used to justify granting permission for additional housing sites on the green belt at planning appeal. This unsustainable situation fundamentally conflicts with the new Government’s approach to planning for housing provision and on protecting the green belt. PPS3, particularly paragraph 71, is that it fails appropriately to balance the impact on communities-for example, village communities-and disproportionately favours housing delivery above genuine sustainability considerations. It is also contrary to the Secretary of State’s statement that decisions on housing supply should rest with local planning authorities. The requirement to provide a five-year land supply was based on the previous Government’s policy to deliver housing supply through a target-driven framework, of which paragraph 71 represented a key mechanism. The new Secretary of State has made it clear that that approach is no longer Government policy, and I hope that he will consider removing paragraph 71, along with the supporting national guidance on identifying sufficient specific sites to deliver housing or at least five years.

5. Alternatives to the Five-year Land Supply Target To replace the five-year land supply target, I suggest that the Government formally endorse the approach set out in the west of England multi-area agreement, to enable local authorities to agree with the Government annually, so that we have sequential development and more appropriate housing delivery forecasts that realistically reflect expected delivery. The Secretary of State should also consider carefully current national indicator 159 on the supply of ready-to-develop housing sites, which I suggest should be removed. The current NI 159 definition places great emphasis on the regional spatial strategy as the basis against which local authorities’ housing delivery is to be assessed. That requires immediate attention in legislation because it is now clearly not in accordance with Government policy.

6. Greater Powers need to be Restored to Local People My experiences fighting applications to build on the Kingswood Greenbelt has demonstrated to me that we must give greater power back to local people to decide where housing is built. The right for a developer to appeal against planning decisions taken by democratically-elected councillors should be limited, if not removed entirely. Local petitions should have a greater voice, and we should investigate how local referendums of parish councils or local communities could be used to decide where housing is built. Above all, I believe that local people who understand their community, its infrastructure and what services are required, are best placed to understand what will work in the long-term interests of those communities. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w186 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

7. Ensuring Green Belt Protection for Future Generations In my constituency, the Kingswood Green Belt is a much-loved resource, acting as a “green lung” for the local area, and includes areas of outstanding natural beauty. It also acts as a buffer between Bristol and Bath, preventing the two cities from merging into one another. The need to protect greenbelt land is absolutely crucial. However we should consider how local community involvement might be harnessed in order to ensure that the Greenbelt is not simply seen as a dividing line on a map. To this end, we should begin to consider how greenbelt land might move from simply a planning term to be viewed as a community resource. In particular, the boundary of greenbelt land needs greater protection to ensure that it is not eroded over time. One consideration might be to strengthen these boundaries by creating new allotment sites, community parks and picnic sites, wooded areas and nature reserves for community use, which will enshrine the greenbelt in the local landscape of the area. These are some issues that I believe need further consideration when the legislation comes to the House. I congratulate the government on their decision to abolish the regional spatial strategy. It is a welcome decision for the people of Kingswood. It places us on the right track to restore powers to local communities, to trust local people to make decisions over their own lives, and above all to preserve and protect our treasured green belt for generations to come. September 2010

Written evidence from Dundry Residents Action Group (DRAG) (ARSS 85) My name is Debbie Nicholls I represent DRAG: Dundry Residents Action Group we are one af a number of many groups fighting to save the Greenbelt within the South West. I trust that my submision below is accepted on behalf of my group. The committee I believe has decided to undertake an enquiry into the revocation and the abolition of the regional spatial strategy (RSS). The committee will be focusing particularly on the implications of house building. The RSS had been introduced & was about to be imposed on people who had very little knowledge or no knowledge at all of the implications it would have. I ask that you read my submission & Decide in favour of Protecting The Greenbelt & find yourselves able to give the general public a Firm Irrevocable & Lasting Commitment to The Retention & Protection of All Current Greenbelts within the South West & the Entire UK. I also ask that you uphold the decision to Abolish the RSS. DRAG: Dundry Residents Action Group was formed in August 2008 when we learned that Developers planned to build 9500 dwellings on our much valued Greenbelt we felt the need to inform local people of the impact that the massive proposed South West Regional Spatial Strategy (SWRSS) housing developments would have on our village and the surrounding area. We felt it necessary to form this Group because the RSS had been imposed upon us with very little open easy accessible consultation. In the case of the planning application submitted to North Somerset on behalf of the Developer in which over 9500 dwellings a “Major Application” that was to be given the name of Ashton Park covered a swathe of land that was all protected Greenbelt. We learned that the Developers had already put into place options on most of the greenbelt land, thus giving open access to vast swathes of land if the RSS was agreed to. The “Build” was to take place over a period of between 10 & 15 years in Three Phases: Social & Affordable Homes were of High Density with No Gardens & No Parking Facilities (giving the less well off no incentive to better themselves). These Ghetto like dwellings were to be built in phase three!!!. The LAST Phase. If built at all, surly these should have been the first thus ensuring that the developer did not run out of money. This would see the gradual destruction of all of our Greenbelt over a period of time causing catastrophic implications not only to the local community who would be living on a building site for many years but to the well being of the general public and also a major loss of wildlife which in the case of this location is vast. We are not opposed to Social & affordable homes should the need be proven, given the planning application submitted these home were to be built last it was not hard to work out that most of the proposed development was driven by Greed & Not Need. Quick profit & Luxury Houses as opposed urgently needed homes!!! We were fortunate enough to be asked to be included in a programme made by the BBC featuring Laurence Llewellyn-Bowen called “Englands Green & Pleasant Land” in which our plight was highlighted The programme went out on Easter Monday & was viewed all over the country. The volume of response was unimaginable people could not believe that Central Government could on a Whim choose to allow cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w187

Developers who in most cases were only seeing Vast Profits being made, being allowed to build on Currently Protected Greenbelt which should only ever be built on in Exceptional Circumstances. This application could show No Exceptional Circumstance. GOSW in Bristol received well in access of 37,000 letters of ojection from the South West alone, an unprecedented amount & the largest response ever received. Within the SW as a whole we feel that house building targets should revert to a proven need. North Somerset council has its core strategy in place & firmly agrees that the Greenbelt should not be encroached upon. Any building required I am lead to believe will be overseen with Local Councils in consultation with Local Communities .Taking this approach we hope to see developments that have a good infrastructure in place prior to any build & that this will also eliminate rural ghettos & buildings of a shoddy nature. The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets can only prove to be seen as a Positive move. The country now has an opportunity to abolish the RSS and build on the concept of local community involvement. Drag was instrumental together with groups from Shortwood, Warmley & Siston in forming our umbrella group “SOGS” Save Our Green Spaces. We are now a respected body and have many Groups that cover the entire South West all with the same aims. A delegation of SOGS members met with Mr Steve Quartermain a short while ago at DLCG, London & had a very positive meeting with him. September 2010

Written evidence from Land Use Consultants (ARSS 86) Summary Looking Backwards — Land Use Consultants’ submission draws on our experience of work on RSSs in six regions. — RSSs did not “fail” because of top-down housing targets—they broke down because of the process. — Draft RSSs generally had the support of stakeholders in the regions, including local authorities. — The final versions of the RSSs published by the Secretary of State were often quite different, and with significantly increased housing numbers, and this is why the system broke down. — The housing component of RSSs was given too much weight and attention compared to all the other good and useful aspects of RSSs. — RSSs should have been subject to tests of soundness similar to LDDs, not fundamental re-writes.

Looking Forwards — There will be a continuing need for Sustainability Appraisal, Strategic Environmental Assessment, and Habitats Regulations Assessment, which need to address the scale of development as well as the location. — It will be as important to consider the social and economic implications of not delivering enough housing as it will the environmental implications of delivering housing. — It is highly likely that housing development will not reach the levels required to meet housing need—the strategic need for housing, as opposed to local needs, could well be downplayed. — Resource management (water, waste, minerals, renewable energy, habitats and landscapes, etc) requires a strategic and joined-up approach that cannot be left to local planning authorities alone. Neighbouring authorities with different objectives (eg an urban authority abutting a rural one) may well find it difficult to co-operate, which could lead to inertia and desperately needed housing not happening. Where the duty to co-operate breaks down, there is the possibility that, in the absence of any other body, the Secretary of State will have to take over, which would be back to centralised planning. Although LEPs will have an economic focus, they must give due weight to SA, SEA and HRA and environmental objectives, in order to comply with the principles of sustainable development. The wealth of regional data and research must not be lost but must be built upon, even if vested in bodies apart from Regional Assemblies, RDAs, or Regional Observatories. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w188 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Land Use Consultants 1.2 Land Use Consultants (LUC) is a multi-disciplinary environmental consultancy with offices in London, Bristol, Glasgow and Edinburgh and over 100 staff. LUC’s core disciplines include environmental planning, landscape planning, landscape design, ecology, and land management. LUC has provided a wide range of regional-level planning services for a variety of public bodies and organisations. This includes Sustainability Appraisal (SA) incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and/or Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) work for on Regional Spatial Strategies for: — East Midlands. — South West. — East of England. — Yorkshire & Humber. 1.3 Other recent regional planning contracts include research into Environmental Limits in the East Midlands on behalf of the East Midlands Development Agency (part-funded by Defra) and minerals apportionment work in the South East, Yorkshire & Humber, South West and West Midlands. 1.4 We therefore have considerable expertise and experience of the RSS preparation process and the legal requirements regarding their preparation.

Our Response 1.5 RSSs are to be abolished. Ostensibly, this is because the new Government wishes to rid us of top down housing targets that were “imposed” upon local authorities and communities who did not want them. 1.6 But regional planning was not failing because of this. In preparing draft RSSs, regional planning bodies worked very hard gathering evidence and engaging with local authorities and other stakeholders to understand the needs, challenges and opportunities facing local communities. All were acutely conscious of the need to invest in housing, the economy, infrastructure and the environment for future well-being. 1.7 The result in almost all instances was a hard-fought but negotiated settlement that was presented to the previous Government as draft RSSs. Nearly all of the local authorities and many other stakeholders signed up to these and the housing figures they contained, albeit some more willing than others. 1.8 It was the next stage in the process where democracy and ownership broke down. It was clear to us that Examination Panels were under instructions to give considerable weight to household projections published on a rolling basis by CLG. Invariably these suggested that much higher housing numbers were required in RSSs than were provided for in draft RSSs. 1.9 As a result, most if not all Panels recommended to the Secretary of State considerable increases to the total dwelling figures in the RSSs. For example, in the South West:124 — The draft RSS submitted on behalf of the region by the South West Regional Assembly (SWRA) provided for c. 460,000 net additional dwellings over the period 2006–26, an increase of some 20% in the total housing stock of the region over a 20 year period. — The Panel Report recommended a further c. 110,000 net additional dwellings (c. 2,850,000 in total), an increase in the total housing stock of 25% over the 20 year period. — The Secretary of State”s Proposed Changes to the draft RSS went one step further, recommending total net additional dwellings of c. 2,873,000, an increase of c. 26% over the period of the RSS. 1.10 As a result, the Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes were c. 123,000 (29%) above the net additional dwellings recommended in the draft RSS, and 23,000 (4%) over those included in the Panel recommendations. 1.11 Unsurprisingly, this massive increase in dwellings caused considerable consternation in the region, and was a large part of the reason why there were tens of thousands of objections to the Proposed Changes. 1.12 It was our sense that the SWRA had gone as far as was acceptable to local authorities in the draft RSS. It is true to say that the Proposed Changes were more in line with household projections. But it was clear that local authorities did not think that the scale or pace of housing development proposed by the Secretary of State was acceptable, and many parties including ourselves had grave doubts about whether it was deliverable. 1.13 The result was that there was no longer any sense of ownership amongst regional bodies over the Proposed Changes RSS—whereas the draft RSS was supported by and large in the region, the Proposed Changes were not. This mood was exacerbated by other policies in the draft RSS, such as those relating to tough standards on carbon emissions, also being watered down by the Secretary of State. 1.14 In our view, it was a great shame and a missed opportunity that the draft RSSs were subject to such fundamental changes by the Secretary of State. The RSS preparation process became too focused on the delivery of housing. There is no doubt that housing needs do need to be met, and that there are significant 124 See Table 10.1 in Land Use Consultants in association with Collingwood Environmental Planning and Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants, South West Regional Spatial Strategy Proposed Changes. Sustainability Appraisal Final Report. July 2008. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w189

social and economic implications of not doing so. However, planning is about balancing priorities and it is also about deliverability. The delivery of housing needs to be weighed against other material considerations, such as the protection and enhancement of the environment. 1.15 Unlike Local Development Documents (LDDs), which are subject simply to tests of soundness, RSSs could effectively be re-written by the Secretary of State. If similar tests of soundness had applied to RSSs, then we are sure that their passage to adoption would have been much smoother, and we would not be left with the strategic planning crisis that we now find ourselves in.

Implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development 1.16 Without RSSs we are left with a policy void. There is a desperate need for strategic planning—for making difficult decisions in the wider interest of the country. The housing crisis is not going to go away. If we are not careful, we will be left with local authority pitted against local authority. This is most likely to be the case where, as a historic quirk of administrative boundaries, any strategic growth of major settlements supported by a City Council will need to take place in neighbouring authorities, often more rural, and with different political priorities. 1.17 Since the announcement that RSSs were revoked, from our own experience we have seen delays to the preparation of a number of LDDs while the local authorities determine the housing targets they want. Recent articles in Planning magazine125 quote a study undertaken by the National Housing Federation which found that over 85,000 homes have been taken out of local authority house building targets, while the Home Builders Federation has compiled figures indicating more than 100,000 homes have been removed.126 1.18 So in our view it is highly unlikely that the delivery of housing will reach the levels that are needed to deal with housing need, notwithstanding any incentives that local authorities will be given. The most vulnerable are those who are likely to suffer—those who cannot afford market housing. 1.5 Even in the absence of RSSs, there is a statutory obligation for housing targets and their distribution across local authorities to be subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment.127 The consideration of “reasonable alternatives” is a requirement of the SEA Regulations: — The identification, description and evaluation of the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme (SEA Regulations 12(2)). — An outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with (SEA Regulations Schedule 2(8)). 1.6 The inadequate consideration of reasonable alternatives in RSS preparation was the justification for the successful legal challenges on the adopted East of England Plan, and caused the Secretary of State to subject components of the South East Plan to further assessment. 1.7 The consideration of reasonable alternatives as far as housing is concerned falls into four main categories: (i) The scale of housing (how much housing needs to be delivered). (ii) The location of housing (where it should go). (iii) The standards applied to housing delivery (densities, design, etc). (iv) The phasing of housing (when should it be built). 1.8 It is important that local planning authorities consider all the above categories of reasonable alternatives when preparing their LDDs. In particular, they should consider the social, economic and environmental implications of different levels of housing. It is as crucial to understand the social and economic impacts of not delivering enough housing to meet strategic as well as local need, as it is to consider the environmental impacts of delivering the levels of housing that the local planning authorities would like to happen. 1.19 In numerous instances, reasonable alternatives for the distribution of housing development locations will need to cross local authority boundaries, due to housing market areas or travel to work areas (eg in south Bristol/North Somerset, north Bristol and South Gloucestershire or Stevenage/North Hertfordshire). Without the strategic considerations applied during preparation of RSSs, there is a risk that these sort of reasonable alternatives may not be tested.

Likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development 1.20 We suspect that the incentives will not prove to be a sufficient mechanism to deliver the scale of housing that is needed. It is not clear how it will work, or who will benefit. If the proceeds go to local authorities, there is no guarantee that those most likely to be impacted by housing development will receive adequate compensation. 125 Adding up home options. Planning. 20 August 2010. 126 Early court date for CALA homes hearing. www.PlanningResource.co.uk. 13 September 2010. 127 European Directive 2001/42/EC (the SEA Directive) “on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment” as transposed into UK law through “The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Regulations 2004” (SI 2004 No. 1633). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w190 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

1.21 Similarly, there is likely to be considerable difficulty in persuading local communities of the need to provide strategic housing that is not obviously linked to local needs. Examples include: — Hidden households. — Housing development required to support the local economy. — The delivery of strategically important housing development in locations that are more likely to reduce the need to travel and hence reduce carbon emissions and the need for costly investment infrastructure. — Provision for gypsies and travellers. 1.22 Those with an interest but without a voice (eg households who would like to move to a different community, for example to be closer to where they work), could easily be missed out from the equation. 1.23 In our view it is a policy fraught with risks. It will therefore be important that the tests of soundness applied to LDDs give considerable weight to housing needs assessments and to the household projections in order to determine whether the need for strategic housing development as well as local housing need is being met.

Appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities 1.24 LUC has considerable experience of planning for waste, minerals, renewable energy and the natural environment. Although there will always be a need for local policy responses, these are again strategic issues best dealt with at the sub-regional, if not regional scale. For example: — The National Character Areas, which have been defined by Natural England and break down the landscape character of England, a provide a useful strategic planning tool but bear no relationship to administrative boundaries. — River catchments often link a number of local authorities, and the protection and management of biodiversity often requires strategic planning for habitats across administrative boundaries, particularly given the need to allow biodiversity to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Development proposals in one local authority can have an impact downstream in another, or an impact on habitats and species outside the authority where the development is to take place (eg arising from abstraction for water supply or waste water treatment). — Planning for waste management facilities needs co-operation between local authorities in order to achieve efficient waste management, and to ensure strategic facilities that provide a service to a number of authorities are located in the most sustainable locations. — Minerals can only be worked where they are found (which is why counties such as Somerset provide strategic supplies to minerals to markets well beyond their boundaries), and many strategically significant renewable energy opportunities are dependent upon certain locational characteristics to be viable, and to minimise adverse impacts (eg on the landscape). 1.25 All the above needs strategic planning, which the RSSs were well placed to provide. In the absence of a national spatial strategy, there is a real risk that that Local Development Documents will not deliver what is needed. Existing Regional Aggregates Working Parties and Regional Technical Advisory Bodies (for waste) will have an important role to play, but the loss of the regional planning tier is likely to make things more rather than less difficult. 1.26 Planning for aggregates illustrates the point. The apportionment of a regional total to sub-regions (mineral planning authorities) can be controversial, and has benefited enormously from democratic scrutiny at RSS examinations in public. This was most recently the case with the review of Policy M3 in the South East Plan. Removal of the regional tier has in effect removed this scrutiny of options for apportioning aggregates. Ultimately this might frustrate the steady supply of aggregates to the building industry, something that has never happened before and which could seriously constrain economic growth.

Adequacy of proposed duty to co-operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships might fulfil a planning function 1.27 It is too early to say whether the proposed duty to co-operate is likely to be adequate without knowing how this duty might operate in practice. One would hope that most local planning authorities would take this duty seriously. However, there will always be some that do not see eye-to-eye. 1.28 For example, if local planning authorities are refusing to co-operate, or if their co-operation is not all that it should be, or simply is resulting in protracted and painfully slow plan preparation, when and in what form will the Secretary of State intervene? What powers will the Secretary of State have—will they just be an instruction to co-operation or could these extend to taking over the planning function? What will be the sanctions if local planning authorities continue to refuse to co-operate? Will there be third party rights to petition the Secretary of State if it is felt that co-operation is not what it should be? 1.29 This leaves so many unanswered questions that it is difficult to answer the question set. However, it implies that where co-operation is not what it should be, then the Secretary of State will intervene. If this cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w191

intervention extends to taking over plan preparation, this almost brings us back to square one with the RSSs— which ultimately became the Secretary of State’s plans, not those of the regions. 1.30 We are not in a position to comment in detail on whether it is appropriate for Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) to have a planning function. However, LEPs are supposed to be economically led with strong business interests/representation. In their work, we would not want to see a watering down of the weight given to the principles of sustainable development, not only reducing carbon emissions but also protection and enhancement of the natural and historic environment. LEPS will also need to be aware of their obligations to carry out SAs, SEAs, HRAs in accordance with European and national law, and to draw on these to inform the planning process.

Regional data and research 1.31 Regional bodies, whether Regional Assemblies, Regional Development Agencies, or Regional Observatories, have built up a tremendous amount of knowledge and data on the assets, challenges, opportunities, form and function of their regions and sub-regions. 1.32 It is essential that this work does not go to waste, and that continued collection, interpretation and monitoring takes place in a co-ordinated and consistent way, which goes beyond simply local planning authorities doing their own thing. This could take place at a functional sub-regional rather than a regional level, but the most important thing is that it happens. September 2010

Written evidence from Leicestershire County Council Liberal Democrat Group (ARSS 87) A Summary of our Main Views are as Follows — The abolition of the RSS and Regional Plans should be welcomed in regard to the loss of top—down targets for housing development. — With the loss of the RSS an unintended consequence could be the loss of a positive regional/sub-regional strategic planning role. LEPs are not appropriate bodies to fulfil this work and we have concerns that there will be pressure to return to a centralised system—undermining the spirit of localism. — The method by which the Government has gone about implementing a new planning system has caused confusion and has arguably given the wrong impression of the future of housing and planning, — There is no evidence to suggest that housing delivery in the East Midlands is currently restrained by a shortage of land with planning permission. — The proposed incentives (New Homes Bonus & Community Right to Build) need to be clarified in relation to the plan led system, accountability and the role of local councils, — Proposed incentives also appear to reinforce perceptions about home ownership wherein more is needed to support a rental sector, — We believe changes in the “Open Source Planning” may not ensure the delivery of suitable infrastructure to support developments. — Local Enterprise Partnerships prospects for supporting housing will be limited and could actually prove counter productive in terms of infrastructure delivery.

Impact & Implications of the Abolition of Regional House Building Targets for Levels of Housing Development 1. Broadly speaking the loss of the Regional Housing targets should be welcomed as it has begun the move to re-establishing the role of local councils in a democratic, accountable, plan led approach to housing. 2. It is however hard to ascertain what the longer term impact and implications of this change will be. Figures in the East Midlands RSS Annual Monitoring report for 2008–09 states that there were 97,000 outstanding planning permissions for new dwellings on 31 March last year. This clearly shows that contrary to claims by the building industry there is no shortage of land available for housing in this area and the problem is the economic situation and in particular, up front infrastructure costs. It is worrying that some areas have seen a drop in housing provision, but this needs to be balanced with the large number of recently submitted and anticipated applications in parts of Leicestershire on greenfield land. The abolition of the RSS targets has had little affect on the pressure for building in this area but it has raised expectations in affected local communities and we are concerned that it has created the erroneous impression that the loss of the Regional Plan housing targets would mean the end of housing in certain areas. A major factor driving this pressure is the requirement in PPS3 for each LPA to have a five year land supply. This is working against the government's stated intention to get rid of centrally imposed controls and allow councils to develop appropriate planning policies in consultation with their local communities. Planning decisions are being overturned on appeal simply because the LPA has a small shortfall of land (eg 4.5 years) on a particular date. This is undermining the primary purpose of LDFs to identify the most appropriate sites and bring them forward in a way that gives cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w192 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

certainty to local people. If the targets are going to be set locally it follows that the selection and release of sites must also be determined locally. 3. Whilst it is clear that the intention is to create local plans that match the need for housing to local circumstances, there is still some uncertainty about how the old plans will influence the conversion of Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) into Local Plans and how far local areas can decide to carry on with the old system and focus on urban concentration with Sustainable Urban Extensions.

Likely Effectiveness of Government Policy 4. It is very awkward to predict the affect of government policy on long term supply. Recent events in the South East and South West are very troubling but, as mentioned, are more synonymous with the gap between the abolition of policy without the establishment of a new system. 5. Taking “Open Source Planning” as a benchmark of future policy there are considerable issues that could affect long term supply. However this has to be seen in terms of specific issues relating to the local plans, New Homes Bonus, Community Right to Build and infrastructure. In addition the operation of strategic planning will need to be considered in order to ensure the “balancing” of development across a region or sub-regional area. 6. Another concern is that “open source” planning relies upon the strength of a local councils “local plan”, and this appears to be essentially a transformed and updated LDF. The problem here is twofold, on the one hand no clear mechanism has emerged to change an LDF into a local plan and secondly how these plans will operate in the wider strategic framework. 7. It is hoped that the development of local plans will ensure that planning and development is based on the bedrock of the plan led system which was sadly lacking previously. However, as mentioned, there is no understanding of how the issue of housing numbers will be treated. It is assumed that to some extent that emerging legislation will afford councils the power to change their local housing targets, but again there is no mechanism to ensure that an area has reasonable targets to match against sustainability. 8. This will be a particular issue in areas where the local planning authority does not have an established and up to date LDF that could be easily converted into a local plan. The challenge here is that in developing one, the local planning authority will have to build into its plan an expectation of how demand for housing in the immediate area will increase over time. With the current uncertainty about what will remain in terms of strategic planning (especially regarding upper tier, placed based budgeting and Local Enterprise Partnerships) it could result in major disparity’s across a sub-regional area in terms of areas that are prepared/able to accommodate more development and those that have constraints or are not. 9. In terms of New Homes Bonus programme, we have concerns about the practical elements of the programme. Whilst incentivised construction through bonus payments is fundamentally sound on a small scale, there is some concern that the affect will be nullified by other areas of government policy for example the wider changes to government fiscal policy. 10. The medium term impact of the CSR could see a net reduction in Formula Grant which will affect council services and resources, in addition Formula Grant is supposed to be the avenue for distributing the Chancellors reward for 0% Council Tax. Our current working suggests that these pressures alone will add considerable costs to the Formula Grant, and it could be problematic to add further burdens to the Grant. Additionally the complexities of these additional resources in Formula Grant have not been worked out in the context of a negative grant settlement. By this we mean, that even if a council pursues 0% council tax, approves large amounts of construction and actually supports the delivery of the houses, it could still receive a negative settlement in formula grant which will have a knock on financial cost in terms of capital investment or worse could see further service reductions as part of a wider fiscal change. We feel that government should ensure that appropriate legislation accounts for this. 11. A further complication is how the bonus is divided, whether the local planning authority will keep 100% of the funds or if it is to be shared with upper tier authorities, or even divided along Council Tax precept ratios. These will need to be clarified as the impact on housing supply will vary according to these variations. 12. In addition it should not be assumed that the extra resources for affordable housing will necessarily improve affordable housing supply. Overall the provision of affordable housing is a mixture of intermediate and social housing and the need/ratio for this will vary between areas. Whilst the bonus may well bring forward more mixed developments this will not necessarily increase overall supply of affordable units, and it will require local authorities to have the ongoing responsibility and power to request affordable housing (with clear ratios between intermediate and social) as part of their local plans. It will also be essential to have some sort of bonus in relation to the improvement and conversion of (especially empty) properties. Unless the bonus is paid to each new “unit” that is made available to house local people, it will simply become a construction bonus, the LGA position on this point is something that we support and echo. 13. Moving on to the proposed “Community Right to Build”, we broadly welcome the suggestion that communities have the power to allow limited development in their immediate area, but this has to be part of the plan led system and still be pursued through Developmental Control. We feel this will support rural cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w193

regeneration and if the proposals are clear enough could see a marked improvement in Affordable unit delivery, but within the established planning process. 14. We echo the response of the “Planning Officers Society” in raising further practical concerns of how the policy could work, particularly in relation to how support can be given to communities to avoid landowner and developer collaboration/intimidation. In addition we are looking for some sort of legislative guarantee that affordable over market housing is always preferred. 15. However, we feel that again the government has made a suggestion without reference to practical planning issues. Whilst we support “Community Right to Build”, we are worried that developments on this programme could circumnavigate infrastructure monies (such as S106), placing a further burden on rural infrastructure and services. We are also concerned about the requirement for councils to co-operate but are not (apparently) allowed the role to positively engage and where necessary block development. The overall assumption that a community has the skills and capacity to undertake this sort of decision is problematic, and taking the issue outside of the plan led system is complex in terms of possible legal challenges and could have impacts for those applications made via the plan led system. 16. Concern exists over how an individual proposal will fit within the overall spatial development of the district/borough and how it could ride rough shod over green wedge/belt and other landscape designations. Whilst “Community Right to Build” could deliver units in areas that need them, it could also undermine the local plan that the local planning authority is required to establish. On the positive side this policy could see the development of parish council’s capacity to engage with the planning process which could support wider planning and housing issues in the immediate area. 17. In particular we would be keen to see some work to ensure that applications to build 20 units would always come with a condition preventing further development. This is to prevent developers from “creeping” developments made up of 20 home sections over a period of time. We would also hope to see how “Community Right to Build” will fit alongside that proposal under “New Homes Bonus” in terms of payments, section 106 money and local plans. 18. Overall, we maintain that it is very difficult to assume the impact of emerging government policy in terms of housing delivery and long term supply. The current proposals for an open source planning system do appear to return a strong vein of localism to the plan led system, but there is some complexity in how this newer local system will seek to balance delivery with practical local considerations. Fundamentally, we feel that infrastructure delivery is something that is not dealt with in any detail, and aside from some minor changes to money raised from development, we feel that government has missed the opportunity to offer local alternatives such as “Tax Increment Financing”. 19. In terms of delivering affordable units, the government must also consider the value of investment in rental markets. Whilst home ownership is a noble aim, current housing economics in terms of land prices and household reliance upon ever increasing returns on property as a means of saving/pension/credit, means that this will remain a distant dream for many. A suitably expanded rental market that can support long term tenancies needs to be considered. The Charted Institute of Housing paper entitled “Widening the rental housing market” (August 2010) makes this case very well, and we would be keen to explore the role of local councils and the Voluntary Community Sector in developing a solution locally on this. It is our view that an appropriate delivery of affordable rental units could also relieve the pressure on local housing markets by allowing some competition on rents and targeted rental types to local need.

Local Enterprise Partnerships and Strategic Planning 20. The current development of LEP’s seems to be resulting in a sub-regional RDA. This is counterproductive and actively undermines the potential localism in the governments other proposals for housing and planning. 21. With the development of LEP’s there is the potential that on a small scale (such as a single Housing Market Area) they could replace the role previously undertaken by upper tier Councils (Counties). This should be opposed as LEPs will not be democratically accountable and would simply replicate the role and powers given to RDAs under the discredited Leaders Boards. In such a case, this could easily led to a return to the top-down model as a means of “better co-ordination” of local plans and infrastructure strategies. In addition, the original purpose of LEP’s is around economic growth, and whilst we accept that housing, infrastructure and planning are integral to this in a wider sense this should not result in LEP’s being given a planning role outside the democratic and accountable processes of local government and the local planning authorities. 22. Overall we feel that the development of LEPs, is also opaque enough that its own resources and direction cannot be easily matched against sustainable housing and planning. In particular we do not believe that any LEP will prefer to invest in housing related infrastructure over business related. We also question to what extent business can/should be involved in the development of housing and infrastructure and what powers they could possess in a time of limited resources. 23. On a broader theme, there is some confusion over the role that LEPs will have bearing in mind that each economic area is to develop its own unique proposals, if these proposals simply replicate the old RDA model on a sub-regional level, this should raise questions about the LEP policy itself. Our preference would be to retain the limited role of upper tier planning councils as Section 4/4 authorities, bringing together local plans cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w194 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

and LEPs into a wider infrastructure plan and acting as a co-ordinating advisory body for investment. This could also be useful as a complimentary factor to new capital investment models such as Tax Incentive Financing.

Conclusion 24. We thank the Committee for the opportunity to contribute to this call for evidence. Overall we think the potential for housing and planning is broadly promising, but the government should never have taken the route it has in abolishing RSS’ without clearly setting out and establishing what is going to replace it as this has been counter-productive in the short term. September 2010

Written evidence from the Environmental Services Association (ESA) (ARSS 88) 1. ESA is the sectoral trade association for the United Kingdom’s regulated waste and secondary resource management industry, a sector contributing £9 billion per annum to GDP. Our Members recover more of the value contained in the UK’s waste—for example, household recycling has quintupled in the last decade— whilst protecting the environment and human health. 2. An effective and efficient planning process is required to achieve greater economic and environmental sustainability and to enable the UK to meet its legal duties resulting from EU laws on waste management, which in practice requires more recycling of materials and recovery of energy from waste. 3. Defra predicts that £11 billion investment in new waste management capacity is needed by 2020 to comply with the relevant EU laws predating the 2008 Waste Framework Directive, a law which may necessitate even more investment. 4. Obtaining planning permission remains the single biggest barrier to the timely delivery of new waste management infrastructure. Of the 13 decisions taken by local authorities on ESA Members’ energy from waste (EfW) planning applications since 2008, 10 have been refused consent: eight of those refusals were against the recommendations of planning officers. 5. The thresholds of the Planning Act are set too high to offer positive benefits for most applications submitted by ESA’s Members: none of the applications above would have been large enough to benefit from determination by the proposed Major Infrastructure Unit. In the absence of a robust strategic planning policy framework, which guides the local decision making process, the Government is unlikely to reverse the prevailing trend of “planning by appeal”.

Regional Spatial Strategies 6. It is perhaps symptomatic of difficulties faced by our sector that the Select Committee’s decision to initiate an inquiry on the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies focuses on the implications for housing allocations. 7. Regional Spatial Strategies provide direction and context on the urgent need for new waste management facilities and apportion the tonnages of municipal and commercial and industrial wastes that should be planned for, on an annual basis, by each individual planning authority. Planning authorities are therefore required to produce development plans which identify sites capable of managing the amount and types of waste specified within the Regional Spatial Strategy. 8. The apportionment figures are a key consideration when testing submitted development plans. Regional apportionment also provides a context for the setting of recycling targets, identifying shortfalls in treatment capacity and driving investment in new facilities for the treatment and recovery of waste diverted from landfill. 9. The broad locations of sites suitable for (sub-)regionally significant waste management infrastructure (eg hazardous waste facilities) are identified in Regional Spatial Strategies: a strategic planning function that local planning authorities would likely lack the resources or the political will to perform.

Strategic Waste Planning 10. It would be helpful if the Government, as a matter of urgency, clarifies how it intends to fill the policy vacuum created by the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies. The dynamics of waste planning differ from regional housing allocations, and whilst the preparation and adoption of Regional Spatial Strategies has often proved to be a cumbersome, protracted and expensive process, the principle of providing a context for strategic planning is nonetheless sound. 11. ESA understands that the proposed National Planning Framework is likely to incorporate the series of existing planning policy statements and, in the absence of Regional Spatial Strategies, will inform preparation of local authority development plans. 12. To provide a strategic context for planning for waste management, ESA urges the Government to review of PPS10 (planning for waste management) before it is subsumed into the National Planning Framework. Such cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w195

a review is necessary to ensure that strategic planning policies are informed by an updated assessment of England’s waste treatment infrastructure requirements. 13. Waste planning policy must adopt a broader focus to ensure adequate capacity is provided for the treatment of commercial and industrial (C&I) and construction and demolition (C&D) waste, of which 68 million and 90 million tonnes respectively are produced each year. Waste management strategies have tended to focus on planning for municipal waste at the expense of other waste streams. 14. The National Planning Framework should offer better co-ordination of policies for the recovery of energy from waste (EfW) with the development of combined heat and power (CHP). The potential benefits of integrating EfW with CHP are rarely realised with the planning system often limiting renewable energy facilities to sites where there is no local heat demand.

Regional Technical Advisory Bodies 15. The waste management planning process must be informed by robust data and expert knowledge. NPPG 10 (and its successor, PPS10) provided the basis for the establishment of Regional Technical Advisory Bodies (RTABs): a body within each region comprising of technical expertise from local government and the private sector and tasked with advising on the development of waste policies in the Regional Spatial Strategy. 16. The future role of RTABs remains uncertain, however, following the abolition of the regional planning tier, it seems unlikely that this resource will continue to receive funding. 17. Collecting and managing data on the quantity and type of waste arisings, future trends and treatment capacity requirements is a complex process and the data requires significant interpretation to inform the development of policies for adoption within local development plans. It is unlikely that this data processing exercise and the provision of technical advice could be conducted consistently and cost effectively if performed by each individual planning authority. 18. ESA strongly recommends that a resource is made available which offers local authorities strategic and technical advice and relevant waste data to inform the preparation development plans. Whether the principles of the RTABs could be retained in the establishment of a new and improved body, or this resource is provided centrally by Defra and CLG, the evidence base underpinning strategic planning for the commercial and industrial waste stream must be improved. The Government might assist by introducing legislation amending the Duty of Care regulations which ensures that primary data on commercial and industrial waste arisings are reported directly to the Environment Agency by business waste producers.

Joint Waste Planning Authorities 19. The establishment of joint waste planning authorities might encourage local authorities to engage with neighbouring authorities and develop a strategic approach to waste planning. Such arrangements are already in place for a number of local authorities and enable the development of a joint plan which identifies facilities required for the management of waste arisings and where such sites should be located. 20. The need for better co-operation between planning authorities is an increasingly important consideration following the Government’s proposals for a localism agenda. A preference for small scale, local waste management facilities would not achieve the benefits of economies of scale and would fail to deliver the taxpayer value for money.

Model Policies 21. Consistency and efficiency savings could be achieved if the Government prepared model waste policies for inclusion within local authorities’ development plans. Local authorities’ resources could then be focused on developing waste planning policies specific to their geographic locale.

Sustainable Development 22. In an effort to address delays in the delivery of infrastructure, the Government has committed to a presumption in favour of sustainable development through the planning system. ESA suggests that this should allow for expedient and efficient approval of applications for “green infrastructure” which conforms with the policies of an up to date development plan, including waste recovery infrastructure as defined in the 2008 Waste Framework Directive. 23. It should be noted that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 introduced a statutory duty on local authorities to carry out a sustainability appraisal of local development plans (and Regional Spatial Strategies). Subsequently, the waste planning polices of a local development plan would have met the criteria of the sustainability appraisal and there should be no requirement for a developer, in submitting an application which conforms with an up to date development plan, to demonstrate the sustainability credentials of an individual scheme. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w196 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from the British Property Federation (BPF) (ARSS 90)

Introduction

1. This submission by the British Property Federation has been prepared in response to the CLG Select Committee’s request for evidence on the revocation and abolition of regional spatial strategies. We understand that the inquiry will have a particular focus on the abolition of regional house building targets; the likely effectiveness of incentives for local communities to accept housing development and the nature and level of the incentives needed to ensure long-term supply of housing. Evidence will also be sought on arrangements to be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies; the adequacy of proposals already put forwards by Government; and how the data and research collated by the Regional Local Authority Leader Boards should be made available to the local authorities.

2. The British Property Federation (BPF) is the voice of property in the UK, representing companies owning, managing and investing in property. This includes a broad range of businesses—commercial property owners, financial institutions and pension funds, corporate landlords, local private landlords—as well as all those professions that support the industry.

Summary — We have no problem with the revocation of regional spatial strategies. However, there is a need for a degree of strategic planning in some areas above that of local authorities. — It is imperative that the transition to a new system does not lead to a hiatus in development at a time in which there is a need both to meet a major housing shortage and stimulate business growth. — The duty to co-operate must be clearly defined in order to assist local authorities to work together collaboratively. However, we do not believe that such a duty will be sufficient in itself to achieve the degree of strategic planning required. — In view of the need to have a proper degree of strategic planning, we believe that there should be some requirement on authorities to demonstrate that they have put workable procedures in place. — We agree, in principle, that LEPs could take on some sort of strategic planning role but we see a lot of potential problems in their doing so — Few local authorities can possess the full range of skills that they may need across areas such a regeneration and planning. There will be a much greater need in future for local authorities to share skills and even on occasions merge departments. LEPs could in theory be a vehicle for achieving this.

We welcome the proposals to introduce incentives to encourage local authorities to promote growth. We believe that a gradual move towards even greater relocalisation of rate income would provide a much stronger motivation for local authorities to back new development that generates economic activity and creates new jobs

Transitional Issues

We fully accept that the Government has a clear mandate to scrap Regional Strategies (RS). However, it is important that the reforms are carried out with the minimum of disruption both to local authorities and to the private sector. The revocation of RS sparked fears that: — Local authorities would pull the plug on housing schemes in their areas which they had never wanted but had felt compelled to accept to meet their housing targets. There is evidence that this has been happening. However the Government has stressed its commitment to increasing the overall level of housing supply and that it intends to offset the revocation of RS and associated housing targets by giving local authorities new incentives to approve new development. We look further below at how effective these incentives are likely to be but it is clearly desirable that they are put place as soon as possible. — Local authorities would respond to the revocation of RS and other uncertainties around planning by delaying or rejecting applications for large scale schemes of commercial and mixed use schemes as well as residential schemes. The anecdotal evidence that we are getting about this is inconclusive. There is a need to establish more clearly what is happening on the ground. We are seeking evidence from our members about this. — Those aspects of RS that were genuinely useful, including a lot of the supporting data, could be lost, leaving local authorities or successor strategic bodies to reinvent the wheel at additional and unnecessary expense. Both we and others have flagged up this issue and we hope that, as the regional structures are dissolved and regional staff are made redundant, proper procedures will be put in place to safeguard valuable material. This is an important issue for the select committee to explore. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w197

The Relevance of Strategic Planning Strategic planning can bring clear benefits. There will always be some elements of planning (such as minerals, waste and strategic infrastructure) that will require some form of co-operation between neighbouring local authorities. If properly organised and implemented, strategic planning can offer a more joined-up approach to help deliver more efficient services and infrastructure as well as deal with environmental issues that do not respect local authority boundaries such as flooding. In the current climate, in which the private sector often lacks the confidence to invest, collaborative working between local authorities can also help provide the certainty needed to ensure investment. Such working can make best use of resources and specialist skills in plan-making. Accordingly, we welcome the Government’s recognition that co-ordination of some strategic issues at a higher level than that of individual local planning authorities is necessary. The key then is to work out how that strategic planning can be organised in a way that is compatible with the Government’s overarching commitment to localism.

Government Proposals for Strategic Planning From what we can glean, the Government seems to be suggesting that the degree of strategic planning needed can be delivered though the imposition of a duty on local authorities to co-operate with each other and possibly through some more structured co-ordination, maybe via Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

Duty to Co-operate We welcome the proposed duty on local authorities to co-operate with their neighbours. This will be a helpful starting point for any new framework for strategic planning. However, such a duty to co-operate is not easily defined or understood, and so will need further elaboration to avoid confusion and to ensure that each local authority plays their part. If the duty is to take effect as it should, enabling authorities to work together effectively to produce cross boundary agreements and facilitating collaborative working, this should be clearly defined in the forthcoming legislation. The emphasis should be on continual planned engagement rather than sporadic communication to ensure that the most effective collaborative systems and methods of working can be put in place.

Cross-Border Structures Whilst we agree that imposing a duty on local authorities to co-operate with each other would be helpful, it would need to be coupled with some clear structure within which that co-operation can take place. The Government is keen that any new strategic planning structures should, in the spirit of localism, reflect the wishes of relevant authorities. We have no difficulty with that but, in view of the need to have a proper degree of strategic planning; we believe that there should be some requirement on authorities to demonstrate that they have put workable procedures in place. The Government has suggested that Local Enterprise partnerships could have a role to play in this context. We agree in principle that LEPs could take on some sort of strategic planning role. However, also see a number of stumbling blocks: — A strategic planning role would be more practical if, as originally intended; LEPs genuinely reflect natural economic areas. However, the likelihood that there will be over 50 LEPs does not fill us with confidence that such bodies will operate at an appropriately strategic level. — The function and structure of LEPs have been defined in only the broadest terms at present and so it is unclear how such a planning function would fit with other LEP functions. — There is also uncertainty over the amount of funding likely to be available to LEPs. The £1 billion Regional Growth Fund (spread over two years) is unlikely to stretch very far given the many different claims upon it. It is likely, therefore, that strategic planning could only be delivered via LEPs if local authorities were prepared to contribute their own staff and resources to the process. This might be difficult in light of the cuts that are certain to fall on local authorities.

Sharing and Pooling of Skills It is not feasible for all local authorities to possess in-house the full array of specialist skills that they may from time to time require. This is particularly the case in regeneration and planning. When a comparatively small authority takes on a major regeneration project, it generally needs to access outside expertise. LEPs could be a vehicle for fostering the greater sharing of skills (in areas such as land assembly, decentralised energy, regeneration and conservation) that is needed between local authorities. It might be that LEPs could also play a role where local authorities decide to go even further in improving service delivery by merging some of their activities which those of neighbouring authorities (for instance, Westminster and Hammersmith and Fulham are looking to merge educational services, whilst Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire are looking to merge back-office services). There is no reason why the potential for doing this in an area such as planning should not be examined too. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w198 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Housing/Commercial Development Whilst the government has scrapped housing targets, they have stressed that this is not a signal for local authorities to sit on their hands. They are looking to local authorities to respond positively to the country’s housing need and are committed to incentivising local authorities to meet that need. They are equally committed to incentivising business growth.

Effectiveness of Proposed Incentives We applaud the Government’s commitment to incentivise local authorities to take a more positive approach to development proposals. It proposes to do this for housing under the New Homes Bonus scheme by matching the council tax raised on each new house for six years. It is also proposing to use rating incentives to encourage business expansion via a Business Increase Bonus. With house building is at its lowest since the 1920s, there is a danger that the hiatus in construction will continue as planners and local authorities readjust from the previous “top-down” system to the new “bottom- up” approach. It is imperative therefore, that full and complete proposals are published as soon as possible to expedite more housing, job creation and regeneration. We note that the money to pay the bonuses to authorities will come from the overall grant that authorities receive and that those authorities who fail to authorise development will, therefore, not only lose out on the bonus but would actually see their income fall. In the light of this, our view is that this approach could be more successful than some people think in motivating authorities to approve new development. We believe, however, that the Government should be even bolder. Breaking the link between local authorities and rating income has led to a position where local authorities gain little from actively seeking or fostering beneficial development. A gradual move towards even greater relocalisation of rate income would provide a much stronger motivation for local authorities to back new development that generates growth and creates new jobs. It would show, perhaps more than anything else, just how seriously the Government is taking its localism agenda.

Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development We welcome the Government’s commitment to introducing a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This too could act as a counterbalance to the abandonment of housing targets. It will, however, need careful drafting. The danger is that such a presumption could be hedged with such a lot of caveats and exemptions as to be totally meaningless. September 2010

Written evidence from the Norfolk County Council and Norfolk County Strategic Services (ARSS 91) 1. Introduction 1.1 The call for evidence was sent out in early August and will focus on the implications for house building but will also consider; — the arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by RSS (eg waste, minerals, flooding, natural environment, renewable energy etc); — the adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to cooperate and the suggestion that LEPs may fulfil a planning function; and — how the data and research collated by the former Regional Bodies should be made available to local authorities and what arrangements should be put in place to update and collect further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries. 1.2 This response proposes that there is merit in ensuring a strengthened role for Counties who are well placed to assist in filling the gap left by the abolition of RSS yet still fit the localism agenda.

2. Evidence on Setting a Strategic Framework 2.1 Norfolk County Council is already responsible for transport, waste, minerals, surface water flooding and flood risk management and is working in partnerships to deliver strategies and plans for these aspects of spatial planning in Norfolk. 2.2 Spatial planning requires a much broader approach than just land use planning, including understanding and developing policy for the economy, linking job growth with housing growth and ensuring appropriate infrastructure provision. 2.3 Through partnership working the Council can bring a larger than local perspective on strategic issues, such as major infrastructure, and help embed this in more local plan-making. Infrastructure and service providers need a larger than local picture to plan for their investment. Norfolk County Council has been helping cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w199

to provide this through the Norfolk County Strategic Partnership (NCSP) by joining up existing core strategy proposals to form a strategic framework for Norfolk setting out the scale and location of the significant growth proposals.

3. Example 3.1 The Norfolk County Strategic Partnership in 2008 set up the Norfolk Strategic Services Co-ordinating Group to provide the strategic framework for growth in Norfolk. By bringing the key service providers together (including police, health, education, social services, housing, planning, transport, water, electricity) the group has become a strong lobbying voice for infrastructure requirements in the county. The group has engaged with EDF energy in its energy networks consultation and held a focused workshop to get an understanding of the funding issues. EDF representatives attend the group and receive shared growth and services information. In turn the company has asked for a county officer to be a contact for further consultations. This is important because there are significant gaps in power transmission networks and capacity issues in the county and it is hindering job growth in several areas. 3.2 There are also significant issues for water supply and disposal associated with growth. A workshop on water issues was also held involving representatives from the lead agencies, Anglian Water and private developers to get a fuller understanding of the issues and funding implications. These initiatives have been welcomed by district planning officers as they add weight to the ability to raise issues and influence outcomes on wider than local issues. 3.3 NHS Norfolk has also been kept informed of Local development Framework (LDF) consultations across the county and joint service mapping has proved useful.

4. Longer Term 4.1 We have concern that the proposed localism agenda described so far does not take account of the need for investors and service providers to access the wider long term picture for growth in order to plan for long term investment. Although the regulated services such as water and power companies cannot commit to funding for schemes that are regarded as speculative almost until the certainty of a planning permission is provided, they do have longer term plans for which they need a longer term joined up growth strategy. 4.2 For the immediate future Local authorities in Norfolk are continuing to plan for housing to meet the existing RSS targets, as these reflect previous local assessment of need. It is likely that with the near collapse of the housing market, it will take some years to reach the required levels of house building. In the longer term they will need to review plans and will need a sound evidence base for doing so. For the past thirty years or so this has been provided by some form of strategic planning process. Whatever decisions are taken locally, plans need to be informed by population, housing and job forecasts which can only be done reliably at a larger than local level. 4.3 Norfolk produces regular demographic projections and information, monitors development of both housing and jobs across the county and produces annual monitoring statements for the county. This is important to understand whether the required jobs and housing are being delivered and districts can see how others are doing on a consistent basis. The county also has the expertise to understand and engage in the modelling of job and housing forecasts. Such demographic and forecasting skills are not available in individual districts and it would be costly to buy them in. 4.4. Norfolk’s Economic Development and Strategy Group also took the lead in producing the Local Economic Assessment (LEA) which provides a shared understanding of local economic challenges and what needs to be done to address them. Much of the data in the LEA is relevant to planning. Norfolk CC is well placed to update and collect further research across local authority boundaries in supporting district councils in the development of their LDFs.

5. Local Enterprise Partnerships 5.1 Recent advice on forming Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) suggests that they will ‘want to create the right environment for business and growth in their areas by tackling issues such as planning and housing, local transport and infrastructure priorities, employment, and enterprise and the transition to the low carbon economy’. This suggests a similar approach to that outlined in this note. However it is not at all clear that everywhere would have an LEP and a strategic spatial framework requires whole area coverage so it will only provide an approach where LEPs are set up. 5.2 It is suggested that in the short term, under the duty to cooperate, all local authorities agree the joined up picture provided by existing or emerging Core Strategies which can be used to inform the LEP if there is one or the economic strategy. Such non-statutory frameworks would hold little weight in spatial planning terms but could inform inward investment and infrastructure decisions and funding bids. 5.3 The Open Source Green Paper stated that a specific role for county and unitary authorities would be to compile infrastructure plans. Whether or not this is done under the LEP, it is a sensible suggestion and is supported by much of this evidence. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w200 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

6. Duty to Cooperate

6.1 There has been little information about what the ‘duty to cooperate’ means except a line in the Green Paper saying it would enable “a sensible conversation between all those involved in shaping neighbourhoods and the landscape”. The intention may be that this is to be interpreted at the very local neighbourhood level but it is essential to understand that cooperation at a strategic and sub-regional level is vital in delivering major infrastructure and services for all communities. This will be important for future working in two tier areas and the following example shows how partnership working even on an informal basis has been successful in delivering the Greater Norwich growth agenda.

7. Example

7.1 In October 2006 the Greater Norwich Development Partnership comprising Broadland District Council, Norwich City Council, South Norfolk Council, Norfolk County Council and the Broads Authority, was created to provide a mechanism for planning and managing the large scale growth required for the area. The shared need to meet ambitious local housing and job targets has made cross-boundary co-operation essential.

7.2 The main work of the partnership has been to produce two key strategy documents; the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and the Greater Norwich Economic Strategy (GNES).

7.3 The JCS, which was submitted in March 2010, is the fulfilment of the Local Development Framework responsibilities of three of the five partners (Broadland, Norwich City, South Norfolk). One of the first joint strategies of its kind in the country, it is aligned with the pre-existing core strategy for the Broads Authority and is intended to meet the strategic challenges for the period 2008 and 2026. The GNES for 2009–14 focuses on “jobs, homes, prosperity for local people”.

7.4 In parallel with the preparation of the JCS and the GNES, the first phase of the partnership, a number of projects to support the achievement of the strategic goals have been delivered. A total of 17 projects, with an annual spend in the last year of just over two million pounds are now being implemented.

7.5 Quote from the Audit Commission Report on the GNDP “The partnership consistently combines the contributions of each of the partners in ways that add value. Despite seeming like a necessary alliance to deliver local growth, the partnership was no easy coalition, with a legacy of disputes between each and all of the local authorities. That both strategies and projects are being delivered between the partners is a testament to the political will of all partners to make the arrangements work. Bringing the Broads Authority into the partnership has ensured that the focus on key green infrastructural challenges, especially water, has remained sharp. All this has resulted in a partnership that is generally seen, even by critics, as a necessary and positive contribution to the future of the area.”

7.6 There is also strong partnership working in the other Growth Points in Norfolk, for King’s Lynn and Thetford and for the regeneration areas of Great Yarmouth. The County Council’s input has been essential to ensure coordinated delivery of transport and community services such as schools and libraries. This is particularly important where significant growth is proposed in settlements which are located in the same corridor but are in different districts. The planning of new secondary schools to serve growth is a good example of where the County’s ability to look across boundaries is vital. A duty to cooperate which reinforces sub- regional partnership working would be supported. September 2010

Written evidence from Staffordshire County Council (ARSS 92)

Summary — This submission relates to the consideration of the Inquiry relating to ensuring appropriate co- operation between local planning authorities on matters relating to waste management and minerals development formerly covered by regional spatial strategies. — It is acknowledged that there is a need for local co-operation to plan appropriately for the provision of minerals particularly those minerals essential to construction as well the provision of facilities to manage waste. — Local groups should be formed to address issues of cross border movements of minerals and waste to assist local planning authorities in determining appropriate levels of provision and where that provision is appropriate. — Local groups should involve industry and environmental groups and the work of the groups should be undertaken so that it serves to inform and advise local authorities and their communities on strategic matters for minerals and waste development. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w201

1. Background to Submission 1.1 Staffordshire is one of the significant mineral producing areas in England with 59 sites with permitted reserves. Quarries in Staffordshire produced 10% of English land won sand & gravel in 2007 and 9% of English clay used for brick, tile & pipe manufacture. 1.2 It is estimated that 4.2 million tonnes of controlled waste is produced in Staffordshire and there are approximately 250 waste management facilities in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent combined. Through the legacy of quarrying, Staffordshire has significant landfill capacity but new facilities are being developed to ensure that more waste is managed as a resource rather than sent to landfill for disposal. 1.3 Mineral resources produced in Staffordshire are part of an essential supply of raw materials to communities outside the area as well as within the county and similarly, waste facilities in Staffordshire manage wastes produced in areas outside the county. 1.4 The Town & Country planning system provides the context within which some very difficult decisions have to be made relating quarry and waste management development. Some local communities benefit greatly from the outcome of those decisions but others do not. None of these essential developments are a welcome neighbour. 1.5 The Regional Spatial Strategy provided targets for the provision of aggregate minerals used for construction and the management/disposal of waste. These targets were used to determine adequate provision. 1.6 The “Open Source” Planning Green Paper refers to repatriating the determination of the amounts of minerals required back to Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities, subject to national environmental standards to ensure that each authority makes its provision in a fair and sustainable way. The Paper does make an exception, however, for nationally strategic deposits of minerals where responsibility for determining amounts would rest with the Secretary of State. What constitutes such a deposit and on what basis the Secretary of State would determine their provision remains to be clarified. Furthermore, the extent to which contributions to an adequate and steady supply of minerals can be made by imports from Europe and elsewhere including marine resources needs to be assessed.

2. Recommendations for Local Co-operation between Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities 2.1 In Staffordshire, it is acknowledged that there is a need for Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities to work together where there are cross border movements of minerals and waste involving the needs of one area having to be met by its neighbours. It cannot at present be seen how this will happen without some form of targets and a strategic overview of provision will be necessary but it is considered that this should be undertaken at a local level. The aim of local co-operation should be to ensure an appropriate balance between the real needs of communities for mineral resources and management of their waste and the effects on communities living alongside quarries, mines or waste facilities. 2.2 There are a number of existing joint working examples and they are as follows: (a) Lead authorities providing services to others as in Greater Manchester; (b) Sub regional arrangements as in the West Midlands eg Joint working between the Black Country Local Planning Authorities and joint working on waste planning between Staffordshire County and Stoke-on-Trent City Councils; (c) Arrangements funded centrally by CLG as in the case of the Aggregates Working Parties (AWPs); and (d) Arrangements funded locally by partners working at the regional level such as the Technical Advisory Body for Waste (TABs). 2.3 None of the above examples are fully representative of all the stakeholders likely to be involved in determining future provision. The bodies most closely aligned with stakeholder involvement are the AWPs and TABs who both have industry and government representatives and some environmental interests represented. AWPs have been in operation since the 1970s and TABs since the late 1990s. However, these bodies: (a) were, as their names suggest, advisory technical bodies with no executive powers, policy making responsibilities or political representation, which (b) reported to regional decision-making bodies. In Wales, however, the two AWPs with a wider stakeholder base are also policy making bodies. 2.4 The AWP/TAB model involving Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities, industry and environmental bodies should be used as a basis for local co-operation. Local groups could either: (1) Provide minerals and waste technical advice and data sharing; or (2) In addition to (1), provide policy advice and a forum for sharing best practice 2.5 Local co-operation groups could evolve to address minerals and waste issues separately as the membership of each group might need to be different according to the issues that are relevant to the local authority areas. 2.6 Without decision making responsibilities, local groups would need to be report back to their constituent planning authorities and consideration would need to be given to mechanisms for dispute resolution, on the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w202 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

basis that they would be dependent upon a number of bodies to implement any policy recommendations. It is anticipated that groups would work together to: — Assist in providing local forecasts of requirements for minerals and waste management provision based on technical work arising from the Local Enterprise Partnerships; — Agree the basis of monitoring matters such as the consumption and production of aggregates and the provision of waste management capacity; — To identify options for mineral working and waste management that could assist individual authorities in addressing issues within their areas; — To encourage best practice in the prudent use of resources in a way that contributes to a low carbon economy; and — Provide a forum for liaison with other similar groups.

2.7 Based on experience in Staffordshire, a key aim for any joint working partnership or local co-operation group would be to operate openly in bringing together the concerns of communities and businesses in the area that the group would serve. There may also be potential opportunities to work alongside Local Enterprise Partnerships.

2.8 An essential requirement for the effectiveness of these local groups would be the participation of industry, particularly in terms of providing information about the operation of existing sites or facilities. Whilst respecting the needs for commercial confidentiality, it would be an aim for the groups to improve the availability and presentation of information for local strategic decision making.

2.9 In the absence of regional targets, house-building is to be incentivised by financial payments to the local authority. Given that minerals and waste developments are at least equally controversial in their own ways, proposals should be given to possible means of incentivising their development. Moreover, “Open Source Planning” recognises that areas which consume minerals may need to make their own arrangements for future supplies with producing areas although it does not define how this will work in practice. Clearly, those areas where production is taking place will experience disproportionate amounts of environmental harm to those areas receiving supplies for future development needs. If the receiving areas were able to collect funds from development using minerals they could hold it in a fund which producing areas could draw down to pay for compensatory works in areas affected by mineral extraction. Alternatively, revenues raised from the Aggregates Levy could be focussed more directly on those communities affected by aggregate mineral operations. September 2010

Memorandum from Turley Associates (ARSS 93)

Executive Summary — Even before the effects of the recent recession, the planning system has not been able to deliver the amount or type of housing which our communities, our economy and our society needs. By the end of this year, some commentators have predicted that the shortfall against the levels of housing we need will be one million homes. This has led to severe problems of affordability, where a growing number of households are excluded from home-ownership; and accessibility, where labour mobility and economic growth are stifled. — The recent credit crunch and economic recession have exacerbated this problem. Reduced availability of credit and economic uncertainty have constrained the demand for new housing and reduced the housebuilding industry’s ability to supply even the amount for which there is demand. — With more stable economic conditions and a positive and certain policy framework, the housebuilding industry has the potential to deliver the housing we need and in doing so create jobs and stimulate economic activity. As the economy emerges from recession, housing demand increases and the Coalition Government commences its “reboot” of the planning system, it is essential that steps are taken to enable the industry to increase the rate of new housebuilding and to boost the supply of housing land. — The Government is aware of this and it is reflected in its own analysis; Open Source Planning notes that “the country needs a major upswing in development and construction as soon as possible”. — Having abolished the RSSs, the challenge facing Government is how best to deliver the “upswing” in construction and development over the short, medium and longer term. The Government inherits a “backlog” of one million homes compared to current housing requirements and a supply of housing that, in many cases, does not match the type of housing for which there is demand. All recognised projections of housing need suggest requirements will rise but the planning system is not, at present, well equipped to respond quickly to this need. Urgent action is needed that will improve the supply of housing in England that takes account of the significant local variations that exist in the need and demand for housing. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w203

— The proposed presumption in favour of sustainable development which conforms to national environmental, architectural, economic and social standards would be an important measure in the delivery of housing. “Open Source Planning” also proposes a very different approach to the creation of “new local plans” which are to comply with a new national planning framework and to be completed within “a reasonable timescale”. — It is the Government’s intention that a presumption in favour of sustainable development will only apply after these documents are in place. However, it will take time for these plans to be prepared and adopted. Observation, research and past experience indicate that it will take between 24 to 36 months for a new system to become embedded and working in practice. If housing delivery is not increased in the meantime, this will add to the current shortfall, compound problems of affordability and accessibility and frustrate the Government’s aim of delivering an upswing in construction and development activity. — As such the Government should prioritise the introduction of a presumption in favour of sustainable residential development as an immediate step. If such a presumption was to be introduced now, it is considered that the early positive results would include the following: — Maximum delivery of good quality housing in areas where it is needed at a time when the country is emerging from recession and controls on public sector investment will be strict. — A powerful incentive for local authorities to prepare new local plans in the minimum possible time scale. — Local members and engaged communities would quickly adopt a positive approach to providing the development their areas need. — Timescales for developments to come forward would be radically reduced. — The resulting increase in housebuilding activity would stimulate investment, boost local economies and create jobs. — New homes would help to address the significant national shortfall and meet needs for affordable housing. — This submission also requests that measures are put in place to ensure that data and research collated by the now abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards are retained and updated for use all stakeholders. Responsibility for this could rest with LEPs under a properly constituted framework taking account of the possibility of a duty to co-operate and being granted a limited planning function. The efficiency of such a strategy is demonstrated by the success of “Joint Data Units” following the abolition of a number of metropolitan county councils in the mid 1980s.

1. Introduction 1.1 This submission has been prepared by Greg Mitchell BA(Hons), DipTP, MRTPI of Turley Associates, an independent planning and development service to a wide variety of organisations including financial institutions, developers, house builders, retailers and land owning estates. Greg Mitchell has over 30 years of experience in town planning principally within consultancy and the development industry. He is the national head of the company’s Housing and New Communities sector. Turley Associates has a national team across ten regional offices in the UK. 1.2 The revocation of RSSs is a significant change to the English planning system and the consequences of the change are yet to fully enfold. The advice issued to LPAs goes some way to addressing the uncertainty which followed the initial announcements by the Secretary of State and confirms a national commitment to certain key planning policy objectives such as those relating to economic development, design, climate change, flood risk and transport. 1.3 Housing development remains the most controversial topic and, outside London, the revocation of the RSSs may give rise to some LPAs using the change to simply resist new development in the housing and economic development sectors. In the absence of detailed information on the promised financial incentives for growth, the current situation is one where local objection will have significant weight in the planning process. Evidence is that LPAs are exercising extreme caution when it comes to controversial schemes. In the longer term, it remains unclear whether the incentives will be enough to provide a fair and balanced planning process for the industry. 1.4 Plans for Local Enterprise Partnerships are positive but it is unclear what the actual level of uptake will be from LPAs and what planning powers, if any, such partnerships will have. 1.5 The revocation of RSSs sweeps away regional housebuilding targets, which were the basis of the UK’s growth agenda. In the short term the replacement for these is not clear. Whilst LPAs are advised to continue with preparation of their LDFs they will be able to review development requirements. It is open to them to adopt “Option 1” housing requirements or to formulate alternative requirements provided their approach passes the tests of soundness set out in PPS12. 1.6 In view of the fragility of the housing market, the backlog in housing delivery and the potential contribution of increased housebuilding to economic recovery, we consider that it would be preferable for cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w204 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Government to require LPAs to deliver housing at least in accordance with Option 1 requirements pending the testing and adoption of robust alternative figures. 1.7 Whilst much effort across the development industry has been focussed on the implications for housebuilding, it is also of note that employment, retail and other necessary development also have growth agendas rooted in RSS. Uncertainty on how to fill the strategic void extends across most sectors. 1.8 The planned reintroduction of a presumption in favour of sustainable development is welcome. Its consistent application during the transition between the revocation of RSSs and the introduction of any new local development planning system, would go some way to restoring industry confidence and ensuring that development can contribute towards economic recovery. 1.9 The need and demand for additional housing continues to grow while delivery of new housing is currently at its lowest level since the 1920s.128 The effects of the recession on the delivery of new housing have been severe with a 46% reduction in annual housing completions in the first quarter of 2010 compared to the same period in 2007.129 1.10 This under-supply has led to problems of affordability, which have prevented many households from having the opportunity to own their own home, and availability, which has reduced the mobility of labour and constrained economic development and growth. The Government is aware of this and it is reflected in its own analysis; Open Source Planning notes that “the country needs a major upswing in development and construction as soon as possible”.130 1.11 It is essential that positive action is taken quickly by the Coalition Government to address these problems and deliver the new housing that is so needed by so many communities and that will lead the economy out of recession. 1.12 Recent market conditions, and to some extent planning policies, have constrained developers’ ability to bring forward plans for housing delivery. This submission highlights the scale of the challenge and suggests measures including early action which if taken by the Coalition Government will help to create the conditions which the housebuilding and development industries require to deliver the Government’s aspirations for communities.

2. The Challenge Ahead The Need for New Housing 2.1 It is widely accepted that we are not building enough housing to meet the Country’s needs and that the supply of new housing must be increased. It is acknowledged that the lack of supply is a significant contributor to social and economic problems. Kate Barker’s stark analysis in her Review of Housing Supply in 2004131 was that “I do not believe that continuing at the current rate of housebuilding is a realistic option, unless we are prepared to accept problems of homelessness, affordability and social division, decline in standards of public service delivery and increasing the costs of doing business in the UK”. 2.2 As an illustration of the challenge ahead, in 2007, it was calculated that housing completions132 in England would need to reach 240,000133 per year if the objective of providing enough housing was to be met. Even before the credit crunch, annual completions fell well short of this requirement. The highest recent rate of completions was in 2007–08 and totalled 167,000. Completions fell slightly in 2008–09 and then sharply in 2009–10 when less than 134,000 new dwellings were completed. “Mind the Gap” estimated that the shortfall of housing completions against identified need could amount to one million homes by the end of 2010. 2.3 Clearly the potential supply of new housing varies across England in response to market and physical conditions—for example opportunities for major brownfield development are less obvious in the south west of England than elsewhere.

Future Housing Need 2.4 Projections of medium and longer term housing requirements confirm that need and demand for new housing are likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future. For example, the ONS population and household projections134 project rising requirements for new housing. While the effects of the recession and credit crunch have had some impact, for example on levels of migration, it is clear that they have not affected the major underlying drivers of recent increases in housing requirements—rates of household formation, falling household sizes and people living longer. 128 Mind the Gap: Housing Supply in a Cold Climate. A Discussion Paper by David Pretty CBE and Paul Hackett for The Smith Institute, Town & Country Planning Association and PriceWaterhouseCoopers. September 2009. 129 Housebuilding: March Quarter 2010, England. Communities and Local Government May 2010. Table 1b. 130 Open Source Planning Green Paper. Policy Green Paper 14. The Conservative Party. 2009. Page 11 131 The Barker Review of Housing Supply: Delivering Stability: Securing our Future Housing Needs. Final Report Recommendations. HMSO. March 2004. Page 1 132 Taking account of expected demolitions and changes of use 133 Homes for the Future : More affordable, more sustainable. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. July 2007. 134 Household Projections to 2031, England. Communities and Local Government. March 2009 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w205

Summary 2.5 In summary therefore, the challenge facing the new Government is how best to deliver the “upswing” in construction and development over the short, medium and longer term. The Government inherits a “backlog” of one million homes and a supply of housing that does not match the type of housing for which there is demand. Future housing projections suggest requirements will rise but the planning system is not, at present, well equipped to respond quickly to this need. 2.6 All this has happened at a time when the housebuilding industry has undergone a major restructuring and downsizing which leaves it with much reduced capacity to respond to housing needs. It is, therefore, vital that action is taken immediately to stimulate housebuilding and make the planning and delivery of new housing simpler and more responsive to current demand. In particular, action is needed to avoid the very real risk that a transition to any new system of planning for housing arising from the revocation of RSS will compound problems of under-supply. The focus needs to be on increasing the supply of new housing across all tenures.

3. The Coalition Government’s Proposals 3.1 In addressing the challenge of increasing housebuilding activity, the Government proposes the “radical reboot” of the planning system which The Conservative Party’s Green Paper: Open Source Planning called for.

Reforms of the Planning System 3.2 The analysis in Open Source Planning (and earlier studies such as the Barker and Killian Pretty Reviews) concludes that the planning system does not do enough to facilitate development where it is needed and often adds disproportionately to the timescales and costs of bringing forward development. Any reform of the system should make it more efficient and help to bring forward good quality and sustainable development more quickly. 3.3 It is clear that any new system will require not just legislative time to become active but time to regain the confidence of local communities and councils. Open Source acknowledges that “tragically, the very idea that development can benefit a community has also become a casualty” (of mistrust in the planning system). Further reforms of the planning system should provide clarity and certainty which can help to restore confidence in the system—for communities and for housing investors and home builders. 3.4 With the revocation of RSS it will be essential that local councils, communities and the development industry remain clear about what level of housing is expected to be delivered in a particular area. In deciding how to proceed, the Government should have regard to the longer term projections of population and housing need which confirm the urgency of an increase in housebuilding if the country is to avoid the significant social and economic consequences highlighted by the Barker Review.

Delivering New Housing 3.5 Meeting Option 1 figures for delivery of new housing will require a significant increase in current rates of delivery. This, at a time when need remains high and demand is increasing, but the main delivery agent—the housebuilding industry—faces a dual problem of difficult market conditions and significantly reduced capacity. 3.6 The Government’s planned financial incentives for the delivery of new housing could act as a powerful incentive for councils to plan for more housing. In the longer term, the proposed new system does have the potential to deliver housing through a combination of a simpler local plan system and direct local incentivisation of development. However, there is concern that in the transition to this new system, particularly now that the strategic housing requirements in RSSs have been revoked, opportunities for good quality housing may be delayed and the impacts of the economic downturn prolonged. Hence the reason why we advocate the use of Option 1 levels as a minimum.

Local Development Plan Timescales 3.7 In previous systems, the absence of binding timescales for adoption of development plans has added to uncertainty and delays and frustrated development activity. The Government’s proposals for local authorities to complete local plans within prescribed timescales will help, but experience in this area has not been good.

Data and Research 3.8 In many cases, a considerable body of evidence that would be relevant to a new local plan has already been gathered and widely consulted upon. In order to avoid yet further delays and costly gathering of new evidence, the existing evidence base should form an essential component of whatever revised local development plan system the Government proposes. There is no need to duplicate work that has already been completed incurring unnecessary costs for the public and private sector. In this context it is important that measures are put in place to ensure that data and research collated by the now abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards is retained and updated for use all stakeholders. Responsibility for this could rest with LEPs under a properly constituted framework taking account of the possibility of a duty to co-operate and being granted a limited planning function. The efficiency of such a strategy is demonstrated by the success of “Joint Data Units” following the abolition of a number of metropolitan county councils in the mid 1980s. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w206 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

3.9 Open Source proposes that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development after a Local Development Plan is adopted. The introduction of such a presumption in favour of sustainable housing would act to address both the need to maintain and increase housing delivery as the country emerges from recession and to provide an added incentive for communities and councils to prepare local plans quickly. It is through this mechanism that the issues set out above could be addressed. 3.10 Could a mechanism be put in place to enable the presumption to be introduced ahead of the adoption of a Local Plan? We believe it could. The presumption in favour could indicate that local planning authorities should consider favourably proposals which would help to meet local housing requirements and which can be demonstrated to comprise sustainable development. 3.11 Sustainability Appraisals could be used as a means of ensuring consistent assessment of the sustainability of proposals for new housing. Sustainability Appraisal is a transparent and objective tool for considering the overall sustainability of a development which can be applied to individual planning applications. The information contained in such an appraisal can be proportionate to the scale and likely impacts of the development and could comprise part of the information required to accompany a planning application. Assessment of local housing requirements could draw on a range of evidence including population and household projections, Strategic Housing Market Assessments, economic growth plans and recent levels of housebuilding in the area. 3.12 It is suggested that a Sustainability Appraisal could be submitted alongside the Design and Access statement with a planning application. It is already a requirement for most major schemes. If it was viewed as robust by the Local Authority then the presumption in favour of development would apply in respect of the consideration of that application. If the Local Authority did not consider it robust they would determine the application as if the presumption did not apply but the applicant could appeal and the Planning Inspector could come to his or her own view on the Sustainability Appraisal and then apply the presumption or not in coming to a decision. This provides a straightforward procedure which enables the sustainability of a scheme to be tested.

3.13 This mechanism mirrors the sustainability testing of the Local Development Plan but can be introduced immediately. If the presumption in favour of sustainable housing development is only introduced once councils have adopted new local plans this risks further delay. Our observation, research and past experience indicate that it will take between 24 to 36 months for a new system to become embedded and working in practice. Meanwhile, on current evidence, there is a clear prospect that councils will resist or defer much needed housing development with the consequent serious impacts on jobs, economic activity, labour mobility and the cost and availability of housing. This would frustrate the Government’s aim of delivering an upswing in construction and development activity.

4. Request for Action 4.1 In conclusion, even before the effects of the recent recession, the planning system has not been able to deliver the amount or type of housing which our communities, our economy and our society needs. By the end of this year, some commentators have predicted that the shortfall against the levels of housing we need will be one million homes. This has led to severe problems of affordability, where a growing number of households are excluded from home-ownership; and accessibility, where labour mobility and economic growth are stifled.

4.2 The recent credit crunch and economic recession have accelerated this problem. Reduced availability of credit and economic uncertainty have constrained the demand for new housing and reduced the housebuilding industry’s ability to supply even the amount for which there is demand.

4.3 With more stable economic conditions and a positive and certain policy framework, the housebuilding industry has the potential to deliver the housing we need and in doing so create jobs and stimulate economic activity. As the economy emerges from recession, housing demand increases and the Coalition Government commences its “reboot” of the planning system, it is essential that steps are taken to enable the industry to increase the rate of new housebuilding and to boost the supply of housing land. The Government’s aim of delivering an “upswing” in development and construction activity depends on this. An increased supply of housing is essential if the Government is to achieve its stated aims of delivering economic growth.

4.4 A new, simpler local plan system combined with incentives for communities to deliver new housing could help to boost housing supply. The proposed presumption in favour of sustainable development which conforms to national environmental, architectural, economic and social standards is also an important measure in the delivery of housing. It would, however, be a concern that if the introduction of such a presumption in favour is left until after the introduction and adoption of new local plans and a revised development tariff system, opportunities for sustainable and much needed housing will be delayed at this critical time. Preparation of a local plan is likely to take a minimum of two years. If housing delivery is not increased in the meantime, this will add to the current shortfall and compound problems of affordability and accessibility rather than addressing them. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w207

4.5 Such a presumption would make clear that to be considered sustainable, a development would need to: — Comply with national policy contained in Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance notes; — Have been shown to sustainable through application of an objective Sustainability Appraisal process; — Be subject to payment of any tariff in accordance with prevailing local requirements; and — Have been subject to appropriate public engagement. 4.6 As such the Government should prioritise the introduction of a presumption in favour of sustainable residential development as an immediate step. If such a presumption was to be introduced now, it is considered that the early positive results would include the following: — Maximum delivery of good quality housing in areas where it is needed at a time when the country is emerging from recession and controls on public sector investment will be strict; — A powerful incentive for local authorities to prepare new local plans in the minimum possible time scale; — Local members and engaged communities would quickly adopt a positive approach to providing the development their areas need; — Timescales for developments to come forward would be radically reduced; — The resulting increase in housebuilding activity would stimulate investment, boost local economies and create jobs; and — New homes would help to address the significant national shortfall and meet needs for affordable housing. September 2010

Written evidence from North East Chamber of Commerce (NECC) (ARSS 94) Summary — NECC had serious concerns regarding the process for establish a Regional Spatial Strategy in the North East. — Housing numbers in this region were overly micro-managed. — The move to integrated regional strategies could have presented an opportunity to address these concerns if strategies were sufficiently high level. — The RSS offered some benefits, including avoidance of wasteful competition between authorities, and ensuring appropriate land was allocated for development such as renewable energy infrastructure which often fall foul of “NIMBYism”. — NECC has concerns that shifting all planning responsibility back to the level of the local authority will have negative impacts for the private sector. — The Government must ensure that neither nationally nor regionally significant infrastructure development will suffer planning delays and uncertainties due to changes in planning policy.

Detailed Comments NECC had serious concerns about the process required to establish a Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East, and the implications this had for the quality of the strategy that was ultimately produced. Development of the most recent version of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East took nearly five years to complete. This timescale, coupled with the arcane statutory planning procedures involved, acted as a deterrent to business involvement, resulting in a document that had less input from the private sector than should have been the case. Furthermore, with publication coming just before the onset of recession in 2008, it was based on vastly different economic circumstances, not least for the housing market, and was insufficiently dynamic to be adaptable to the changes that took place. The Examination in Public was a particularly unhelpful part of the North East RSS process. Changes inserted after the Examination in Public did not carry any greater level of political or public acceptability and indeed came in for heavy and public criticism from a number of sources. Nor did they carry any greater weight, given the number which were subsequently overturned in later drafting. This hardly seems to justify the expense incurred by the public purse, or by other bodies, including NECC, which took part in this process. The need for sign-off by the Secretary of State at various stages in the process also left the region with the feeling that the RSS was not its own process, and added to delays in development of the strategy. Too much micro-management was contained in the North East RSS, particularly in relation to housing. Building targets were set at district council level, and remained in this format even after the North East became the first region outside London with entirely unitary local authorities. This was unnecessarily and unhelpfully cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w208 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

prescriptive, denying local authorities the flexibility to respond to specific housing needs and opportunities, and restricting housebuilders’ ability to respond innovatively to market needs. It is worth noting that there was a distinctly different dynamic in relation to housing numbers in the North East than existed elsewhere, with local authorities in this region effectively competing for a greater share of housing numbers. NECC was hopeful that the policy of integrated regional strategies introduced by the previous Government may have offset some of the concerns about the RSS process, by streamlining development and tying it more closely to the Regional Economic Strategy (RES). However, we repeatedly commented that the new strategy needed to be high level. Developed effectively, a regional strategy would be helpful in avoiding wasteful competition between local authorities, for example for strategic employment sites to be marketed to inward investors. This benefit would be more achievable when the RSS was combined with the RES. An effective regional strategy would also encourage local authorities to recognise the need for an appropriate level of development across the region, for example in renewable energy infrastructure, recognising that the aggregate result of each authority taking a “NIMBY” approach would be undesirable for the region as a whole. A sensible process for allocating appropriate land for this use is therefore helpful, if imperfect. NECC has concerns about the implications of returning all responsibility for planning to local level as the two benefits above may be reversed. While acknowledging the Government’s plan to offer incentives for local communities to accept development, NECC has concerns that these will be insufficient to change a “NIMBY” culture which is too prevalent in the planning process. An over-supply of smaller employment sites in every local authority area may also present a confusing and unhelpful picture to potential investors. On a related matter, NECC has concerns over the Government’s reforms to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). There is an urgent need to reassure the private sector that turning decision-making to politicians will not add new delays and uncertainties to the system. NECC also believes there is a need for a similar approach to the IPC to be introduced for regionally significant infrastructure. With the abolition of regional strategies, there is a greater danger of regionally significant infrastructure projects being delayed by planning. September 2010

Written evidence from Leicestershire County Council (ARSS 95) Summary — Further clarity from Government is required to establish the balance of priority between community wishes and housing needs in local planning documents and decisions if consistency is to be achieved. There is a danger that current uncertainty will lead to decisions on appeal that will neither deliver community wishes nor provide a sustainable pattern of development that meets needs. — The proposed New Homes Bonus Scheme could potentially provide an important means to stimulate and increase house build rates. However, the Committee should examine whether fiscal measures of this type would on their own be sufficient to increase overall housing delivery, and whether the resulting distribution of development would be likely to meet the nation’s demographic and economic needs in a sustainable manner. — The Committee may wish to consider how delivery of international, national and sub-regional policy objectives can be ensured under the new system, and what measures could be reasonably put in place to mitigate any adverse outcomes. It is logical to look at many issues, including housing and employment land provision, natural and renewable resources and environmental matters on a wider than district council basis, as these are issues which do not respect local administrative boundaries. — Neither mineral nor waste development is popular with communities and it has always been difficult for them to accept such development. If communities are to accept mineral development in their localities, for the benefit of wider society, as with housing, consideration should be given to incentivisation. Better use of the aggregates levy should also be considered, apportioning the incentive to the scale of the mineral development for any particular area. Incentivising waste development should also be considered. — The proposed LEP for Leicester and Leicestershire reflects the natural economic geography of the sub-region as reflected in travel to work patterns and housing market areas. There is a strong case for planning for housebuilding (and for associated infrastructure) to be co-ordinated at this level. This is also a spatial level at which there has been a history of local authority collaboration on strategic planning issues, although there remains significant scope to further extend such collaboration particularly around the development of shared planning services to secure cost efficiencies. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w209

Evidence 1. The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development (a) As of 31 March 2009, there were outstanding planning permissions for 23,000 new dwellings in Leicester and Leicestershire, equivalent to 5.7 years supply against the (now abolished) Regional Plan target. There is therefore no evidence to suggest that housing delivery in Leicester and Leicestershire is currently constrained by a lack of land. Instead it appears to be constrained by a lack of mortgage finance and adverse market conditions caused by wider economic uncertainty. The removal of regional housing targets will therefore have little impact on housing delivery in the short term. However, this situation could change rapidly once economic growth recovers, for the following reasons: (b) There is a lack of clarity about the Government Policy—is it bottom up based on community wishes, top down based on housing needs assessments or a mixture of the two? Some further clarity is required to establish the balance of priority between community wishes and housing needs in planning decisions if consistency is to be achieved. (c) If the emphasis is on bottom up community wishes, a lack of capacity in district councils will be a constraint on the system working properly. A place based budgeting approach is required to ensure that there are sufficient resources (to assist and support communities to establish their views). Leicestershire County Council would be willing to hold and manage such a budget to support local people and parish councils in expressing what they want. (d) If housing needs assessments are required they need to be undertaken for real housing market areas. In Leicestershire, district council boundaries do not coincide at all with the real housing market area. Government needs to recognise a role for upper tier authorities, such as Leicester and Leicestershire, to work together to undertake assessments. These assessments will need to identify the housing needs of administratively “under bounded” cities and towns. The new system needs to be able to provide information to communities such as those close to urban areas about wider needs as well as those of the immediate community. (e) There is a danger that current uncertainty will lead to decisions on appeal that will neither be linked with community wishes nor provide a pattern of development that meets sustainability requirements. This is especially true if the five year supply rule remains in force leading inspectors to override community wishes and strategy because of short term supply needs.

2. The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development. The nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing. The Committee understands that the Government intends to announce further details of its plans for incentives “shortly”, and would welcome comments on the adequacy and appropriateness of those incentives when the details are available (a) At the time of writing, few details are known about the Government’s “New Homes Bonus” and consultation on formal proposals is not expected until the autumn of 2010. However, under the current Revenue Support Grant (RSG) system, local authorities with rapidly growing populations are effectively penalised twice. Firstly, factors such as the council tax base and relative need indicators have a much greater impact on the RSG funding formula than population growth. Secondly, there is often a time lag between the impact of real population increases on the ground, and the additional population being recognised in the official figures underpinning funding formula. (b) As a result, some councils are forever “emptying the bins of some people for free”, and it is difficult for existing residents to see any benefits to them of living in a growing community. It would appear that under the new proposals, receipts may only start when houses are occupied, which may be several years after planning permission is granted. This may be no better than the existing system. (c) It is therefore entirely appropriate for the Government to examine how the relationship between council tax and Revenue Support Grant operates, and to see if the system can be used to support population growth, rather than to penalise it. The County Council intends to work with the Government to help it develop its approach to incentivising house building and delivering the localist approach. (d) The proposed incentive could potentially provide an important means to stimulate and increase house build rates. However, the Committee should examine whether fiscal measures of this type would on their own be sufficient to increase overall housing delivery, and whether the resulting distribution of development would be likely to meet the nation’s demographic and economic needs in a sustainable manner. It could actually result in the least unpopular sites being developed, leading to new housing being located in unsustainable locations with negative and costly impacts on the environment, transport infrastructure and economic vitality. (e) In considering the details of the proposed New Homes Bonus when published, the Committee should also consider the following issues: (i) The scale of additional resources available (as yet unknown) as compared to the total RSG (£3.1 billion for 2010–11) and the investment in local infrastructure that the planning system delivers through Section 106 Agreements (estimated at £4.9 billion in 2007–08); cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w210 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

(ii) To be effective in supporting delivery of a localist approach, such a scheme would have to address itself carefully to secure the support of residents for increasing build rates. It would need to be of a sufficient scale to deliver community expectations and secure their support for schemes. Current schemes, such as the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF) grants in areas around minerals workings are insufficiently funded; (iii) The timing of this match funding benefit will be critical to deliver on community expectations at an early stage in the development process; (iv) The impact on those authorities which are unable to grow significantly because of landscape designations (such as National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), planning designations (such as greenbelt and green wedges) or environmental constraints (such as flood risk); (v) The possibility that linking the grant of planning permission directly to the receipt of additional Government funding may lead to the perception in the eyes of local communities that the probity of the planning system could be compromised. For example, planning committee members may seem to be unwilling to approve schemes when the benefits may not arise within their period of administration and committee members’ decisions may also be compromised because of financial incentives; and (vi) Consideration should be given to extending the scheme to incentivise the location of other development, for example wind farms, waste facilities and mineral extraction that will benefit the community as a whole, but could be unwelcome to residents in the immediate vicinity.

3. The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, etc) (a) There are a large number of policy areas where coordinated action between local authorities and other partners is required to ensure international obligations (such as EU landfill diversion and renewable energy targets) or national policy priorities (such as biodiversity habitat recreation and management targets, the adequate supply of construction minerals) can be delivered. In the past regional groupings have provided the main mechanisms through which this co-operation is managed, underpinned by RSS policies. Regional bodies have also facilitated collective activity on major strategic “cross border” issues such as the enhancement of the Midland Main Line and proposals for High Speed Rail. Although not mentioned in the Select Committee’s question such co-operation is also required in relation to housing and employment land provision which were also previously covered in RSSs. In respect of these issues local authorities will need to co-operate to ensure that the sub-regional economic development priorities agreed through Local Enterprise Partnerships are supported by planning policy and decisions. This could involve planning strategy being agreed at a spatial level which matches the geography of the LEP and which could take the form of a joint local authority committee or sub-committee of the LEP made up of local authority members. (b) In the absence of regional structures and policies, it will be up to local authorities themselves to ensure this cooperation continues through successor arrangements, underpinned by a statutory duty to co-operate. However, the Government will remain responsible for the collective national outcome of local authority actions. (c) As a result, the Committee may wish to consider how such delivery of international, national and sub- regional policy objectives can be ensured under the new system, and what measures could be reasonably put in place to mitigate any adverse outcomes. It is logical to look at natural and renewable resources and environmental matters on a wider than district council basis, as many assets, eg the Charnwood Forest in Leicestershire and minerals, do not respect local administrative boundaries. (d) On minerals, the Open Source Planning Green Paper makes reference to “national environmental standards” as providing guidance to minerals planning authorities (MPAs), on making a fair and sustainable provision, but it is not at all clear what these would relate to and how they would influence levels of provision. Their name does not give the impression of them being informed by any idea of the overall quantity of minerals supply needed to support planned levels of development and future energy supply. (e) Clarity is sought on the following points: (i) The proposal to reserve controls over nationally strategic deposits of minerals at the centre. (ii) What constitutes nationally strategic deposits. (iii) On what basis the Secretary of State will determine their release. (iv) What contribution to an adequate and steady supply of minerals the United Kingdom needs will be provided by imports from Europe and elsewhere including from marine resources. (f) With regard to indigenous minerals in particular, the concept of net self-sufficiency at a MPA level (of requiring MPAs to provide enough minerals locally to meet locally-generated needs) is not applicable, since minerals can only be worked where they are to be found and some MPAs will have extensive reserves, while others have little or none. For example, Leicestershire is the largest producer of crushed rock in England, the majority of which is used in the south and east of England and the west midlands, where such mineral reserves are not available. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w211

(g) The Government has tacitly recognised the need to plan for mineral extraction at a strategic level in certain areas, in its instruction to South East local authorities to work to the apportionment figures for the region, published by the Secretary of State in March 2010; elsewhere there have been no such instructions.

(h) It is worth noting that both MPAs and waste planning authorities (WPAs) operate at the upper tier level of local government (ie counties in two tier areas, unitaries elsewhere). Organisationally they deliver these important “infrastructure” developments that supports economic activity through being able to take a strategic view, provide the relevant expertise and link closely with other functions (eg Waste Disposal Authorities, Environment Agency) whilst still enabling local decision making. In the absence of a formal regional planning framework, the cooperation of these authorities should continue to ensure a strategic approach but not necessarily in the regional configurations as previously known.

(i) Waste is a resource from which the best benefit needs to be reaped for business efficiency and the community. The linkages between these types of facilities, housing growth, other economic and infrastructure activity needs to have a strategic overview if the benefits of delivering facilities are to be realised. In the absence of a formal regional context upper tier authorities need to ensure continued collaboration (for example, in relation to the development of LEPs)

(j) Whilst the principle of net self-sufficiency (of each WPA providing treatment/disposal capacity equal to the amount of waste the community generates) is correct, the reality is that by no means every authority will be able to provide enough of the right kinds of provision in the right places. A strategic overview of provision will be essential. Joint working could take various forms building on existing arrangements.

(k) For example, Aggregates Working Parties (AWPs) have been in operation since the 1970s and Technical Advisory Bodies on waste (TABs) since the late 1990s as advisory technical bodies with no executive powers, policy making responsibilities or political representation. They reported to regional decision-making bodies. In Wales for example the two AWPs with a wide stakeholder base are both policy making bodies suggesting that the Welsh model could be rolled out into England.

(l) For minerals, given their nature, scale, markets, investment requirements and direct link to economic prosperity, it is essential that a strategic and inter-regional perspective is continued and a version of AWPs would give that perspective to local decision makers who will need to balance the tension between local community wishes and wider needs and benefits.

(m) Waste is different from minerals and is more footloose. Nevertheless, given EU obligations, the range of technologies involved, interrelationship of regulatory and fiscal controls, links to development growth and infrastructure provision, managing waste as a resource would benefit from strategic advice particularly on data and strategic facilities for certain waste types. A version of TABs would help local decision makers in a similar way to AWPs.

(n) Neither mineral nor waste development is popular with communities and it has always been difficult for them to accept such development. If communities are to accept mineral development in their localities, for the benefit of wider society, as with housing, consideration should be given to incentivisation. Better use of the aggregates levy should also be considered, apportioning the incentive to the scale of the mineral development for any particular area. Incentivising waste development should also be considered.

(o) Regional energy and renewable energy strategies have been essential in setting the context for planning decisions on, in particular, renewable energy development proposals in the absence of any sub regional or local context. It is worth considering whether upper tier authorities should take on planning for energy (particularly renewable energy) given its role in other strategic resource and infrastructure planning (ie waste, minerals, transport, etc) especially if carried out in a collaborative way as for other areas already mentioned and linked to LEPs.

4. The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co- operate. The suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfill a planning function

(a) The proposed LEP for Leicester and Leicestershire reflects the natural economic geography of the sub- region as reflected in travel to work patterns and housing market areas. As referred to above there is a strong case for planning for housebuilding (and employment land) to be co-ordinated at this level. This is also a spatial level at which there has been a history of local authority collaboration on strategic planning issues, although there remains significant scope to further extend such collaboration particularly around the development of shared planning services to secure cost efficiencies.

(b) The proposed LEP will provide strategic leadership across a range of economic development and associated activities including strategic planning support for the local planning and delivery of growth. The LEP will also act as a strategic commissioning body to better co-ordinate delivery and provide a greater return on public sector investment, including for housing, employment land and infrastructure. These roles could be underpinned and bolstered by a statutory duty on key agencies to co-operate. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w212 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

5. How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries (a) The County Council is aware that East Midlands Councils (EMC) has deposited an archive of material covering the last 15 years of regional planning in the East Midlands with Nottingham Trent University (NTU), and is producing a DVD containing the NTU archive for each local authority in the region. Arrangements are being made for evidence that is still relevant to plan-making to remain publicly available via the internet. The old Regional Assembly web-site has been archived in its entirety with the British Library (http:// www.webarchive.org.uk/ukwa/target/49741949/) and it is proposed to do the same with the Regional Strategy and EMC web-sites in due course. This approach to making available relevant data and research is supported. (b) EMC is working with agencies and local authorities to ensure that the Ptolemy Land Use Transport Integrated Model (http://www.ptolemy-model.org/) and the Waste Capacity Model remain available to local authorities. EMC is also working with local authorities to ensure that the considerable public investment in local and region-wide land use monitoring systems made over the last five years is not lost and can be adapted to serve new sub-regional geographies. (c) In addition, EMC is making use of “transitional grant” from CLG to support local planning authorities in the East Midlands by: (i) facilitating a “Planning for Localism” seminar for all local authorities in the East Midlands (to be held on 1 October 2010); (ii) working with the Improvement and Efficiency Partnership to develop a “low cost” continuing professional development (CPD) network for local authority planners and elected Members; and (iii) making use of resources from DECC to provide local planning authorities with a consistent core evidence base on opportunities for renewable energy and heat mapping. September 2010

Written evidence from Grundon Waste Management Limited (ARSS 96) 1.0 Summary of Key Points relating to Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies — Need for some formal arrangement to ensure that regional and sub-regional requirements are taken into account when local planning authorities consider proposals for waste management facilities or mineral extraction which serve a catchment area larger than a local. — Need for some formal arrangement for continuation of research previously carried out by the South East Partnership Board and data incorporated into the South East Plan with respect to waste management and mineral requirements.

2.0 Grundon Waste Management Limited 2.1 Grundon is the UK’s largest privately owned waste management company, having been established in 1929 as a family business in the west of London. It provides a wide range of collection, treatment and disposal options including: — Recycling. — General (non-recyclable) waste collection. — Hazardous waste treatment. — Hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfill. — Clinical/medical waste incineration and treatment. — Tankers (Bulk liquids and APC ash residues). — Energy from Waste. 2.2 There are waste collection depots in Banbury, Cheltenham, Leatherhead, Oxford, Reading and Slough, with material recovery facilities at Leatherhead, Reading, Slough, and Oxford. 2.3 The company manages hazardous and non-hazardous landfill sites in Cheltenham, and a non-hazardous landfill between Maidenhead and Reading. Clinical/medical waste is managed via the clinical waste incinerator in Slough, and a high temperature steam sterilisation facility between Maidenhead and Reading. Hazardous waste treatment is provided at the Oxford site. 2.4 The Lakeside Energy from Waste plant in Slough, which has a capacity of over 400,000 tonnes per annum, is a joint venture between Grundon Waste Management and Viridor. 2.5 Grundon has established a reputation as a competent and professional waste operator and its clients include a number of local authorities, as well as numerous commercial companies and other organisations. It cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w213

provides waste collection and recycling for special events such as Wimbledon, British Grand Prix at Silverstone and Cheltenham Gold Cup. 2.6 In addition to waste management services, Grundon Sand & Gravel Ltd operates a number of quarries producing aggregates for the building, construction, decorative, landscaping and leisure markets. Products include a wide range of sands, gravels, shingles and decorative stone. Quarries are located at Chieveley, Frithend, Henham, Thatcham and Faringdon.

3.0 GWML’s Comments on Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies Need for some formal arrangement to ensure that regional and sub-regional requirements are taken into account when local planning authorities consider proposals for waste management facilities which serve a catchment area larger than a very local one 3.1 Grundon Waste Management Ltd considers that it is well placed to comment on the abolition of regional spatial strategies given its experience in dealing with a number of local planning authorities in terms of both submission of planning applications and consideration of mineral and waste local development documents. Similarly, it has taken a close interest in the modelling which forms the basis of the waste capacity requirements in the RSS for the South East. 3.2 To date there have been no proposals for how “appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities” can realistically be achieved. For “unneighbourly” developments such as waste management facilities, local planning authorities, whose members have an eye on their electorate, are going to pay lip service to any “appropriate cooperation” with adjoining authorities. There needs to be a more formal arrangement to provide the necessary waste management capacity required to implement the national waste strategy and meet our obligations under European legislation. 3.3 There is also the issue that to date local planning authorities have focused on the management of MSW arisings, ignoring commercial and industrial and construction and demolition wastes. However, these wastes comprise over 50% of total waste arisings in England, compared to MSW which comprises only 9% of total arisings. (Figures from Waste Strategy 2007). C&I and C&D wastes tend not to be regarded as ‘local’ waste requiring management facilities despite the fact that we all use schools, hospitals, shops, and work in offices and factories etc. There is therefore a reluctance on the part of local residents to accept the need for waste management facilities to handle C&I and C&D wastes, and a lack of understanding of the C&I and C&D waste streams on the part of local planning authorities. 3.4 The “appropriate cooperation” reflects the Government’s Open Source Planning Green Paper which suggests that local planning authorities be given a “Duty to Co-operate so that there is a sensible conversation between all those involved in shaping neighbourhoods…” More than sensible conversation is needed in order to determine how much waste management capacity will be required and where the capacity should be most sustainably located. 3.5 The proposal that local plans be developed through collaborative democracy and grass roots engagement may work for some types of development which are generally regarded to be desirable or positive by local residents. However, for waste developments, it is hard to conceive of neighbourhoods expressing an aspiration for waste management developments and vying each other to accommodate such developments within their area. 3.6 The problem is further compounded under the Green Paper proposal that proposed developments would need to conform to the local plan. If that local plan were to be built “bottom up”, it has already been stated that there is little likelihood of neighbourhoods embracing a major waste development facility within their area. It is difficult to see how developers of waste management facilities could realistically engage with the local community and effectively overcome concerns regarding matters such as perceived health risks and emissions. The likelihood of comprehensive consultation exercises with local neighbourhoods in relation, for example, to a major waste management proposal leading to absence of local opposition is unrealistic. 3.7 It is suggested in the Green Paper that developers of “unneighbourly” developments could offer compensation to immediate neighbours for any loss of amenity. However, it is necessary to determine what benefits would be required to make a proposed development acceptable in planning terms; anything over and above could be seen as trying to buy a planning permission. 3.8 As stated above, any major waste development proposal would be likely to be in contravention of a local plan, in which case, the Green Paper proposal to limit the grounds for appeal would mean that a company proposing a major waste management facility or mineral extraction site would have the right of appeal only if correct procedures had not been followed. 3.9 There needs to be a formal arrangement, preferably on the regional level, whereby future requirements for waste management capacity are established. It is considered naïve to believe that local planning authorities have the propensity to work with each other to plan waste management requirements which will meet the future needs of the country as a whole. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w214 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

3.10 This is a particular issue in areas such as Berkshire where there are six unitary authorities which have the responsibility for preparing or reviewing waste policies in Berkshire, through the Joint Strategic Planning Unit. The Joint Unit is responsible to a Joint Strategic Planning Committee, made up of elected councillors from all six authorities. Not only would there be the problem of the six authorities cooperating, but furthermore, there is the issue that waste policies would need to be consistent with the local plan adopted for each unitary authority.

Need for some formal arrangement for continuation of research previously carried out by the South East Partnership Board and data incorporated into the South East Plan with respect to waste management

3.11 It is not clear how research carried out previously by the South East Partnership Board and data incorporated into the South East Plan with respect to waste management could be carried forward independently by individual local planning authorities. Some local planning authorities have no staff with any experience in mineral and waste planning, and few authorities have the staff with the experience required to carry out specialised research. It is difficult to see how a “realistic and responsible approach to future waste management” compromising all waste streams will be achieved without some form of a regional strategy for waste management.

3.12 The waste data in the South East Plan is based on the output of a model developed by ERM and thus the capacity requirements for the various authorities within the South East have all been determined on the same basis (though this is not to say that the model is without flaws.) If each authority were to develop its own model, there would be no consistency across a sub-region, much less a region. It would also make it extremely difficult for the waste industry to engage in the preparation of local plans if there were no commonality amongst plans.

3.13 The problem is compounded by the fact that there is a lack of data on waste arisings, other than MSW. Commercial and industrial wastes compromise almost a quarter of total waste arisings, but the last survey of C&I waste arisings in the South East was in 2002–03. With the lack of up-date information on arisings, future capacity requirements are uncertain. September 2010

Written evidence from the Construction Industry Council (ARSS 97)

In a densely populated country, balancing local interests with wider needs is always going to be difficult. A finely tuned co-ordination exercise is needed, with a clear programme of consultation taking into account consideration of local impacts matched against long term needs in relation to housing, infrastructure, transportation and waste while safeguarding wider environmental concerns and sustainability.

Taking into account the brief of CLG Select Committee, this submission from the Construction Industry Council (CIC) will examine the question of the abolition of regional spatial planning principally in relation to housing.

Summary — In a time of economic uncertainty and widespread public spending cuts, there will be a need to encourage private funding to meet immediate needs particularly in relation to housing and infrastructure. A future planning regime must endeavour to create a framework of predictable decision making within a reasonable, and cost effective time frame. Investors need certainty. — There are currently severe problems of congestion, imbalance and shortages in many areas which need to be addressed quickly. — The Planning system at several levels is in disarray at present. The stated intention to dismantle spatial planning at a regional level has to be seen in the context of proposals for: a National Infrastructure Plan which will appear shortly; the suggested National Planning Framework for England; the development of the existing system of National Policy Statements and the uncertainties of what “localism” will mean pending publication of the new Decentralisation and Localism Bill. — CIC welcomes the proposal for a National Planning Framework for England but it is not clear whether this means. Will it just bring together all national planning policies (PPSs and PPGs) or will it as the coalition agreement states incorporate national economic and environmental priorities. The nature of the National Infrastructure Plan to be produced by Infrastructure UK is also very vague. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w215

— Maintaining a “localist” style within the context of national goals is always going to require compromise. Nowhere can this be seen better than in relation to new housing development or renewable energy. There are innovative ideas within the Conservative Party Green Paper on Planning published in February 2010 (not least of which is the presumption in favour of sustainable development) but these ideas need to be further developed before meaningful discussion can take. It is hoped therefore that there will be reference to the National Planning Framework for England in the Localism Bill expected in November.

The Housing Situation The principal characteristics of the housing situation at present are: — There is a shortage of housing accompanied by growing demand (with regional variations) led by a rising population. — A continuing growth in the total number of households. — Particularly strong demand for affordable housing. — A mismatch in supply in recent years with large numbers of flats being built. — Constraints on mortgage availability with requirements for high deposits particularly affecting first time buyers. — The numbers of houses under construction has fallen to record lows in the recession.

Population trends and structure The population of the UK according to figures released by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) in August 2009 grew by 408,000 in 2008 to reach 61 million people. The population is now growing by 0.7% per year more than double the rate of the 1990s and three times the rate of the 1980s. The demographic picture is also changing in that there are now a record 1.3 million people over 85. This reflects an ageing population. The ONS state that “the proportion of people aged 65 and over is projected to increase from 16% in 2008 to 23% by 2033”. These trends all affect the total number as well as the type and location of homes needed in future.

Housing numbers As far back as 2004, the economist Kate Barker (Barker Review of Housing Supply 2004) pointed out that even at that time, there was a shortage in the number of houses being built. She wanted the number of houses increased from the 2005 levels of 170,000 by a further 120,000. Since then due to the credit crunch and the recession housing starts have slumped and may be low for several years to come. Housing starts in 2009 were estimated at around 80,000 in the private sector and 25,000 in the public sector by the Construction Products Association. This adds up to less than half of the Barker figure suggested five years ago. This shortage in new homes, particularly in affordable new homes, is propping up house prices. This housing shortage (which in turn creates affordability problems) reinforces the need to use the stock we have to maximum advantage. Bearing in mind the large number of empty homes (over 700,000 were identified in the Barker review), the prevalence of second homes and the pressure on housing in areas of buoyant employment, there is a need for a housing strategy particularly targeted at those with low incomes.

Housing Demand Despite the recession, the long term demands for housing have not changed and the latest household projections suggest that the number of new households created each year is more than double the number of housing starts per year. Yet the key issues of affordability in the short term and the availability of land in areas of high demand in the medium term still remain unresolved and may hinder growth within the sector. In spite of these concerns, the level of house building in 2009 was so low that even with considerable growth anticipated in the next five years, this still means that even in 2014, housing starts are expected to be 18% lower than during the peak in 2007. Despite short term changes in the economic environment, the long term driver of housing construction is the number of households created per year. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported in 2005 that “since 1971, the number of households in Great Britain has risen by 35%, from 18.5 million to 25 million in 2005. Over the same period the population rose from approximately 54.5 million to 58.5 million.” Divorce rates, increasing longevity, the increase in single person households all underlie these trends. The latest household projections from ONS state that 260,000 households will be created each year for England alone. This equates to around 295,000 homes needed each year or the equivalent of the number of homes estimated to be built in 2009, 2010 and 2011 combined. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w216 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Types of home Despite a large oversupply of flats in urban centres in the north of England, demand still outweighs supply in key areas such as Greater London and the South East. As a consequence, house prices have not fallen significantly overall. House builders appear to be concentrating on building on land in these key areas of demand and also moving swiftly away from building flats to houses. During the fourth quarter of 2009, flats accounted for 37% of homes started in Great Britain compared to 52% just over one year earlier and this trend would be expected to continue. Yet this raises a further issue of land availability. Per unit, house construction requires a greater amount of land than flat construction. While levels of starts are low enough that this should not be an issue in the near term, it is possible that in the medium term, land availability in key demand areas may become the key issue in house building. The Construction Products Association forecasts that housing starts in Great Britain during 2010 will grow 15%, yet this still represents only 97,000 starts. Further growth of 16% is anticipated in 2011 before growth of 14% in 2012 leaves starts in Great Britain at 128,000. Growth in private housing starts of 9% and 7% in subsequent years are expected to lead to 149,000 starts in Great Britain, 77% higher than in 2009 but still 18% lower than at 2007’s peak.

Ideas in the Conservative Party Green Paper It is difficult to comment on many aspects of the new system as there is little detail on how the system will work. Proposals for change are progressing simultaneously on several fronts. In tandem with the stated intention to dismantle spatial planning at a regional level, proposals for a National Infrastructure Plan will appear shortly. There is a National Planning Framework for England suggested to match those in the devolved regions but details are unclear. The existing system of National Policy Statements is to retained subject to parliamentary approval and there are uncertainties of what “localism” will mean pending publication of the new Decentralisation and Localism Bill. The scope of the new system of Local Enterprise Partnerships and the mechanisms by which they will operate is not yet clear. The crucial issue of how these elements interact has yet to be sorted out. There is also a similar vagueness on the definition of what “local areas” and “neighbourhoods” actually are. In attempting to answer the Select Committee question on the “likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development” one has to go back to ideas put forward (principally by the Conservatives) prior to the election. Ideas for stimulating house building in the absence of targets, are contained in the Conservative Party Green Paper—Open Source Planning published in February 2010. One of the ideas put forward is that when a local community builds more homes, central government will match pound-for-pound the extra money that an area gets through council tax for six years. The incentive is increased in relation to affordable housing. There is also a commitment to allowing “neighbourhoods” to keep some of the money contributed by developers to councils at the time when planning approval is given. Whether in practice, this will mean that developers will take council tax incentives into account when negotiating their schemes and reduce their contribution remains to be seen. One has to wonder whether in reality, more expensive neighbourhoods will simply forego the financial incentives to preserve their exclusivity. At the other end of the scale, building social houses is not always a vote winner at local level. One can only hope that the policy does not result in communities using such a system to “price out undesireables”. The suggestion that developers might reach a “voluntary agreement to compensate nearby householders” if there are objections is an idea fraught with difficulty. Some of these ideas are coming to fruition. The “community right to build” in relation to small scale developments is an example. While designed to speed up development, the proposal for a community to grant itself planning permission if 90% of people back a proposal may mean in practice that 10% of voters in a local referendum can block development without the need to justify their objections. In translating the Green Paper ideas into reality, the “New Homes Bonus” scheme announced on 9 August, to match the council tax raised on each new house for six years, indicates the intention to deliver incentives to encourage house-building. However, the consultation paper accompanying this announcement will only follow the Comprehensive Spending Review. One preliminary observation in relation to this idea is the regional impact. As a far higher proportion of properties in the North are in Council Tax Band A and B, these local authorities can expect to get less cash per house they grant pernission for, in comparison to an authority in the south. When translated into actual money avaiable, it is questionable whether the prospect of £10–15,000 per dwelling would provide enough incentive to an authority facing local opposition to any new housing development. It might be better for those supporting growth if this money was invested in improvements to existing or to new facilities directly. Overall the major risk in changing the system radically from a top-down target system to a bottom up incentive one, is that there will be a long hiatus during which local authorities may delay granting planning permission until the shape of the new system is more obvious. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w217

The Wider Picture The ideas sketched out so far by the Coalition Government in relation to planning have a huge impact on many Government Departments in addition to CLG. In particular the Department of Energy and Climate Change must be carefully consulted in relation to plans for energy generation and the drive to cut carbon emissions within buildings. If localism is the way forward, local groups need access to clear information compiled to common standards. There is considerable weight to the argument that the planning system as it operated was “over-engineered” and over-centralised but “wider than local” is too important an issue to tackle in an “ad hoc” fashion. The first LEPS are not yet in place. It is too soon to say how they will operate.

The Construction Industry With cuts to public spending inevitable, construction has to be considered as one of the best ways of stimulating economic activity—not just for the sector but across the economy as a whole, especially in the manufacturing sector. As the levels of imports are low in this sector, the stimulus stays within the national economy. It is also a good sector for stimulating employment as the sector is active throughout the country and provides employment and training opportunities for lower skilled and young workers who have relatively few alternative opportunities. Investment in construction also provides significant long-term economic and social benefits. This point was underlined in a report from the economic consultants LEK for the UK Contractors Group which shows that every £1 spent on construction output generates £2.84 in total economic activity. September 2010

Written evidence from Fenland District Council, Huntingdonshire District Council, and Cambridgeshire County Council (ARSS 98) 1. Introduction and Summary 1.1 This response has been prepared by the Strategic Directors for Planning for the following Cambridgeshire authorities in consultation with Lead Members: — Fenland District Council. — Huntingdonshire District Council. — Cambridgeshire County Council. 1.2 In summary it is considered that: — The abolition of regionally imposed housing targets and the creation of a more locally-based planning system are welcomed in principle. — The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets will be different for different areas, but will have less impact where there is an existing strategy in place that already receives wide support. However, the abolition has given rise to some uncertainty which the Cambridgeshire authorities have dealt with through a joint statement. — Any incentives for new communities to accept development need to be delivered in an open and transparent way and need to be part of a wider package of measures if they are to have the desired effect. — Upper tier authorities should have their statutory strategic planning role reinstated. — Any proposed “duty to cooperate” on infrastructure provision is welcomed. However, infrastructure provision cannot be considered in isolation from the planning strategy it is intended to facilitate. — Data from the now-abolished Leaders’ Boards should be made available on-line and preferably held at a single place. This information will need to be updated, but it is likely that this will be on a different geographical basis.

2. The Implications of the Abolition of Regional House Building Targets for Levels of Housing Development 2.1 The abolition of regional house building targets and the creation of a more locally-based planning system are welcomed. Local authorities, working with local communities, are best placed to determine appropriate levels of growth for their areas and should, through working in partnership, plan strategically for their wider sub-regions. 2.2 The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets will be different for different areas depending on a range of factors, including the stage local authorities had reached in preparing their Local Development Frameworks, whether the Regional Strategy was under review and whether there was general agreement on the housing targets it contained. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w218 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

2.3 While the abolition of Regional Strategies may have led to delays in some areas of the country, in areas where partnership working has led to the development of a joint strategy, the loss of regional housing targets will have less impact. In Cambridgeshire the authorities have a history of joint working to address strategic planning issues. This resulted in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) which in turn informed the Regional Spatial Strategy, The East of England Plan (May 2008). The authorities continued this work in responding to the review of the RSS, and the authorities’ comments were reflected in the policies and growth levels subsequently set out in the draft revision to the East of England Plan in March 2010. The Cambridgeshire strategy has already met with considerable success, and while more remains to be done, it is likely that any review of the strategy can be undertaken through further joint work within a supportive legislative framework. In the meantime the uncertainty surrounding the current position has been dealt with locally by the Cambridgeshire authorities agreeing a joint statement of adherence to current policy which had in any event been locally derived. 2.4 It is considered that the abolition of Regional Strategies provides an opportunity for local authorities to plan strategically through cooperation and partnership working. To provide additional clarity it is recommended that the anticipated National Planning Framework and the forthcoming Localism Bill support this approach and promote the strategic planning of new development and infrastructure and planning for minerals and waste (see response under Section 4).

3. The Likely Effectiveness of Incentives to Local Communities to Accept New Housing Development 2.1 There needs to be recognition that the identification, allocation and development of new housing sites is a complex process influenced by a range of factors, including: — The general economic climate. — The aspirations of landowners and developers. — The views of the local community and capacity to influence the process. — The strategic vision for the area and local planning process. — Existing infrastructure capacity and planned infrastructure improvements. 3.2 These factors also influence each other: the economic climate will affect developers’ and landowners’ aspirations and appetite to develop and will also affect viability and the infrastructure improvements that can be secured through development; levels of infrastructure provision will affect local support for a scheme; and community support will depend on an understanding of the benefits new development can bring and previous experience of the planning process. 3.3 Any proposals to improve the delivery of housing need to address these complex and interlinked issues. The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP in his statement of 6 July stated that “The new planning system will be clear, efficient and will put greater power in the hands of local people, rather than regional bodies.” To foster economic recovery and ensure that employment growth is matched by housing to support sustainable development in the most appropriate locations, it is likely that some incentive mechanism will be needed, but this should be part of a wider package of measures that tackle the factors outlined above and addresses all of the service and infrastructure impacts that development gives rise to. 3.4 Any proposal for a system of incentives needs to address the following issues: — Level of the incentive—There is currently little information on which to judge proposals for the New Homes Bonus, although it appears that there will be no additional money beyond that previously allocated through the Housing and Planning Delivery Grant. Any incentive will need to be substantial if it is to influence what could, in some areas of the country, be firmly established opposition to new development. — Timing and relationship to other funding—There needs to be clarity between incentive arrangements and other development funding mechanisms, particularly the Regional Growth Fund, Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 Agreements or their replacements. Authorities are also engaged in the Single Conversation with the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). The Cambridgeshire Local Investment Plan (CLIP) for example has been prepared by Cambridgeshire Horizons and the Housing Board, in partnership with Local Authorities and other key stakeholders, in order to facilitate the Single Conversation between the Cambridgeshire authorities and the HCA. Infrastructure to support new development is a key concern for local people; new housing needs to be supported by a full range of infrastructure, including public transport, education and community services, renewable energy and green infrastructure. While most of this will be provided through the development itself, there will be circumstances where further funding is needed. This infrastructure needs to be delivered up-front; however the proposed New Homes Bonus is likely to be received after the homes have been occupied at a stage when it is too late to influence local views about the suitability of a scheme. — Transparency of funding arrangements—Any replacement funding system will need to be transparent, so that it is not undermined by the perception that planning permission is being ‘bought’ through the provision of incentives. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w219

— Certainty of funding arrangements—New proposals need to engender long-term certainty so that local authorities can plan for the future with the confidence that necessary improvements can be secured. Clarity is needed so that local authorities can make decisions on infrastructure funding and how to mitigate the impacts of new development. 3.5 In Cambridgeshire, the local authorities and Cambridgeshire Horizons have undertaken considerable community engagement work to shape the County’s growth strategy and ensure a fully informed debate. The authorities also led on engaging local people and businesses during the review of the former East of England Plan to raise people’s awareness of the regional planning debate and make sure that the Cambridgeshire response was properly informed by local views. In Cambridgeshire the delivery of infrastructure is a more significant barrier to housing delivery than lack of community support—the Integrated Development Plan identifies an infrastructure gap of £6 billion (at 2007). If it is to be effective, a local incentive must be part of a wider package of measures, tackling all the barriers to housing delivery.

4. Arrangements which should be put in place to ensure Appropriate Cooperation between Local Planning Authorities on Matters Formerly Covered by RSSs 4.1 It is considered that, despite the abolition of Regional Strategies, there remains a need to think and plan strategically. Strategic planning is necessary to join up local needs and aspirations to wider issues that cross administrative boundaries. Strategic planning fulfils a number of functions, including: — Tackling the relationship between housing market areas and economic issues, such as housing affordability, housing mix and tenure, economic growth and labour supply. — Considering functional economic areas, including opportunities to rebalance the economy and promote growing sectors of the economy. — Linking land use and transport planning at a strategic level. — Providing a framework for the delivery of strategic infrastructure, including highways, public transport, renewable energy, green infrastructure and flood and water management. — Assessing the cumulative impacts of development on protected habitats, river catchments and other environmental assets. — Providing for the future needs of communities by anticipating likely economic and demographic trends. — Providing a coherent sub-regional strategy to enable infrastructure providers and utilities companies to plan their investments. — Securing economies of scale through the joint commissioning of work and sharing resources. 4.2 It is considered that the most appropriate way to address these issues is through voluntary partnerships of authorities coming together to plan strategically for sub-regions. Planning at this scale should be driven by the need to deliver sustainable development, linking employment and housing and identifying priorities for future investment. 4.3 This partnership approach needs to be based on local authorities’ knowledge of local needs and aspirations, their joint understanding of the wider issues facing their sub-regions and their vision for its future development. 4.4 Legislation should make provision for sub-regional strategies to be afforded development plan status, provided that: — This approach receives the endorsement of all the authorities within the area. — It can be demonstrated that this is needed to tackle issues of greater than local importance. 4.5 Whatever mechanisms are put in place they need to recognise the key role of strategic authorities. Under the previous system strategic authorities had a statutory role in providing advice to Regional Assemblies on the development of Regional Strategies, until this was removed under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act. Any future system needs to recognise that strategic authorities play a vital part in planning for and providing services—including social services, transport and education—and bringing forward the infrastructure needed for sustainable growth 4.6 There also need to be clear links to the implementation of any sub-regional strategy and support for the infrastructure requirements it gives rise to. It is unclear what will be encompassed by the “Infrastructure Plans” referred to in the Green Paper and to what extent they will encompass existing processes (local planning authorities’ Infrastructure Plans and strategic authorities’ Education, Libraries, Waste Management and Local Transport Plans) or the work of Local Enterprise Partnerships. A sub-regional approach would provide the opportunity to deliver the priorities outlined both by the local community and the strategic vision emerging from the Local Enterprise Partnership. 4.7 Regarding planning for minerals and waste, although the revocation of Regional Strategies has provided an element of uncertainty, the implications for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are considered to be manageable. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w220 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

4.8 Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council have evaluated the implications of the revocation of the East of England Plan on the emerging Minerals and Waste Plan as part of their response to the Inspector who has begun the examination of the Plan.135 From this evaluation the Councils have concluded that the provision set out in the emerging Plan is consistent with work produced by the East of England Regional Aggregates Working Party (RAWP) and the Regional Waste Technical Advisory Body (RWTAB). This consistency meets the advice set out by the Secretary of State in his revocation letter, where he states: — “Councils should continue to plan for mineral provision within the established framework of aggregate apportionment.” — In relation to waste, “the work of the RWTABs should inform the provisions of the Plan.” As such the Councils have concluded that the Plan should progress on the basis of the existing level of minerals and waste management provision regardless of the revocation of the East of England Plan.

5. The adequacy of Proposals already put Forward by the Government, Including a Proposed Duty to Co-operate and the Suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may Fulfil a Planning Function 5.1 There is little information on the proposed “duty to cooperate” put forward in the Green Paper; however, such a duty is welcomed if it encourages local authorities and other agencies—including infrastructure providers—to work together in planning for new infrastructure. However, the infrastructure plan should not be developed in isolation from the wider spatial vision for an area; both should emerge from the joint planning approach outlined above. Infrastructure and facilities are required to enable key public and statutory services to be provided. 5.2 It is considered that the role of the Local Enterprise Partnership should be to support the case for investment in the physical and social capital needed for a successful economy by identifying needs and contributing to overcoming the barriers to growth.

6. How the Data and Research Collated by the Now-Abolished Local Authority Leaders’ Board should be Made Available to Local Authorities, and what Arrangements should be Put in Place to Ensure Effective Updating of that Research and Collection of Further Research on Matters Crossing Local Authority Boundaries 6.1 The existing evidence base developed for the Regional Strategies should be made publicly accessible. It would be helpful if the evidence was held by a single body as a national dataset. 6.2 Without a regional impetus to the collection and analysis of data, it is likely that the existing evidence base will become out of date. However, local authorities will wish to come together to share resources and commission new research. There are therefore likely to be new collaborative geographies that emerge following the demise of the regions, whether based on Local Enterprise Partnership areas or smaller groups of local authorities acting sub-regionally. There are clear benefits to this approach in ensuring consistency of data and securing economies of scale in commissioning work. The danger is that the existing models developed for the regional planning process quickly become out of date, and the construction of new models, based on different geographies, involves high initial start-up costs. September 2010

Written evidence from Denton Wilde Sapte LLP (ARSS 100) Summary 1. The RSS system responded to a need for strategic spatial planning and was broadly fit for purpose. Its wholesale abolition discards significant evidence-based policy and investment by public, private and third sectors and undermines private sector investment in house-building. 2. The transitional and replacement measures in relation to the role of the planning system in mediating housing supply are unclear and the proposed incentive system is unlikely to achieve its stated objective. 3. Although the planning system is likely to become more contentious as a result of the mismatch between demand for housing and local desire to approve it, the policies that will guide decisions made on appeal are in doubt. As a result, there is a real risk that investment in new solutions to housing stress will not occur. 4. We suggest that reforms to the development plan system should (paragraph 2.8, below): (a) require local policies to assess and address housing stress; (b) ensure there is a strategic framework for local decision-making; and 135 For a full copy of the response please see the “Response to Inspector’s Note 1” (reference CSCRIN1) using the following link: http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/environment/planning/mineralswasteframework/mineralswasteplan/dpdexamination/ corestrategy/responsestoinspector.htm cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w221

(c) operate with the benefit of clear, detailed national guidance on the: (i) presumption in favour of sustainable development where the local development plan is out of date; and (ii) approach to be applied by decision-makers where there is either no or inadequate evidence of adequate housing land supply.

Evidence 1. Implications of the Abolition of Regional House-Building Targets for Levels of Housing Development Purpose of Targets 1.1 The Regional Spatial Strategies were intended to provide a framework for private investment and public sector planning. RSS policies provided an evidence-driven, strategic focus for spatial planning decisions. The need for a regional tier of policy arose as a result of the difficulties experienced by local planning authorities in both dealing with strategic applications and putting in place a coherent planning framework to deliver major urban extensions. The RSS system was welcomed, initially, by both the development industry and third sector agencies with interests in conservation, sustainability and social justice. 1.2 Annualised house-building targets were intended to: — reflect evidenced housing need in defined Housing Market Areas; — address significant historic shortfalls in housing delivery holding back economic growth and affordability; — meet projected demand for new households in Housing Market Areas; — effectively compel planning authorities to identify and allocate appropriate levels of land for managed growth in line with strategic spatial planning objectives; and — assist local planning authorities and cross-boundary agencies in planning for growth and supporting investment in a “joined-up” way. 1.3 The Coalition Government recognises that growth in projected households has consistently exceeded housing supply over previous decades and has resulted in an unmet need for housing. The Minister for Housing suggested, in his answers to the Committee on 13 September 2010, that the RSS system had failed to address that problem.

Fitness for Purpose 1.4 The RSS evidence-gathering and testing process included public examination by appointed experts and public consultation. The “examination in public” provided an effective and fair opportunity for public involvement in the process. Aside from objections to the principle of development per se, annual targets proved controversial because they were very often increased at a late stage in the adoption process by central government. These changes were often driven by a policy-based desire to meet the demographic and econometric requirements identified in the CLG evidence base. 1.5 The way in which the RSS system was operated therefore exacerbated public perceptions that targets were either arbitrary or set without proper regard to environmental and other constraints. In many cases, the Secretary of State’s “Proposed Changes” to the levels of annualised housing delivery recommended by the appointed Panels was in fact still substantially less than needed to meet the evidenced need. Research suggests that even if the RSS targets had been delivered, housing affordability would have deteriorated markedly by 2026 in all regions apart from the North East.136 1.6 The principal peaks in volume house-building of the last 100 years were driven by the Wheatley Subsidy and the large-scale public sector programmes of the 1960s. The RSS framework, backed by the house-building target, provided an equivalent stimulus to achieve a market-led step change in delivery during a period where public funds will become increasingly scarce. 1.7 Substantial public and private sector investment and third sector participation has already been committed to: — representations to the Panels appointed to consider the evidenced need for strategic growth, and to the Secretary of State; — engagement in the Local Development Framework process geared to meeting RSS objectives; and — land acquisition, scheme design and negotiation to meet RSS objectives. 1.8 The RSS system offered the potential to convert substantial public and private sector preparation over the past decade into: — a strategic approach to planning for, and distributing, development to meet social needs; and — a more certain environment for both public and private sector investment. 136 More Homes for More People: Advice to Ministers on housing levels to be considered in regional plans (National Housing and Planning Advice Unit, September 2009). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w222 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

1.9 Although the RSS system posed questions about the timing of, and responsibility for, accompanying infrastructure delivery, it nonetheless provided a framework for the principle of, and broad locations for, growth. As such, it represented stimulus to investment that would have been broadly cost-neutral to the public sector over the next development cycle. 1.10 In our view, the RSS system was broadly fit for purpose and met a need for a coherent spatial strategic planning framework capable of providing greater certainty and efficacy of delivery for those requiring housing, those delivering it and those affected by decisions on its location and form. The RSS system was in fact coming into effect at the point it was abolished, as adopted or emerging policies for growth came to be applied to appeal decisions submitted in the 12 months before abolition (relating to schemes designed to respond to the need identified, and the framework set, by the RSS). Since abolishing this tier of the development plan system, the Secretary of State has overruled planning Inspectors advice to dismiss proposals for around 3,500 homes.

Consequences of Abolition 1.11 The Minister for Housing described the abolition of the RSS to the Committee on 13 September as the most significant governmental intervention in support of house-building since the Second World War. He suggested that house-building quantum will be the 'gold-standard' against which the success of the new system should be judged. 1.12 Conversely, the abolition of the RSS system is, in our view, a surprisingly wholesale and retrograde step which negates the value of significant professional input and expenditure from the public, private and third sectors. It has already had the effect of undermining the willingness and ability of the development sector to apply its creative and financial resources to deliver housing at a time when it is at a record low. 1.13 We believe that the post-RSS environment is a significantly more difficult one in which to deliver housing, due primarily to uncertainties about: — what scale of housing need is recognised in planning policy and what weight it should be given by decision-makers (particularly on appeal); — how strategic infrastructure will be funded and delivered; and — the role of, and guidance to, the Planning Inspectorate for determining housing appeals in the context of out of date development plans, housing stress indicators, inadequate delivery and local opposition to development. 1.14 We consider it likely that house-building quantum will suffer significantly as a direct result of the abolition of the RSS, the lack of a transition regime and the inadequacy of the proposed public sector stimulus package. Third sector organisations, such as Friends of the Earth, have also raised wider concerns about the risks of piecemeal development and outdated environmental policies. 1.15 The ability of the post-RSS system to deliver homes for future populations as well as the “local homes for local people” referred to by the Minister for Housing as the objective of the new arrangements will be its crucial test. It is difficult to see how a radical increase in delivery can be achieved without a clear framework that enables investors to commit resources to opportunities and engaging local people in the design process. Without the certainty provided by the RSS system, the development process is likely to become more contentious. The Minister of State for Decentralisation acknowledged in addressing the Committee on 13 September that there is entrenched resistance to development in many areas. That reflects the need for a genuine debate about the quality of many schemes, but also, in many cases, a resistance to the principle of development by existing residents. There is a real risk that parochial approaches will not only be unable to deliver the step change in provision necessary to address current and anticipated deficiencies in supply, but that they will actively prevent it. As such, we believe that investors are turning away from both projects and areas that now represent unquantifiable or highly uncertain risks, with wider implications for the delivery of housing and its associated economic benefits. 1.16 The Localism Bill will address some of these issues, but will inevitably raise as many questions. As such, the level of uncertainty is likely to increase. We believe the following are of particular relevance to the Committee’s Inquiry: — the environmental, social and economic consequences of a strategic planning “gap” over the next two to five years; — the likely effect on investment and housing stress in localities, districts and counties that are unwilling or unable to create a clear alternative framework for appropriate growth; — the economic and social consequences of piecemeal delivery or no delivery at all; — the implications for development plan documents already adopted on the basis of RSS adopted or emerging levels of provision; and — the economic cost to the development sector of land acquisition based on adopted Government policy withdrawn without sector consultation (and the knock on effect on both investor confidence and housing delivery). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w223

2. Likely Effectiveness of the Government’s Proposed Incentives “New Homes Bonus” 2.1 The extent to which the Government proposals remain in draft represents a key barrier to investment in strategic land for housing. Currently, the only clear proposal for incentives is that announced by the Minister for Housing on 12 August 2010. We understand that the “tax-matching” scheme will be limited to six years and introduced through the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review. The Minister for Housing confirmed before the Committee on 13 September that: (a) no assessment of the number of homes likely to be delivered as a result of the tax matching scheme has been carried out (b) the only “Plan B” for the tax matching scheme, should local resistance to meeting housing need outweigh the (in our view, limited) financial incentive to approve applications, is to increase the level of matching. 2.2 An authority approving a development of 100 band D homes would, on the basis of current figures, be able to recover an additional £8,400 per house over six years. In our view, far from being a “powerful incentive”, this is unlikely to incentivise local decision-makers to approve proposals that conflict with strongly- held local views on the principle of development. It will almost certainly not persuade those already living in locations that would be affected by growth to accept it. The bonus also raises the question of whether the demonstrable financial benefits of development should be given greater weight than local opposition to it. 2.3 There is a real risk that new arrangements displace the democracy of decision making by elected representatives using the expert advice with a system that may prioritise sentiment over sense.

Policy vacuum 2.4 The majority of development plans are out of date. The presumption in favour of appropriate forms of development in Planning Policy Statement 3 has assisted with the determination of strategic housing proposals during the past few years in which an unnecessarily complex and time-consuming local development framework process has made it difficult to operate a plan-led system. 2.5 Given the inevitable delay in legislating for and implementing a new system, clarity is needed on the proposed presumption in favour of sustainable development in the absence of up to date development plans should be clarified at the earliest opportunity, including the publication of clear guidance to local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate for applying the criteria. 2.6 The Minister of State for CLG suggested, in his answers to the Committee on 13 September, that the significance of the five-year housing land supply set out in Planning Policy Statement 3 will continue. He suggested that rigorously prepared housing land supply calculations would “trump” local opposition. Given the chilling effect that the abolition of the RSS (and the anticipated cancellation of other planning guidance) has already had on housing delivery, this should be confirmed in the Localism Bill and interim guidance.

Key Issues 2.7 We believe the Committee’s Inquiry should consider the following: — the likely consequences of successful local opposition to all forms of major house-building over the next five to 10 years, in particular the cost and timing implications of the majority of strategic housing decisions being determined at appeal; — the experience gained from the implementation and cancellation of the Housing And Planning Delivery Grant in attempting to incentivise delivery; — the affordability of tax matching proposals and the effect of switching housing revenue account funding between different areas; — whether reliance on public funding to deliver housing in the current climate is likely to be successful and represents a cost-effective use of public resources compared to the system of regional targets; and — the extent to which the lack of a transitional arrangement within which investors can operate is likely to affect housing stress. 2.8 If the statutory development plan is to be a more concise and less prescriptive document, we believe it should still have the following characteristics: — a duty to: — assess requirements for housing in consultation with local people and providers (including identifying the appropriate housing market area); and — publish an annual housing stress report. — a requirement to: — reflect housing stress indicators; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w224 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— reflect strategic housing market and housing land availability assessments which have been separately reviewed by an independent examiner and following public consultation; — make provision for at least 10 years’ housing supply through (part of which is clearly deliverable in the short term and part of which is realistically developable in the medium term); and — where housing stress is sufficiently bad, to ensure a five year supply of available and deliverable sites. — include clear “sustainable development” criteria that protect the local interest in the quality of design and masterplanning. 2.9 The Government should clarify the following as a matter of urgency: — what housing need and supply data local authorities should use until they put new development plans in place; — how housing needs assessments will be tested to ensure they are “robust”' and what criteria should be applied in developing them; — how the Planning Inspectorate should consider housing land supply issues where the development plan is out of date; — the criteria for approving sustainable development which will be applied in the absence of an up to date development plan; — the role of Empty Dwellings Management Orders in bringing empty private sector properties into effective use as social housing to increase supply without increasing the existing development footprint; and — how strategic infrastructure will de delivered to match growth proposed by local administrations and when. September 2010

Written evidence from Network Rail (ARSS 101) Executive Summary — The abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) will have implications for both national and local decision-makers and transport providers since Regional Transport Strategies (RTSs) formed a key element of RSSs. — It is important that suitable duties, powers and incentives are put in place, in the forthcoming Localism and Decentralisation Bill, to facilitate effective long term transport planning at a sub- national level by national government, Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). — At national level, it will be important that policy and guidance is specific enough to give certainty to planning authorities and developers at the sub-national level. The National Policy Statements, together with the National Planning Framework and the National infrastructure Plan, will be important in this respect. — Given this growing demand for rail, and building on the close, constructive relationship Network Rail has with a number of RDAs, we hope that LPAs and LEPs will work closely with us and the broader rail industry and national government to both shape and fund the future development of the network. We believe there should be a duty placed on LPAs and LEPs to demonstrate that they have considered relevant rail industry plans, in determining their priorities and formulating their transport plans. — Decision makers—at both national and sub-national level—should also be better able to integrate the planning of transport with related areas such as regeneration and housing. Network Rail has just published a study arguing that the present way of assessing transport, housing and regeneration investment does not do enough to focus that investment to make the largest possible contribution to the economy. We hope the government will consider these issues in the forthcoming bill. — We hope that LPAs and LEPs will also be given the funds, powers and incentives to contribute financially to the development of the railway in their regions.

The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, &c.) 1. The abolition of RSSs will have implications for both national and local decision-makers and transport providers. RTSs formed a key part of RSSs, given the importance of transport, and rail in particular, in supporting growth and prosperity in regional economies and guiding such things as housing provision, economic development, environmental and social priorities. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w225

2. At a local level, the government has announced that the forthcoming Localism and Decentralisation Bill will establish LEPs. It may be too early to specify in detail how schemes should planned within this new structure and it may vary from place to place. 3. However, it is important that suitable duties, powers and incentives are put in place, in the bill, to facilitate effective long term transport planning at a sub-national level by national government, Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). 4. At the national level, the government’s National Policy Statements and the National Planning Framework (that will be proposed in the forthcoming Localism and Decentralisation Bill) will need to be specific enough about developments at the sub-national level to give some certainty to developers and planning authorities. 5. Alongside this, we also believe that the forthcoming Localism and Decentralisation Bill should place a duty on LPAs and LEPs to produce transport plans along with appropriate incentives and powers to ensure they properly plan and fund transport provision, including rail, in their areas. These plans should be fully integrated with other relevant planning documents at the national and local level such as Local Development Frameworks and the plans and policies of Integrated Transport Authorities, National Policy Statements and the National Planning Framework. 6. According to DfT guidance on producing RTSs for RSSs, they should provide a long term planning framework for transport in the region and “be developed as an integral and clearly identifiable part of RSS and contribute towards the integration of realistic and affordable transport, spatial and economic planning policies within the RSS”.137 7. In the context of the railway, such long term frameworks are vital given that demand from rail passengers and freight will continue to grow strongly and the future long term development of the network needs to be planned to meet this. 8. Britain’s regions rely on rail. It is essential in underpinning sustainable (as the most environmentally friendly mass transport mode) economic growth at a local, regional and national level. Every year 1 billion of the 1.3 billion rail journeys made are by commuters or business travellers and rail transports 100 million tonnes of goods. 9. A report just published by the Centre for Cities—“On Track—Why rail matters”138 looks at how rail projects support business interaction, connect people to jobs, open up new markets and increase competition and productivity in the city regions. This is echoed by a report by the Passenger Transport Executive Group from 2004 that states “….rail networks are hugely important to our City Regions. In these conurbations rail is often a major mode; indeed for some types of travel it will be the dominant mode. As such, rail’s success or failure, growth or decline, has great ramifications”.139 10. Nationally, passenger demand has grown by 40% and freight by 50% over the last decade and, as figures just published by the Association of Train Operating Companies demonstrate, this growth is continuing despite the recent economic downturn. 11. Looking to the future, rail’s role is set to increase further. In the short term, growth has already resumed after the recession. Figures published by the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) show passenger numbers growing by 5% per year in the first half of 2010; while growth in deep sea intermodal freight actually continued throughout the recession, albeit at a reduced rate. In the longer term, demand in key regional commuter markets—such as Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham and Bristol—are set to see very strong growth in demand due to increasing road congestion, structural changes in employment and travel patterns. A demand increase of over 100% is forecast by 2034 and an increase in market share for rail over commuting by car. Other regional and rural markets are due to see growth of between 90% and 115% up to 2034. 12. Given this growing regional demand, and building on the close, constructive relationship Network Rail has with a number of RDAs, we hope that LPAs and LEPs will work closely with us and the broader rail industry and national government to both shape and fund the future development of the network. 13. LEPs, in particular, will need to play a key role in taking a broad but co-coordinated approach to transport planning across local authority boundaries (ie the real economic areas in which people travel to work and businesses engage with their customers and suppliers), with other key bodies such as integrated Transport Authorities. In the words of a report on LEPs entitled “Beyond the boundaries” just published by the Centre for Cities “Cities’ real economic footprints go beyond their administrative boundaries. By local authorities and businesses working together on issues such as skills, housing and transport they can achieve better outcomes”.140 14. Network Rail publishes a number of route-specific and network wide documents (notably the Network Statement, Strategic Business Plan, Route Utilisation Strategies and Route Plans) to plan the future 137 www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/strategy/regionalspatialstrategiesgui3762?page=1#a1000 138 http://centreforcities.typepad.com/10–07–21%20On%20Track%20web.pdf 139 www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/08591B39–0DF6–4CBB-8448-BB2E8AA333CD/0/FinalReporttoPTEGMarch2004.pdf 140 www.centreforcities.org/assets/files/10–09–07%20Beyond%20the%20Boundaries.pdf. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w226 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

development of the rail infrastructure based on demand for freight and passenger capacity, which can greatly aid the planning process at both the national and sub-national level. 15. These Network Rail publications, and the consultation processes around them, can provide the basis for the rail elements of LPA and LEP transport plans. We hope that LPAs and LEPs will play a full part in both shaping these plans and taking full account of them when developing their own strategies. 16. In particular, LPAs and LEPs should input into Network Rail’s route-specific and network wide planning documents and consultations and participate in the six monthly planning conferences that our network development team currently organise for local authority planning officers to further encourage joined-up working and engagement with the railway planning process. 17. Network Rail has just published initial proposals for the long term development of the network in partnership with the rest of the industry141 and would greatly value the input of LPAs and LEPs in the next stage of this process. “Planning Ahead-The Long Term Planning Framework”, published in August, sets out our view of the longer term opportunities for rail due to population and economic growth and the impact of external trends such as increasing road congestion.

The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co-operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function 18. We understand that there might be duties on Local Planning Authorities and organisations such as Network Rail regarding information sharing to assist the development of local development frameworks in the forthcoming Localism and Decentralisation Bill. 19. We believe this duty should also be extended to LEPs and based on demonstrating that they have considered all relevant published documentation produced by Network Rail and the rest of the industry, particularly Route Utilisation Strategies and Route Plans, in determining their priorities and formulating their regional transport plans. Specifically, they should consider how their proposals will impact on rail capacity and whether they need to financially support enhancements to the network. 20. LEPs will also have a key role in the identification and delivery of projects funded by the Regional Growth Fund proposed by the government. As investment in transport often has impacts beyond individual local authority boundaries, LEPs should take a lead in shaping those requirements and be given authority to drive those priorities through their plans. To that end, Network Rail believes there should be a presumption in favour of development where both LEP and local community support such a project. 21. We hope that decision makers, at both national and sub-national level, will be able to integrate the planning of transport with related areas such as regeneration and housing. Network Rail has just published a study—“Prioritising investment to support our economy”—arguing that the present way of assessing transport, housing and regeneration investment does not do enough to focus that investment to make the largest possible contribution to the economy.142 We hope the government will consider how to take forward these issues in the forthcoming bill. 22. Network Rail understands that LEPs will be focused on private sector-led economic development, primarily targeting regional growth and employment and we support the need to develop these plans across economic regions. However, rail infrastructure must remain a priority in order to support such growth. We therefore hope that LPAs and LEPs will also be given the funds, powers and incentives to contribute financially to the development of the railway in their regions. For example, LEPs should be able to pool planning obligation revenue (eg from the successor to the Community Infrastructure Levy) to support the enhancement of rail infrastructure. We hope the government will also consider innovative ways to enable and incentivise LEPs to raise money for key infrastructure enhancements at a sub-national level, such as local government bonds, Tax Incremental Funding and Accelerated Development Zones. September 2010

Written evidence from the Wildlife Trust (ARSS 102) This submission from The Wildlife Trusts concentrates on the implications for the natural environment rather than house-building.

Summary Points — The abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies has had a significant impact on the policy framework for the natural environment and for co-operative working regionally and locally; — A new statutory spatial and strategic framework is needed to drive integrated decisions about land use and land management to achieve ecosystem recovery; 141 Copies of documents can be provided to the committee and are available at www.networkrail.co.uk 142 www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Resource-Library/Prioritising-investment-to-support-our-economy-ee4.aspx cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w227

— New powers and duties need to be placed on Government Departments, Agencies and Local Authorities to promote ecological security and ensure ecosystem health. This would help align decision making both geographically and strategically; and — Existing Biodiversity Opportunity Maps could form the basis for identifying areas for ecological restoration.

The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, &c.)

The Wildlife Trusts seek to work at a landscape-scale and across ecosystems as wildlife and natural processes do not respect administrative boundaries. One of our biggest challenges is that the existing policy framework is fragmented and decisions are taken by a range of different bodies in isolation from each other. This challenge has increased with the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS).

Leaving aside the issue of housing targets, Regional Spatial Strategies included a rich seam of policy relevant to protecting the natural environment which was underpinned by co-operative working between a wide range of statutory and non-statutory bodies. This framework for co-operation has largely collapsed since the abolition of RSS. If we are to work successfully on a landscape scale, co-operation is required beyond local planning authorities and needs to include Central Government, local authorities and other organisations in the private and voluntary sector.

The Wildlife Trusts believe that reform to the policy framework is required including: — A new statutory spatial and strategic framework to drive integrated decisions about land use and land management to achieve ecosystem recovery. — New powers and duties need to be placed on Government Departments, Agencies and Local Authorities to promote ecological security and ensure ecosystem health. This would help align decision making both geographically and strategically. — There needs to be a step change in the speed and scale of ecosystem restoration and habitat creation by introducing mechanisms for positive planning, encompassing all aspects of land use and land management.

It is particularly important to make the connection between reform of the planning system and the Natural Environment White Paper announced by Caroline Spelman on 26 July 2010. As part of the current White Paper public consultation, The Wildlife Trusts will be outlining its proposals for reform of the legislative framework including planning legislation. In addition, the Committee might want to be alert to the outcome of the imminent Lawton Review Making Space for Nature when making its final report and recommendations.

The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co-operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function

As noted in the previous section, there needs to be a fundamental overhaul over how decisions affecting land use and management are taken and implemented. The Wildlife Trusts, when working at a landscape-scale and across ecosystems, have to work amidst an extensive array of policies and mechanisms that each determines how land is used and managed. These include agriculture, planning, woodland and forestry and wildlife protection. Few of these were designed specifically with nature in mind and virtually none allow for its restoration. Equally as significant, there are very few existing mechanism aimed at restoring the natural environment or enhancing ecosystem functioning.

How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries

The Wildlife Trusts are particularly concerned that the mapping of biodiversity opportunities at the regional scale should not be lost. Over the last five to ten years, each English region has been working on the production of habitat opportunity maps. These can provide a clear spatial framework for restoring the natural environment and ecosystems. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w228 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by Alan Wenban-Smith (ARSS 103)

Executive Summary

Successive Governments have long had the aim that all households should have access to decent housing. The assumption has been that this aim can only be achieved by way of building enough new houses—“enough” being sufficient to add to the housing stock a number equal to the projected increase in the number of households.

However, only 10% of housing transactions involve new housing, the vast majority of households (especially the poorest) meeting their needs through the turnover of the existing stock. Lower house price inflation and a better match between supply and demand are both desirable aims, but there is no “quick fix” available by increasing housing land supply through the planning system.

To meet the need for decent, affordable housing requires greater attention to the housing that we already have, focused on tackling urban decay and uneven regional growth. With the abolition of RSSs, this means paying particular attention finding other means to integrate spatial and transport planning. There are implications for more joined up and devolved patterns of governance.

1. Standpoint

1.1 I have worked for major urban authorities (Newcastle, Tyne and Wear and Birmingham), with senior responsibilities for planning, housing, transport and regional collaboration. My consultancy work over the last 10 years has been across a similarly broad range.1 The process by which governments have sought to manage housebuilding rates (the “housing numbers game”) has been a continuing issue over the whole of this time.

2. Focus of RSSs on New Housing Numbers is Mistaken: This is a Side-Show

2.1 Successive Governments’ over-riding housing objective has been that “… everyone should have the opportunity to buy or rent a decent home at a price they can afford”.2 The assumption has been that this can only be achieved by way of building sufficient new houses to add to the housing stock a number equal to the projected increase in the number of households. However: (a) New build numbers have only marginal effect on prices or meeting needs (NHPAU analysis showed that affordability would only return to 2007 levels (regarded as unacceptable) even with a 50% increase in new building.3 Figure 1 shows how most of the net increase in projected households is in the stock of old households (elderly and very old living alone), and that the net increase approach does not address the flow of new households; (b) Increasing land supply is in any case likely to have only a marginal effect on new build numbers— though it does affect where new houses are built (suburban and greenfield not urban and brownfield); (c) It is very unlikely that the market for new private housing will recover to pre crunch levels (let alone the higher numbers promoted under previous policies) for a long time—if at all. The finance required to maintain past levels of lending to new market entrants is unlikely to be forthcoming for what may well be seen for a long time to come as subprime lending; (d) A focus on new housing (whether by RSSs or alternative local incentives) is likely to distract attention and divert investment from securing the continued attraction of existing communities. Since this is where 90% of needs are met, it risks undermining rather than supporting real housing needs.

2.2 Figure 1 uses the example of household projections carried out for the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy to illustrate these points in concrete form: (a) Two-thirds of the net increase in households (250,000 out of 371,000) was accounted for by the net increase in elderly households. However, the main dynamic factors are quite different: there is a large inflow of entirely new households (+912,000 over 20 years) and outflow of expiring households (–453,000), while the numbers of households in-between are broadly stable (though there will be changes in the identity and composition of households even where numbers are stable). (b) In the regiona, as nationally, around 10% of existing homes change hands each year. This process (known as “churn”) will provides around five million housing opportunities in the West Midlands over the next 20 years. In contrast, new housing in line with the net increase in needs (370,000) would offer less than a tenth of this number. (c) An important implication is that the needs of new households amount to around 20% of the overall annual flow of housing opportunities across all tenures (912,000 out of five million). To the extent that owner-occupation is unaffordable to these households, access to other forms of tenure will be needed. The existing stock of social housing is by far the most important source. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w229

Figure 1 WHY NET CHANGES IN HOUSEHOLDS ARE A BAD GUIDE TO PLANNING FOR HOUSING Projected changes in stocks Key to household stocks, and and flows of households – aggregates by age band (‘000s): NET increase in 245 West Midlands example ALL households 2006 2026 +371 (+17%) 30 Entirely new 226 245 households Young (<30) +912 226 451 Mature (30-60) 1221 1326 30 40 Elderly (60-80) 647 821 426 Younger (<20-40) existing 442 households becoming Very old (80+) 151 227 middle-aged (40-60) 40 +7 (+1%) 50 Source: CU Centre for Housing, (2007) projections for WM Regional Assembly 407 433 Key points: • 67% of the net increase in households 50 (250,000 out of 371,000) is accounted for by the net increase in elderly households

Mature (40-60) households 60 •The main dynamic factors are quite different: 388 NET ELDERLY becoming old (60-80) there is a large inflow of entirely new increase (60+) +26 (+3%) households (+912,000 over 20 years) and +250 (+31%) outflow of expiring households (-453,000), 60 405 while those in-between are broadly stable. • 10% of homes change hands each year 70 (‘churn’) providing ~5 million new housing 345 opportunities over 20 years. In contrast, new 416 housing in line with the net increase in needs 70 Elderly households (60-70) would offer only about 350,000 housing becoming very old (80+) opportunities. 302 -118 (-34%) •This implies a need for around 20% of the 80 annual flow of housing opportunities (new and 80 227 churn) across all tenures to be available to new Very old (70+) expiring (90+) households. 151 -453 (100%) • NB changes in the composition of households Household Household Household goes on even where numbers are stable stock 2026 stock 2006 flows 2006-26 (2,245,000) (2,616,000)

2.3 In the 1980s the then Government sought to raise private housebuilding rates by requiring the planning system to provide more land, particularly in places where builders want to build.4 Essentially the same conclusion was put forward by the Barker Report and formed the basis of the last Government’s policy from 2005. On both occasions there were extensive releases of greenfield sites, but the output of new housing did not increase for long (Figure 2). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w230 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Figure 2 HOUSING COMPLETIONS BY SECTOR, ENGLAND: ACTUALS 1946–2010; NHPAU PROJECTIONS 2008–26

1946-2007 + NHPAU projections 2008-2026

Private RSL LAs Net conversions & clearance NHPAU high NHPAU low

500,000 50,000

450,000 0

400,000 -50,000 conversion/ Projections clearance balance 350,000 -100,000

e m c

s NHPAU high o n n r a f o r

i 300,000 -150,000 a t s e e e l l

LA 'Heseltine effect' NHPAU low s c p / s s o m

250,000 -200,000 l n / o s o c i

Net increase n s i s r a s e g

o 200,000 -250,000

v

r RSL t n e G o N 150,000 -300,000 c

100,000 -350,000 2007-10 actuals Private 50,000 -400,000

0 -450,000 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 Calendar years

3. The need for more Integrated Planning—Transport Transport and urban change 3.1 We tend to think of transport as a fairly self-contained system. If we are asked (for instance) to contemplate reducing our use of the car, our reaction is to look at the alternatives for that particular trip (Is there a bus? Is it too far to cycle comfortably? etc). The result is that we are generally very unwilling to do anything about it. But if we look at behaviour over the somewhat longer term we see that we actually employ a much wider range of responses to changing transport. Over the last 30 years we have hardly changed the number of trips we each make, but the length of those trips has increased by nearly 50%, and the amount of travel by car has more than doubled (Figure 3).5

Figure 3 SOURCES OF INCREASED PERSONAL TRAVEL (SURFACE MOTORISED TRAVEL 1972–73 TO 2006) Increase in population 8% increase in trips/head 12% increase in trip lengths 48% Increase in car travel 109%

Source: DfT (2008), “UK transport statistics” 3.2 The main mechanism driving these changes is different from day-to-day transport decisions (which are typically about time of day, route and mode of transport). The longer-term pattern is dominated by our choices of location: where we live, where we work, where we go for shopping and leisure—and for businesses, where to locate, where to site depots and branches, what areas to serve, and where to source materials and services. These locational choices are themselves influenced by what the transport system offers, and are the key to the importance of transport to urban regeneration. 3.3 In the case of housing, as has been discussed above, most of this movement takes place within the existing stock of buildings—90% of the housing market is second-hand and only 10% is new. While “urban sprawl” may help to confirm and solidify a more dispersed pattern, this does not have to wait upon the realtively slow process of new development (around 1% of stock a year). 3.4 This has some huge implications for housing. The dispersion of households away from urban centres as new housing opportunities were opened up, in new suburbs and existing towns and villages in commuting range was not a cross-section. On average, the best-off moved furthest, while the poorest stayed put. This process (reinforce massively by post-WW2 housing clearance and redevelopment has widened the social gaps cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w231

between inner city, suburbs, commuter-land and outer estates. Deprived areas have become more deprived and rich areas more exclusive. 3.5 It is these large-scale shifts of people, and the associated sorting and filtering processes, that leads to neighbourhoods with concentrations deprived and vulnerable people. Once established, such areas can be extraordinarily persistent, because the transport system means that the most mobile and active escape. This makes transport a key to the quality of the places we live in, connecting in deep-seated ways to issues as diverse as social cohesion, house prices and the economic vitality of cities. These issues are crucial to the contribution of the existing housing stock to meeting people’s needs for decent housing.

Transport and spatial planning 3.6 The conventional approach is that transport provision should respond to the pattern of demand placed upon it: “predict and provide” has been the basis of road investment for the last 50+ years. But the pattern of demand is the outcome of the transport that is provided: transport leads rather than follows patterns of location and activity. 3.7 RSSs and Local Transport Plans (LTPs) originated in the West Midlands6 as local expressions of integrated land-use and transport policies in the mid-1980s and early 1990s. In a close parallel to present circumstances this action was prompted by the abolition of the Metropolitan Counties and their Structure Plans. 3.8 The benefits of local collaboration were substantial, and costs were limited, but depended on: — local political leadership and technical capacity; — limiting the scope to matters intrinsically needing wider consideration; and — respect by central government for local conclusions.

4. Achieving Wider Collaboration as Well as Localisation 4.1 The relationship between transport and spatial policy has not been well-handled in RSSs, because of different regimes at the centre: centralisation has undermined integration7,8. 4.2 In the case of transport central control has been reinforced by a standardised system of appraisal (WebTAG), which has the effect both of limiting transport decision-making to transport impacts and of making national strategic decisions the sum of scheme appraisals. There are parallels here with the excessive role accorded to housing numbers in RSSs. 4.3 To this extent greater localisation offers potential for improvement. However, the lesson to be learnt from the failure to realise the potential of RSSs and LTPs is that devolution must be genuine: (a) While much decision-making is appropriately devolved to local and neighbourhood levels, the geography of many key processes is intrinsically on a broader level, aspects of transport being an example. While voluntary cross-border collaboration can achieve much, central government is inescapably accountable for setting a framework within which subsidiarity can work; (b) Government needs to decide priorities between broad geographical areas and expenditure headings, leaving local authorities to decide their priorities within them; (c) Government should withdraw from more detailed guidance and control. Its own policy requirements need to be expressed as fewer and more strategic targets. Such targets should not in general be numerical (though numbers do have a role in informing broader judgements); (d) The direction of travel should be towards more local revenues being raised locally, and less collected centrally and then disbursed. The Lyons report had important suggestions on the need to enhance local capability in parallel with devolution, and how to build such capability.

References 1 I have given evidence to several Select Committee Inquiries on housing matters over the last 10 years, and acted as a special adviser to the ODPM Select Committee Inquiry on Growth Areas in the South East. 2 NHPAU (2008) “Meeting the Housing requirements of an aspiring and growing nation: taking the medium and long-term view”. 3 National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (2008) “Meeting the housing requirements of an aspiring and growing nation: taking the medium and long-term view. Advice on ranges to be tested in RSSs”. 4 Dept of the Environment (1980) Circular 9/80. 5 A Wenban-Smith (2009) Contribution to expert workshop for Commission on Climate Change http:// downloads.theccc.org.uk/CCC_land_use_transport_report.pdf. 6 In the form of Strategic Planning Guidance to the West Midlands Metropolitan Districts (1987) as a context for their Unitary Development Plans. SPG was issued on the basis of advice from the seven Districts. This procedure was later taken up by central Government for Regional PlaningGuidance and then RSS (increasing in cost and complexity each time). Similarly LTPs were the successor of the intregrated transport “Packages” cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w232 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

developed by the same local authorities following their own Integrated Transport Studies (initiated by Birmingham in 1989). 7 DfT (2004) “Integration of Regional Transport Strategies with spatial planning policy”, report by MVA http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/scienceresearch/coll_integrationofregionaltransp/grationofregionaltranspo1908.pdf. 8 See English Regions Network (2006) “Implementation of RSSs” report by MVA. September 2010

Written evidence from Leckhampton Green Land Action Group (LEGLAG) (ARSS 104) Summary This submission supports the Memorandum submitted by Save The Countryside, Cheltenham, and gives details of how the SWRSS (The South West Regional Spatial Strategy) affected the Planning Status of the “Leckhampton Green Land”, and Planning Applications on it. The Land (which we now call the “Leckhampton Green Land” for reasons that will become apparent) that we wish to save from inappropriate large scale development has a long and complex Planning History.

In the 1960s The County Council created a Green Belt between Cheltenham and Gloucester,whose main purpose was to prevent the two towns merging into one another, but also to discourage “sprawl” around each of the towns. It is not now clear how the boundaries of this Green Belt were determined. As a result of this .exercise, some undeveloped land was left between the boundary of the Green Belt South of Cheltenham and the then built-up area of Leckhampton. This land was then officially called the “Leckhamprton White Land”, as it was at that time all in the parish of Leckhampton. (since then, about one quarter of the land has been transferred to Shurdington by boundary changes). This land, formerly the “Leckhampton White Land”, is what we now call the “Leckhampton Green Land” or just “The Green Land” and is the land we are mainly trying to save.

In 1993 The Inspector to the Inquiry into the Cheltenham Local Plan recommended that this land should no longer be considered as “white land” but as land that should be conserved because of its accessibility and varied interest, and value, and further recommended that it should not be considered for development until a comprehensive study of all possible building land ion the outskirts of Cheltenham had been carried out by Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Borough Councils in order to find the least damaging option (if indeed such building land were required). The Cheltenham Local Plan duly included a policy to protect this land for its countryside value. In 1995 Tewkesbury Borough Council (TBC) tried (but failed) to get the part of the Green Land that then lay in Tewkesbury reclassified as “Green Belt”.

In 2000 LEGLAG wrote to both TBC and CBC asking them to carry out the comprehensive study of potential building land on the periphery of Cheltenham that the Inspector to the Inquiry to the CBC Local Plan had called for in 1993. There was no response from either Council.

In 2001 TBC put in a proposal for 360 houses on the Tewkesbury part of the Green Land , as part of their Local Plan.

In 2002 LEGLAG objected to this proposal at the Inquiry.

In 2003 The Inspector to the Inquiry to the Tewkesbury. Local Plan supported LEGLAG’s objection to building on the Green Land, and suggested using land at Longford instead.

In 2007 After a series of changes of mind, TBC produced a Local Plan including the site that was part of the Green Land, but with the proviso (insisted upon by GOSW at the request of LEGLAG) that development here should be consistent with the SWRSS and also that Cheltenham and Tewkesbury should work together on plans to develop the Green Land. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w233

In 2008 The Draft RSS for the SW included an urban extension of 1,300 dwellings to the S of Cheltenham, but insisted that the two Borough Councils (Cheltenham and Tewkesbury) should work together in planning it.

In 2008 The Inspector to an Inquiry to an Application to build 350 houses on the Green Land in Tewkesbury agreed with LEGLAG that the application was premature, because the conditions laid down by GOSW were not fulfilled.

Conclusions The effects of the South West Regional Spatial Strategy on the planning History of the “Leckhampton Green Land” have cancelled each other out. On the one hand, the consequence of the very (we would say ridiculously) high overall housing target was to make it inevitable that almost every scrap of developable land would be put into the 20-year plan; but on the other hand, the insistence on good joined-up planning has forced a delay in getting approval that now looks likely to scupper the developers plans for the forseeable future, because the new localism pronciple, combined with the high level of community feeling about this land, will stop any immediate danger of development here. In the longer term Country Park status for the land will be sought. We therefore support the memorandum submitted on behalf of “Save The Countryside” because we believe that, despite its good intentions, the South West Regional Strategy took insufficient notice of local conditions and would—if it had not been revoked—have eventually forced undesired and undesirable development on land that is much valued by our local community as it is. September 2010

Written evidence from Cumbria County Council (ARSS 106) 1.0 Summary 1.1 This paper has been prepared by Cumbria County Council and includes views expressed by the Cumbria Planning Group. 1.2 The opportunity to contribute to the Inquiry into the revocation and abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies and the opportunity to inform the Government’s thinking on the emerging arrangements for spatial planning is welcomed. 1.3 In summary the main points raised are as follows: — The opportunity for planning authorities to set housing targets within the county is welcomed. There is an acknowledgment in the county of the need to deliver more affordable housing to meet local needs and provide balanced housing markets. — The nature of any incentives to encourage communities to accept new housing development should recognise the housing needs of the area and support its economic development. All new development should satisfy established sustainable development principles. — The merits of a planning system with a strong community input is recognised. Any new arrangements should seek to utilise existing strategies and partnership models wherever possible and avoid duplicating existing strategies and processes. The existing Cumbria Community Strategy contains the Cumbria Sub Regional Spatial Strategy which sets out the broad spatial planning framework for the county and provides a strategic framework for Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) in Cumbria. — Future Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) should provide a “challenging role” to the statutory planning process but should not seek to replace it. — There are strategic challenges in Cumbria which require a co-ordinated approach. There exists within Cumbria established joint elected member and officer groups that cater for planning and housing matters. These provide the basis for continued collaborative working arrangements. — It is important that the collection and monitoring of data and evidence is continued at a strategic and local level. Cumbria County Council has the potential to hold data and research information for use at a Cumbria strategic level and to ensure that it is made available in an accurate and consistent format.

2.0 Context 2.1 Cumbria is a non-metropolitan county in North West England. Whilst Cumbria consists of one upper tier authority, it comprises six districts, the Lake District National Park and part of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w234 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

2.2 By area, Cumbria is the second largest county in England but less than 500,000 people live there (496,600, Mid-Year Population Estimates, 2008, ONS) and over 50% of these people live in rural communities. 2.3 Cumbria connects the North West of England with the North East and Scotland, with road and rail networks north, south and east. Cumbria enjoys a world class environment and landscape, presenting unrivalled opportunities for tourism, a highly motivated workforce, unique skills in nuclear technologies, and a good quality of life (Cumbria Intelligence Observatory). 2.4 The challenge for Cumbria is to secure a sustainable level and pattern of development that creates balanced communities and meets needs including that of new jobs across the county. 2.5 In Cumbria the planning and housing authorities have a longstanding history of joint working demonstrated through the creation of the Cumbria Planning Group and the Cumbria Housing Group. 2.6 The Cumbria Planning Group is made up of one Councillor from each of the six Districts, one from the County Council and one Member of the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA). Each elected member is supported by one officer. It seeks to coordinate planning activities in Cumbria, including joint initiatives and lobbying activities. 2.7 The Cumbria Housing Group is a forum to discuss and coordinate housing activities in Cumbria on behalf of the six Districts, the LDNPA and Cumbria County Council, plus representatives of Registered Social Landlords and the housing development industry. The Executive of the Cumbria Housing Group includes Local Authority Member representation, which establishes the policy of the Group. The Cumbria Housing Group prepared the Cumbria Housing Strategy which is an overarching strategic document that provides a framework for consistent policies and practices across the county. It has identified 20 Housing Market Areas across Cumbria. The CHG (through the Research and Information sub group) has published countywide Strategic Housing Market Area Assessments (SHMAAs) for each local authority in Cumbria, except Barrow in Furness whose SHMAA is still under preparation. 2.8 The Cumbria Strategic Partnership (CSP) is the countywide partnership in Cumbria which brings together partners representing the public, private and third sector organisations in Cumbria. It has a membership of over 50 orgainsations and is responsible, on behalf of the County Council, for developing a Sustainable Community Strategy and for developing and implementing the Local Area Agreement. The existing Cumbria Community Strategy contains the Cumbria Sub Regional Spatial Strategy which sets out the broad spatial planning framework for the county. 2.9 The Cumbria Leaders’ Board has recently been formed to provide a strong coherent voice along with the leadership and direction required to attract investment and enterprise in Cumbria. This includes representation from the County Council and six District Councils, Cumbria Association of Local Councils and other major public bodies such as the Police, Health and LDNPA. The Cumbria Leaders’ Board has recently signed off and submitted a bid for a Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership. 2.10 Another example of partnership working within the county is the Lake District National Park Partnership which is made up of representatives from the public, private, community and voluntary sectors. The Partnership works together to resolve potential areas of conflict and find solutions to further the vision of the National Park.

3.0 Submission Statement 3.1 The submission to the Inquiry sets out a response on the basis of the terms of reference.

TOR 1: The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development 3.2 Without clearly defined targets there is a danger that the necessary levels of housing development required will not be achieved to meet identified housing needs. Hence the ability to set housing targets within the county is essential. There is already an established Cumbria Housing Group which has led the production of SHMAAs. This was undertaken collaboratively with the planning and housing authorities within the county and allowed needs to be identified within Housing Market Areas (HMAs). We see the co-operative approach to evidence preparation having value in any future planning process, as it allows strategic themes to emerge and cross border issues to be resolved. 3.3 To deliver the significant levels of housing development required there is a need to resolve conflicts within individual settlements and communities. If there is no strategic target the time taken to resolve these differences as well as those of specialist interests could be significant and may well delay the construction of the units needed to meet established housing requirements including affordable and extra care housing. In some cases this could have an adverse socio-economic affect on the area as a whole. It is recognised that the likelihood of this occurring in the county maybe limited at present, as the Cumbrian planning authorities were generally supportive of the housing targets set within the revoked North West RSS, although these figures remain to be incorporated in around half of the Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) in the county. 3.4 The merits of a planning system with a strong community input is recognised and indeed there is an acknowledgment already in the county of the need to deliver more affordable housing to meet local needs. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w235

TOR2: The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long term supply of housing

3.5 We refer to the response above. In order to encourage communities to accept the provision of new housing development a number of aspects need to be clearly put in place: — A needs assessment to establish the levels of housing development required at a strategic and local level; — Housing requirement targets set by the planning authority area which have been derived from the needs assessment and endorsed by the responsible local authorities; — Clear incentives to the housing market and RSLs to provide that housing requirement; and — Community empowerment to bring forward land for development.

3.6 The nature of these incentives should target the housing needs of the area and support its future economic development. We would support the approach taken in PPS 3 which allows for needs to be met where there is not a five year supply but seeks to ensure that all housing developments satisfy sustainable development principles.

3.7 As no clear fiscal mechanisms to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development have been set it is difficult to comment at this stage. However, it is suggested that there is a significant challenge to address the potential differing views of communities, in terms of agreeing the location and scale of housing development. It is important to note that Cumbria contains a wealth of protected landscapes and areas designated for their importance in terms of biodiversity and historic significance which adds further to the consideration of the appropriate scale of development.

3.8 The incentives should also deal with enabling infrastructure for housing development which relates to whole settlements as well as to individual developments. In particular there are issues which relate to highway and transport and utility infrastructure in some of Cumbria’s main settlements which could potentially limited levels of housing development and economic growth. There needs to be a clear co-ordination of infrastructure requirements and an appreciation that there needs to be a shared contribution from developers and/or investment from public bodies responsible for that community infrastructure. There is currently a significant reliance on gap funding in the county.

TOR 3: What arrangements should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formally covered by Regional Spatial Strategies?

3.9 The Cumbria authorities (including Cumbria County Council, the LDNPA and the District Councils) have been active in the regional planning process. The provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and PPS 11 provide advice with regard to the preparation, review and monitoring of the NW RSS. The County Council as a Section 4(4) authority has specific responsibility to engage in that strategic planning process. In reality this input was usually undertaken on a collaborative basis.

3.10 There is potential for the Cumbria authorities to continue to work collaboratively in the new arrangements. As explained above there are established joint elected member and officer groups that cater for planning and housing matters ie the Cumbria Planning Group and the Cumbria Housing Group.

3.11 The Cumbria Leaders Board has recently signed off and submitted a bid for a Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership. It is also the intention of the Cumbria Strategic Partnership to produce a single countywide community strategy.

3.12 The existing Cumbria Community Strategy contains the Cumbria’s Sub Regional Spatial Strategy which sets out the broad spatial planning framework for the county. This enables actions that affect specific areas and locations to achieve the delivery of the Community Strategy and provides a strategic framework for Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) in Cumbria. It is of note that of the eight core strategies to be produced within the county, four have been found sound and there is considerable process being made with a number of other development plan documents.

3.13 It is the view of Cumbria Planning Group that any new arrangements should seek to utilise existing strategies and partnership models wherever possible and avoid increasing and duplicating strategies and process. The Cumbria Planning Group appreciates the value of joint working and cooperation in responding to strategic planning matters. It sees continued opportunities for shared working on spatial planning matters. Such models for partnership can greatly assist the “Localism” agenda and provide efficiency savings for public sector budgets.

3.14 The County Council is seen as playing an important role in the co-ordination of strategic planning matters including infrastructure provision and specialist advice in respect of landscape, heritage and biodiversity matters; renewable and low carbon energy, minerals and waste management. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w236 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

TOR 4: The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co- operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function 3.15 The proposal to place a duty to co-operate upon local authorities is welcomed. As explained previously the Cumbrian planning and housing authorities have a longstanding history of joint working demonstrated through the creation of the Cumbria Planning Group and the Cumbria Housing Group. 3.16 The Cumbria partners have also submitted a proposal for a Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership. The proposal advocates that the planning process should enable business and communities to address their needs and meet Cumbria’s enterprise aspirations. Fundamental to this is encouraging sustainable economic growth whilst protecting the county’s valuable landscape and ecological and heritage features. This includes both the creation of vibrant settlements, business premises, effective infrastructure and housing. 3.17 It is considered that delivering sufficient housing of the right type in the right location to meet current and future needs of the community is essential for our economic competitiveness and aspiration, as is the creation of mixed and sustainable communities. Crucially, this includes tackling the significant issues of affordable housing and areas of housing market renewal. Identifying opportunities for regeneration and enhancement of the physical environment will be key. 3.18 The priorities of the Cumbria LEP will be to: — Provide evidence for and champion the economy’s current and future needs to be delivered through the planning process, in terms of housing, business and community infrastructure; — Promote coordination of the work of the Local Planning Authorities in delivering a coherent, focussed and enabling environment for business; — Support action to address the issue of affordable housing for local people and key workers; — Use its network of influence to facilitate constructive and positive relationships between Local Planning Authorities and potential developers/business, enabling appropriate developments which are in line with our agreed priorities; — Identify within our prospectus coordinated development opportunities around housing, industrial and commercial sites, retail, cultural industry and the low carbon economy; — Seek improvement to the county’s supporting infrastructure for sustainable economic growth and community wellbeing; — Promote and facilitate the opportunities around public/private partnerships as a delivery mechanism for key development projects; and — Advocate the benefits of low carbon technologies and high quality design solution in championing of new investment strategies and development schemes. 3.19 The Cumbria Planning Group endorses the Cumbria LEP proposal. The Cumbria Planning Group expresses the view that LEPs should not be seeking to set up a new governance structure to become an alternative planning body but that the LEP should “challenge” the statutory planning process to assist delivery. 3.20 It is noted that the North West Leaders Board has established a new Transition Planning Board to look at the role of planning in the context of post regional arrangements, including LEPs.

TOR 5: How should data and research collected by the now abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Board be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries? 3.21 The collection and monitoring of data and evidence is invaluable to policy making and managing projects at a strategic and local level. There is value in retaining the data and evidence collected for the preparation of the North West region’s Regional Strategy and the Regional Spatial Strategy as well as the information collected in relation to monitoring the performance of the strategies and policies of these documents. As much of the data is available on the Regional Planning Board, (4NW’s) website it is important that this website is maintained and publicly available. 3.22 In recognition of the above, Cumbria County Council has the potential to hold data and research information for use at a Cumbria strategic level and to ensure that it is made available in an accurate and consistent format. However the maintenance and updating of that data and research information would have resource implication for the County Council. 3.23 It is recognised that the collection of data and evidence relating to cross-boundary issues is invaluable and would greatly assist all Cumbrian partners. There are partnership models already in place to facilitate the pursuance of agreed objectives. For example the Cumbria Intelligence Observatory is already established and has built upon invaluable Cumbria time series data gathered over many years. A Cumbria-wide Local Economic Assessment is currently being prepared, drawing on these data sources. There is scope to widen its remit to incorporate spatial planning data and evidence. This would be an invaluable tool to support regeneration and development activity in Cumbria and to provide evidence to prioritise the key interventions necessary. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w237

N.B. Documents are attached with this submission for consideration by the Inquiry. These are referred to in the submission statement as examples of good practice. They include: — CSP’s Cumbria Community Strategy: www.cumbriastrategicpartnership.org.uk The page provides a link to the Cumbria Sub Regional Spatial Strategy: www.cumbriastrategicpartnership.org.uk/eLibrary/Content/Internet/536/39639141345.pdf — Cumbria Housing Strategy: www.impacthousing.org.uk/Adobe%20docs/CSRHG%20Strategy/ Housing%20Market%20Main%20FINAL.pdf — Strategic Housing Market Area Assessments: www.cumbria.gov.uk/planning-environment/spatialplanning/housingmarket/housingmarket.asp September 2010

Written from Mineral Products Association (ARSS 107) Summary: — Continued Government commitment to maintaining an adequate and steady supply of minerals is crucial to the economy and to the interests of our members. RSSs have contributed nothing to the achievement of that steady supply. — The MPA therefore supports the revocation of RSSs provided that suitable mechanisms are in place to ensure that mineral planning authorities have an obligation to act collectively to make provision for an adequate and steady supply of all minerals. — MPA welcomes the statement from the Chief Planner that the longstanding arrangements for minerals planning, including the technical advice provided by the Aggregate Working Parties and the CLG Guidelines for 2005–20 should continue to fulfil an essential role. — There is an urgent need for further clarification from Government in the wake of the revocation action.

Further Comment: The MPA fully supports the submission made by the CBI Minerals Group of which MPA is a member. The comments in this submission relate principally to aggregates provision which is the business of the majority of our members. Mineral resources are not distributed evenly across the nation and they can only be worked where they occur. It is essential therefore that there is some coordinating framework to ensure that construction material is supplied where it is needed, in the most sustainable way, even when there is a geological deficit of suitable minerals. The Managed Aggregates Supply System (MASS) has been successful in fulfilling that role for a period in excess of thirty years. The MASS pre-dates the establishment of RSSs and RSSs have never been essential to that system. MPA members are of the view that the statutory role of RSSs in planning for aggregates proved to be disruptive in some areas as it provided an opportunity for political influence at an inappropriate stage in the strategic planning process. The endorsement of the work of the Aggregate Working Parties given by the Chief Planner in his letter of 6 July is welcomed but it must be acknowledged that the revocation of RSSs has caused disruption to the process of producing Development Frameworks. Some planning authorities (eg Oxfordshire) have already taken the announcement as a signal to ignore Government Guidelines on aggregates provision. In some cases it is patently obvious that authorities have selected a provision tonnage that they feel comfortable with and are then seeking an evidence base to fit in with their aspirations. To prevent spurious and costly challenges to the recommendations of the Aggregate Working Parties it is essential that Government give guidance as to what constitutes a “robust evidence base”. Without early and clear guidance, and against the background of deficient permitted reserves of aggregates (“landbanks”) in critical areas, the ability of the industry to maintain an adequate and steady supply of construction materials may be seriously compromised. Aggregate Working Parties continue to be an effective way of securing an integrated approach to the provision of materials and should be maintained in some form. What should not be forgotten is that the National Coordinating Group of the RAWPs is also part of the MASS and it is the view of the MPA that the role of cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w238 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

that body should be affirmed and enhanced to provide high-level integration, particularly in the absence of the RSSs. September 2010

Written evidence from Southern Water Services (SWS) (ARSS 108) — Government needs a planning system that encourages, not defers, private sector investment in water and sewerage infrastructure, which typically spans more than one local authority boundary. — Regional spatial strategies have usefully informed Southern Water’s investment plans on the likely level of new development in the region and the location of strategic development sites. They have also provided planning policy support for the delivery of major investment. — In contrast, Local Development Frameworks have failed to provide the planning certainty required by the private sector to plan and deliver infrastructure investment. — The proposed “duty to co-operate” is an inadequate substitute for regional spatial strategies. There remains a need for strategic regional plans that have been tested via public examination. — Taking over matters formally covered by regional spatial strategies may be a role that could be undertaken by Local Enterprise Partnerships. — An example is provided of the planning support required for delivery of major infrastructure investment. The Committee is invited to use it to test the effectiveness of future proposals. Southern Water Services (SWS) provides water services to about two million customers and sewerage services to over four million customers in Kent, Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. SWS is a major investor in water and sewerage infrastructure in the south east and welcomes the opportunity to comment on the abolition of regional spatial strategies. Government needs a planning system that encourages, not defers, private sector investment in water and sewerage infrastructure. Water and sewerage infrastructure has boundaries that do not coincide with those of local authorities. Major infrastructure often serves either a group of local authorities or is located in a strategic location within a region that serves all of them. In some cases infrastructure required to serve communities in one local authority has to be located in another local authority because of environmental or planning constraints. Regional spatial strategies that have been tested via public examination provide the private sector with the planning policy necessary to support delivery of major investment in infrastructure that extends beyond neighbourhood or district boundaries. Abolition of the South East Plan has left a strategic planning gap. SWS is neutral on the issue of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development. However, the regional house building targets have been useful in informing SWS’ long term investment plans on the likely level of new development in the region and the location of strategic development sites. Although future housing targets are not an issue on which SWS can comment, planning certainty with respect to the location, scope and timing of development is essential for infrastructure investment. Adopted Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) should provide this certainty by informing the water industry what, when and where additional infrastructure is needed. However, the LDF process has failed to meet his need as very few local authorities have progressed their plans to adoption. The proposed duty to co-operate is considered to be an inadequate substitute for regional spatial strategies. An overarching body is needed to take responsibility for strategic planning at regional level and set out investment priorities and solutions that extend beyond individual local authority boundaries. Regional Planning Guidance and county council Structure Plans provided policy guidance before the regional spatial strategies were developed. Whilst SWS is not advocating a return to either of these models, planning policy at this level is still required. Local Enterprise Partnerships may have a role to play in this process, which SWS would support if the strategic or regional plans were tested via public examination. Water resources are planned regionally through statutory Water Resources Management Plans (WRMPs). A regional approach is necessary because the south east is designated a water stressed area and water resources are not available locally to supply major centres of population. Balancing water demand with supply relies on the coordinated use of strategic resources across the south east and the transfer of water from areas of surplus to areas of deficit. The South East Plan set out the long term strategy for housing development across the region and included planning policies which supported the development of additional strategic water resources. House building targets, broken down by local authority, usefully informed the WRMP because they had been tested via examination in public. The abolition of the South East Plan and the failure of the majority local authorities in SWS’ area to progress LDFs to adoption presents a major gap in planning policy across the region. The following example is provided to illustrate the planning policy support Southern Water requires to deliver major investment in additional water infrastructure. Bewl Reservoir, on the county border of East Sussex and Kent, is a major regional water resource that is shared by water companies in the south east. Water from the reservoir is used to supply drinking water throughout Kent and East Sussex. The South East Plan recognised the need for development of new cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w239

strategic water resources in policy NRM3 and provided support for their delivery. Abolition of the regional spatial strategy leaves the decision on future water resource development to the local authorities. Bewl Reservoir falls within three local authorities, Rother DC, Tunbridge Wells BC and Wealden DC. The scale of increased demand for water locally in these three local authorities will never trigger a requirement for investment to enlarge the reservoir. However, increased demand from development further afield in Thameside, Medway and Thanet will certainly drive the need for additional resources and reservoir enlargement at some point in the future. The reservoir enlargement will require planning permission from the three local planning authorities. The Communities and Local Government Committee are invited to use the above example to consider whether future planning policy proposals would support the three local authorities facilitating the delivery of a major water resources investment scheme within their areas that is required to meet the needs of development that falls outside their areas. September 2010

Written evidence from the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups (ARSS 109) The National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups is dismayed at the changes that are being proposed by this present coalition government. We consider that over the past five years, there has been an increased understanding of the Gypsy Traveller cultural need to live in caravans, and that the circular 01/2006 was beginning to work quite well. It was a mechanism to provide sites when districts and boroughs were reluctant to provide for a variety of reasons. The amendments to the Housing Act 2004 assisted the whole process and we felt that we were finally getting somewhere which was a benefit for all. The problem for local district and boroughs with regard to Gypsy Planning applications, is the “not in my backyard syndrome”. Whilst we can agree that it is good that local people have a say in what is happening to their neighbourhood, unfortunately this kind of localism also keeps people out, not just Gypsy people, but it may be the planning for a Special Needs complex of flats or a Special Needs school. Unfortunately these applications are dealt the same kind of NIMBYISM as Gypsy applications are. The sad thing about localism is that many Gypsy people are local to more than one place, and have been for hundreds of years. Very often, the makeup of the small towns and villages where their families travelled to and from has been changed by outsiders in the past 20–30 years. It is often the case that the outsider becomes the committed committee goer and the one that will lead the petition against anything and everyone—not just Gypsies. This is the one that seems to cement the worst of ill feeling, regardless of the fact that the name of a Gypsy soldier may be on the village or town war memorial along side that of a committee member’s uncle or father. We cannot see how the situation on site provision is going to improve when the grant to provide sites has been effectively withdrawn; this means that there will be no pitches created without private applications. There are some families that are never going to be able to afford their own land and provide pitches for themselves. Families that can provide for themselves are going to be in a catch 22 situation if pitch numbers from the RSS are now going to be ignored. This, coupled with the danger of localism becoming “ultra localism” will cause real problems. There are many Gypsy families that are willing to provide their own small sites, but if the circular 01/2006 is to be replaced, we worry as to the consequence. Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group has undertaken numerous planning cases and it fears that there will be a return to the bad old days of continuous eviction, especially if there is no good sound policy to make a positive legal change. Surely it is more useful to discuss positive changes before acting on the perceived localism view It is far better to work with one another than be in an entrenched position. We understand that CALA homes has issued a Judicial Review against CLG. We are an interested party regarding that case, we believe it covers many concerns as to the process of law in this country. We would ask that before any change happens to the planning system, the Regional Spatial Strategy, or the 01/2006 circular, that there is adequate time to reflect, discuss and bring about a positive proactive policy on Gypsy site provisions that can be through a mixture of provision, by: 1. A return to the duty for local authorities to provide some pitches. 2. The encouragement and assistance for private site provision. We would like a network of sites to be overseen by CLG, bearing in mind the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities we understand that Britain was to update on this framework every five years. How is the present Government going to answer to this Framework? cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w240 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

We have yet to recieve a reply as to whether a Race Impact Assessment was undertaken before the decision to revoke the Regional Spatial Strategies was made. We hope that some consideration will be made to the fact that a small minority group will be affected quite badly by this decision and we are willing to assist in any discussions that may come about to bring about a positive outcome. September 2010

Written evidence from Arup (ARSS 110) Executive Summary (i) The design of a new system of planning for housing will need to include a means of ensuring that: — locally generated housing levels meet national needs in aggregate; — local politicians are given a good understanding of the sub-regional context within which they operate, including economic drivers, demographic needs, travel patterns, and housing quality issues; — any incentives regime works within a broader spatial policy framework to ensure that houses are built where they are most needed; — effective cross-boundary working takes place, particularly in Functional Urban Regions where high levels of population growth are projected (see Figure 2 for the priority areas that we suggest); — there is a constructive interface with Local Enterprise Partnerships, without giving them a primary planning function; and — regional evidence bases of relevance to LDF preparation are made available on dedicated websites for each region. (ii) Local authorities should be required to set up formal cross-boundary arrangements to ensure access to technical expertise and credible interaction with private operators on resource planning and management. The most appropriate spatial scales are: — regions for minerals and renewable energy; — sub-regions for waste and flood risk management; and — local authorities for green infrastructure.

Introduction 1. Arup is an international planning, design and engineering consultancy. Its planners and economists have regularly undertaken research commissions on behalf of DCLG, other government departments and government agencies, regional and sub regional bodies and local authorities over the last 20 years. A former Arup Director had hands-on experience of the rigorous independent testing stage in the preparation of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) as a former Examination in Public Panel Chair. 2. Arup has in-depth expertise in the technical aspects of energy, water, minerals and waste, ecology and landscape and their relationship to public policy issues. It also has its own horizon scanning capability and was involved in the Government Office for Science's recent Land Use Futures Foresight study.

The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development 3. Although by no means perfect, regional house building targets set through RSS provided a means of stepping down national household projections to the sub-national level while taking account of factors such as the needs of the regional economy, affordability levels, housing market pressures and weaknesses, availability of suitable land and adequacy of infrastructure (PPS3, para 33). Within this framework regional bodies arbitrated between bottom up local interests and national needs, and the results of the independent testing process ensured that the pieces of the jigsaw largely added back up to the national picture. The fact that there was a shortfall rather than an exact match against national household projections in published regional plans, particularly in the southern regions, was a reflection of the discretion in the system to take account of local circumstances. The challenge under a new system will be how to ensure an equivalent measure of coordination. 4. In constructing a new system it must be very clear what the boundaries of local discretion are, otherwise there will be false starts and delays in the process of adopting LDF core strategies. One of the reasons why RSS turned sour in the minds of many local councillors particularly in southern England was that regional bodies, led by local authorities with inputs from business and environmental interests were given the responsibility from producing RSS—it was their plan.i It was therefore considered unjust by many to have major modifications (particularly in the area of housing numbers) imposed by the Government in the final stages, in contrast to the previous system whereby regions, largely through a voluntary collaborative process, had produced “advice” and Government, taking account of a wider range of national issues, had produced the final “guidance”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w241

5. Without some form of externally mediated housing target, it is vital that local politicians are given an understanding of the bigger picture. Our work looking at the implications of long term demographic and economic trends across England and the scope for planning to “bend” these trendsii is something that could usefully be updated as context for the new system. 6. Some local authorities in high demand areas with high levels of unaffordability (house price: income ratio) will find that their local evidence base suggests higher housing levels than they previously had under the RSS system. This is because National Growth Areas and to a lesser extent National Growth Points previously acted as “safety valves” in accommodating national household projections. Ways will therefore be needed to manage local expectations. 7. Local authorities may therefore need help to understand the sub-regional context within which they operate. These specialist skills will more readily be available in the big city regions (in some instances such capability has been retained eg the Tees Valley joint strategic unit). But many of the biggest challenges will arise around freestanding cities where for example new science-based economies are growing strongly eg Oxford, Cambridge and York. Such cities are often under-bounded and are dependent on their neighbours for the provision of sufficient housing opportunities. The issues are exacerbated by demographic trends of counter- urbanisation, which are placing greater housing market pressure in the rural hinterlands of cities and city regions. Understanding the demographic profile sub-regionally and identifying the most robust population and household projections on which to base joint planning may require new skills, as we are finding in our current advice to York City Council and surrounding boroughs. 8. In addition to the issue of housing numbers, it is also important there is a strategic cross-boundary understanding of housing markets to inform wider housing policies and investment strategies. Our work for the Northern Wayiii identified the need for a city region wide perspective in relation to policies on the type, quality, density and tenure mix of new housing, as well as interventions to improve the quality of existing neighbourhoods and housing stock. This is important to ensure that areas have the right mix of housing in the right places in order to attract and retain a skilled and creative workforce needed to drive a knowledge economy.

Recommendation Rec 1 Government guidance should be provided, possibly through an update of PPS3, on the broader parameters within which local authorities should set housing levels within LDFs, the demographic basis that they should use, and the supporting evidence required.

The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing 9. Current proposals are designed to incentivise local authorities to allocate more housing land through LDFs and to grant permission for more applications. This immediately raises the issue of how the additional element over and above what might ordinarily have been allocated or permitted could be identified. 10. There are high risks that an incentive system could lead to unrealistic expectations in the areas with fewest economic prospects in the quest for housing-led regeneration. In such areas incentives may encourage new housing in greenfield areas with new occupants leaving empty properties in less desirable areas (such as former industrial or mining towns), which could then cause housing market weakness, dereliction and a downward spiral. Alternatively the prospect of revenue income from incentives could lead to additional housing provision on paper, ie in LDFs, which does not get built because it is perceived to be too risky a proposition by housebuilders. 11. To avoid this, incentives could be focused on authorities most in need of additional housing, eg with the worst affordability ratios. However this implies skewing of local government finance towards more prosperous areas, particularly in the South, which may be politically unacceptable. 12. It also begs the question as to whether such incentives would have a large enough monetary value to overcome perceived amenity disbenefits eg from congested infrastructure. At the level of Council Tax receipts implied in the Conservative Party Green Paper, we estimate that about 10–20% could be added to Council Tax receipts for an average District in areas accommodating about 350 units pa. However at a national total of some £1.5 billion pa this may be unaffordable to the Exchequer, and in any case the majority of Council Tax receipt goes to County Councils in two tier areas, whereas the planning incentive is needed at district level. 13. There is also a need to consider how the incentives in terms of retention of Council Tax receipts will relate to other mechanisms that have previously been used. In many areas, local authority support for housing growth has been based on an assumption that substantial Government funding will be provided for supporting infrastructure—this implicit “deal” was a main feature of the Growth Areas and Growth Points programmes. It remains to be seen whether the previous consensus on the need to plan for growth in such areas is now broken if programmes for infrastructure investment are scaled back. 14. The prospect of levering substantial investment from developers through Section 106 contributions has also acted as an incentive to local authorities to plan for housing growth. In more challenging market conditions cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w242 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

local authorities are having to reconsider what they can realistically demand from Section 106 agreements. This, alongside uncertainty around the future introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy will also act to reduce financial incentives to plan for housing growth.

Recommendation Rec 2 Any incentives regime would need to work within a broader spatial policy framework to ensure that houses are built where they are most needed. In order to reduce public opposition, attention will also be needed on issues such as raising design standards, locally generated funding mechanisms for associated infrastructure improvements, and ways of giving greater voice to supporters of new housing in the planning decision process.

The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, &c.);

15. The numerical guidance previously provided in RSS on several of these technical issues was an important means of delivering against international and national targets. It is therefore in the Government's own interests to ensure meaningful coordination at the most appropriate spatial scale for each issue. 16. For minerals and renewable energy there could be merit in retaining a regional framework, whereas a sub-regional basis may be appropriate for waste and Flood risk management. We envisage green infrastructure for the most part being dealt with by individual local authorities. It is also vital in our opinion to acknowledge that major infrastructure needs, eg adequacy of power supplies, grid connections and water supply, must be understood at a strategic scale, such that utility companies can build up a picture across their operating areas of where major development is likely to take place. 17. Minerals: a mechanism is needed to ensure that extraction particularly of construction materials is achieved at sufficient rates to meet demands often occurring in different parts of the country. The extent to which recycled materials can substitute for primary crushed rock and aggregates is also needed. This first process involves involves a national top-down perspective and the second a bottom-up perspective. Hence the regional level with Regional Aggregate Working Parties as the mediating body has been found to be a useful working level. There is no reason why these bodies should not continue their work. 18. Waste: a mechanism is needed to negotiate sufficient disposal capacity in the hinterlands of the major conurbations and under-bounded cities while alternative waste management processes to enable greater degrees of city self-sufficiency are brought on stream (as driven in part by European legislation). Whilst the landfill tax provides a powerful financial incentive for local authorities to work together to plan proactively for provision of municipal waste facilities, no similar incentives exist on planning for commercial or hazardous waste facilities. An inter-regional area may be the most logical spatial unit to plan for requirements in Greater London and the Home Counties, whereas a sub-regional arrangement may be appropriate around the main conurbations in the North and West Midlands. 19. Renewable Energy: a mechanism is needed to step down from national targets set out in international agreements to a sub-national level such that groupings of local authorities know what level of renewable energy they would be expected to provide, as context for determining planning applications. Useful lessons can be drawn from experience in Wales whereby national guidance is provided on the scale of need together with clear spatial expression where appropriate, such as the strategic search areas for on-shore wind.iv Arup has advised the Welsh Assembly Government on this topic for many years. 20. Flood Risk and Coastal Protection: this is adequately built into LDF preparation via Strategic Flood Risk Assessments. However there is a need for a cross-boundary perspective because water catchments and coastal systems cut across local authority boundaries. In some areas (eg Hull) the solution to flood risk may be upstream catchment management measures in another local authority. The Environment Agency would be in a good position to commission cross-boundary evidence collection in areas where more widespread flood risk issues need to be tackled, working with the Flood and Coastal Risk Management partnerships that have been created as a result of the Pitt Review and the Water Management Act. 21. Green Infrastructure: policies for protecting and enhancing the natural environment are well embedded into the local planning system. However understanding the value of land in providing ecosystems services is continuing to progress, as elaborated in the recent Land Use Future’s report.v Natural England is in the best position to input this thinking into plan making and to lead cross-boundary work on projects of wider than local significance.

Recommendation Rec 3 The Government should require local authorities to set up formal cross-boundary arrangements at a broad enough spatial scale to allow technical expertise to be brought to bear on resource planning and management and to allow credible interaction with private operators. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w243

The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co-operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function; and Proposed duty to cooperate 22. Our previous research for DCLG on optimum geographies at the sub-national scalevi suggested that the sub-regional level was critical to understanding functional economic relationships and hence should inform planning for housing. It is also the level at which authorities are encouraged to collaborate through setting up Integrated Transport Authorities. 23. There are already good examples of local authorities cooperating voluntarily eg the Greater Norwich Development Partnership where local authorities are cooperating on a joint LDF core strategy. In and around Cambridge the local authorities have successfully set up a joint think tank and delivery vehicle: Cambridge Horizons. 24. The issue is whether the proposed duty to cooperate, together with self-interest in seeking efficiencies in planning and possibly other local government management areas, will be strong enough or whether additional proactivity from the Government will be necessary. We have some reservations about whether voluntary sub- regional partnerships will have the capacity or political will to tackle controversial planning issues around housing growth, eg involving a selective release of Green Belt in an authority area adjoining the main driver of demand. 25. Additional guidance may be needed from national Government on the planning imperatives for joint working in particular parts of the country, in that the Government Offices for the Regions will no longer be there to provide that positive steer. We put forward our suggestions on priority areas for collaborative working in Figures 1 and 2. These are based on identifying local authorities where population growth is projected to be highest following past trends, together with those locations with journey to work areas that extend over several local authorities (termed Functional Urban Regions). The greatest need for joint working on housing growth is where both these patterns overlap (see the names in bold type on Figure 2). Where lower levels of population growth are projected within these Functional Urban Regions there would still be strong case for collaborative working on other topics, particularly transport. 26. If the decision on whether to cooperate is left entirely to local authorities there is a risk that important relationships are missed, such that the Inspector examining a particular draft LDF core strategy may find the locally agreed housing provision unsound, hence perpetuating a policy vacuum for housebuilders and leading to decision-making “by appeal”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w244 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w245

Recommendations Rec 4 Guidance could usefully be provided by Government on the types of circumstances in which it is crucial to cooperate in order to take account of the interrelationships between housing, economy and transport. Rec 5 Government guidance would also be useful on the merits of different vehicles for cooperation ranging from joint statutory committees (as the London Planning Advisory Committee was constituted after the abolition of the GLC), to looser strategic planning partnership approaches eg through the Leeds City Region Partnership.

Local Enterprise Partnerships 27. LEPs are intended to be slimline business orientated organisation to give confidence to the private sector to invest in projects that are strategically important to the economy. Extending RDA responsibilities into the spatial planning arena was not generally successful, since delivery and plan making are different skills. In our opinion the function of LEPs should not be complicated by giving them a primary planning function. 28. Constructive roles in which LEPs could interface with the planning system would be: — articulating barriers to economic growth which can be dealt with through planning, eg emerging shortages of employment land, or labour supply issues that are related to the housing stock or quality of place; — informing the economic evidence base for LDFs; and — identifying infrastructure bottlenecks with economic consequences, and where necessary acting as a conduit in joint investigations with utility companies.

Recommendation Rec 6 Local authority planners and LEPs should work together to ensure that policy is coordinated in order to provide a framework to guide public investment programmes such as on regeneration and affordable housing by the Homes and Communities Agency.

How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries 29. Valuable data sets have been assembled largely through Regional Observatories. Extensive research has also been commissioned by Regional Leaders Boards and their predecessors and the RDAs. These must continue to be available as context for LDF preparation. Some aspects will become part of the evidence base for LDFs, but evidence needs careful interpretation. 30. Many smaller local authorities will not have access to specialists in critical areas like demographics, economic forecasting, renewable energy. They may need help in understanding data sources and engaging in scenario building exercises to examine uncertain economic futures. Our guidance on strengthening the economic evidence for regional plans prepared for ODPM could usefully be reinterpreted for use by groupings of local authorities in LDF preparation.vii 31. Joint funding solutions probably based on local authority contributions will be needed for the storage and updating of regional data and research resources, possibly brokered through the regional branch of the LGA. Greater understanding of the value of existing data should build momentum for the case to maintain it.

Recommendations Rec 7 Awareness raising exercises could usefully be organised by the regional branches of the LGA on the resources available from previously assembled regional evidence bases, how to access them, and how to interpret them for a particular locality. Rec 8 The databases and research studies should be available on an easily distinguished dedicated website for each region, rather than be subsumed in the National Archives website with its inadequate search facilities.

References i Evaluation of the Role and Impact of Regional Assemblies, see section 4.4, Arup for DCLG, 2007. Available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/evaluationrole ii Regional Futures: England’s Regions in 2030, Arup and Oxford Economic Forecasting for the English Regions Network, RDA Planning Leads Group, ODPM and DfT, January 2005. Available at: http://southwest-ra.gov.uk/media/SWRA/RSS%20Documents/Technical%20Documents/Regional_Futures_ Report.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w246 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

iii The North’s Residential Offer: Policy and Investment Review, Arup for Northern Way, 2006. Available at: http://www.thenorthernway.co.uk/document.asp?id=471 iv Planning Policy Wales Technical Advice Note (TAN) 8: Planning for Renewable Energy, see Annex D for a potential methodology for local authorities within Strategic Search Areas based on Arup research. Available at http://wales.gov.uk/desh/publications/planning/technicaladvicenotes/tan8/tan8main2e.pdf?lang=en v Land Use Futures: making the most of land in the 21st century, Government Office for Science, January 2010. Available at: http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Land%20Use/luf_report/8507-BIS-Land_Use_Futures-WEB.pdf vi Planning and Optimum Geographic Decisions for Economic Decision Making: The Sub Regional Role, Arup for DCLG, 2008. Available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningoptimal vii Guide to improving the economic evidence base supporting regional economic and spatial strategies, Arup for ODPM, September 2005. Available at: www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/325633.pdf September 2010

Written evidence from Persimmon Homes Special Projects Western (PHSPW) (ARSS 112) Summary — RSS has been abolished, with no clear system to replace it, or other transitional arrangements put in place, creating a Policy vacuum and a climate of delay and uncertainty where housing proposals are being deleted, without sound evidence, and plans and strategies being delayed. This is preventing the Company bringing forward proposals and planning applications which would contribute to meeting the acknowledged housing shortfall. — The proposed system of incentives is unclear, the level of incentives are unlikely to be sufficient and will not encourage a long term supply of housing to come forward. — Local Authorities should also co-operate on strategic housing issues. — If Local Enterprise Partnerships are to have an overall planning role, it should be clearly set out. — There is a need for an independent body to provide data for Local Authorities.

Introduction This statement is submitted on behalf of Persimmon Homes Special Projects Western (PHSPW). Persimmon Homes is one of the Country’s leading house builders. PHSPW is responsible for promoting and delivering large scale strategic housing and mixed-use sites in the south west and Oxfordshire, through involvement in all levels of the forward planning system and submission of planning applications.

Issue1—The Implications of the Abolition of Regional House Building Targets for Levels of Housing Development PHSPW accept that the Coalition Government are committed to a fundamental change in planning for housing, based on the principles of Localism. Over the years there have been a series of changes to the planning system and the house building industry has always adapted to make any changes work. In the past clear changes have been announced and transitional arrangements put in place to deal with the change from one system to another. Our first concern, therefore, is that this already established process has not been followed. Firstly, a Ministerial Statement was made announcing the intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategy. Secondly, there was no indication of what would replace it (other than an idea that financial incentives would have a role to play). Thirdly, there were no transitional arrangements put in place to move from one system to the other (which of course was difficult, given the new system remains unknown), but instead the Ministerial Announcement abolishing RSS would apply immediately. Abolishing one framework, without setting out its replacement, creates uncertainty in an already weak market and the establishment of a damaging Policy vacuum, which has had two consequences for Local Authorities. On the one hand, Authorities have stopped work completely on progressing their Local Development Frameworks whilst they wait for further announcements on the forward planning system. On the other hand, Authorities have reacted to the announcements by continuing their Local Development Frameworks, but removing housing allocations from plans, on the basis that the RSS allocations which required them have been abolished, but with no consideration of any evidence of whether or not those allocations were still required. The HBF have estimated that potentially over 100,000 homes have been deleted in this way. A particular example of this arbitrary deletion of housing, of which we are aware, occurs in the west of England where the four Authorities have deleted over 35,000 houses from the original RSS allocations (North cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w247

Somerset 9,000, South Gloucestershire 8,600, Bath and North East Somerset 9,000 and Bristol City 8,500). All four Authorities are continuing with Core Strategy Documents, on the basis of these lower arbitrary figures. These figures will be justified by new evidence of population and housing need, which will clearly justify the targets, rather than identifying the actual new requirements. In relation to houses lost, we accept the Government will argue if those houses are needed and supported locally they will still come forward. Our point is that in the current Policy vacuum, there is no clear indicator of when and how these houses can be brought back at a time of the lowest house building rates since the 1920’s and acknowledged housing needs. So from our point of view, in trying to adopt a positive response to making Localism work, the impact of simply abolishing RSS and doing little else has created a climate of delay and uncertainty. This affects us principally in two ways. Firstly, proposals we have been promoting over many years through the RSS process and subsequently through Core Strategies are stalled where Local Authorities have either postponed, or withdrawn Core Strategies. Secondly, proposals already identified in Core Strategies where we were preparing planning applications in parallel with the Core Strategy, have no Policy justification where the Core Strategy has been abandoned. The issue is, do we continue to prepare and submit that planning application at considerable risk, or do we wait for an unknown period of time for the planning system to be resolved? Wiltshire Council provides an example of the delays we are experiencing in an area where we have a large number of interests. Wiltshire is a new Unitary Authority and was preparing two Core Strategies. The first for South Wiltshire was brought forward in advance of an overall Core Strategy for the new Authority in recognition of the severe housing needs in Salisbury. Its Examination was held in March and April 2010 and the Inspector had prepared his report in July. However, following a Consultation by the Inspector on the implications of the Coalition Government’s changes, the Council asked the Inspector to hold the Examination in abeyance until November 2010, in order to reconsider its position and review its housing and employment figures. In other words, right at the end of the process the Council has decided to reconsider the fundamental reason for pressing ahead with the strategy in the first place, that of a shortage of housing in Salisbury. This uncertainty has forced us to delay the submission of a planning application. The Council were also preparing a second Core Strategy for the rest of its area. Following Consultation in October 2009, the Council was due to carry out additional Consultation this summer. This has been abandoned and again the housing and employment figures will be reconsidered, but here there is no definite timetable for doing this and the Council have an indicative time frame for consulting on a revised strategy in “spring” 2011. This affects strategic sites we were promoting in Chippenham, Warminster, Melksham and Trowbridge and a number of smaller sites. From all the above, we conclude that the Government’s actions are resulting in delays and uncertainty in the forward planning system. The Committee posed the question regarding the abolition of house building targets for levels of housing development. We have a slightly different view of the housing figures set out in RSS, in that they should not be viewed as absolute targets, but figures to monitor housing provision against. Any one figure is never a target to be achieved, because as new evidence becomes available, the RSS will have been reviewed and the figure would change. What was continuous was the monitoring process behind it, to assess levels of provision against it. The concern now is that the consistency and continuity of the housing monitoring figure has now been removed with nothing to replace it. Its importance for monitoring purposes was that it took into account trends over a wider area. Even if Regional Housing Targets are abolished, they cannot be replaced with a purely Local Target for say a District Council area, because District Council areas rarely correspond to housing market areas. We note there is still a requirement in PPS3 to calculate five year housing supply and the needs to be tested against something more than a self-fulfilling Local Target. The other issue that needs to be considered here is Localism versus Nimbyism. The fear of the house building industry is that in too many cases Nimbyism will take over from Localism. There will then be disproportionate effects across and between communities, where some accept new development and others reject it. The danger of this is that the resulting pattern of new housing development will not reflect actual housing needs. We have seen nothing in the Localism Agenda which considers how housing needs can be reflected. The other problem is that the Localism approach is very much a here and now approach and does not allow for a longer term view, which the RSS process provided. Considering housing needs over a longer period was not just a technical exercise, but considered real issues. For example, new housing development is usually unpopular with those already in housing in a community, from which the Nimby voice arises. But what about the voice of those in housing need, or more importantly in the context of long term projections, who will be in housing need, like those aged between 10 and 15 now, who will require housing in the next 20 years and who were taken into account in the RSS process. In our view the needs of that group are likely to be increasingly hidden.

Issue 2—Effectiveness and Nature and Level of Incentives PHSPW have four points to make in relation to incentives. Firstly, our concern is that again the lack of details and clarity of how the system of incentives would work, which adds to the Policy gap described above and makes detailed comments impossible. The fact is the new cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w248 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

system of incentives should have been introduced as the old system was abolished, with suitable transitional arrangements. Secondly, in many respects, views on the effectiveness of the incentives are better addressed by the Local Authorities. Therefore, in order to comment on whether incentives are likely to be successful, we can again use the example in the west of England. It is a fact that the four Authorities involved have already reduced the RSS figure by some 35,000 houses. Using a very simplistic example and assuming an average of £1,250 Council Tax per dwelling, those 35,000 dwellings would have attracted £43.75 million per year for those Authorities, which over six years would have amounted to £262.5 million. If those Authorities are willing to give up that amount of money at the stroke of a pen at this stage in the process, we doubt whether the current level of incentives will be sufficient, but it does also call into question whether any realistic level of incentives would cause those Authorities to change. Thirdly, we do not think that incentives will work on their own. The planning system has always been notoriously slow. The need to balance potential negativity from local communities concerned primarily with the negative impact of new housing in their community, with the potential income that the new housing will generate, is only likely to slow down the process even more. Therefore, we think any scheme of incentives also has to be backed up by an imperative to prepare strategies, or plans, in a reasonable time frame. In fact, the availability of incentives provides the ideal opportunity to introduce a clear timetable for the preparation of a Local Plan (or whatever the document is to be called), which if it was not met, could be allied to a reduction in the level of incentives the Authorities subsequently received. National guidance could set out an indicative time frame for preparing plans, but the specific timetable for each plan should be agreed locally, the mechanism for which already exists in the form of the local development scheme. The advantage will be that if it is linked to the receipt of incentives, the local development scheme would have real meaning and should ensure plans are produced on time, rather than against an LDS timetable that can too easily slip and be reviewed. Fourthly, we question whether the system of incentives does indeed encourage a long term supply of housing, or for Authorities to take a long term view. The incentive for any one house merely applies for a six year period, although for a large site, with delivery phased over a longer period, cash flow would be spread out. However, this does not encourage long term thinking and it may be that if the level of incentives are not increased, then the time for which they can be claimed should be increased from six years.

Issue 3—Local Authority Co-Operation on Waste, Minerals, Flooding, Natural Environment and Renewable Energy In its involvement with the preparation of Regional Spatial Strategies, PHSPW have always taken a wider view than simply looking at the housing and employment issues. Policies relating to waste, flooding, the natural environment and renewable energy are linked to and can have a dramatic impact on individual development sites, both in terms of physical provision and viability. It is also important that Policies on issues like roads, physical infrastructure, waste disposal and renewable energy are looked at on more than a purely local basis. The planning system has always sought to avoid repetition and therefore Policies which were contained in the now abolished Regional Spatial Strategies on these topics now no longer exist, creating another Policy vacuum. The question is, therefore, how can they now be accommodated? Even if groups of Local Authorities co- operate on producing Policies over a wider area, what will be the vehicle for dealing with these Policies? In addition to setting out a requirement for Authorities to co-operate, there is also a need to set out guidance on how these Policies will be dealt with. Mere co-operation does not provide Policy guidance, or action, and again the example of the west of England shows that even where Authorities work together, this does not necessarily result in successful implementation of Policies, in the Bristol case provision of transport proposals between South Gloucestershire and Bristol. If a duty for co-operation amongst Local Authorities is included in the Localism Bill, it is absolutely vital that this includes a duty to co-operate in the preparation of housing figures over a wider than single District area, as well as the other topics identified by the Committee.

Issue 4—Role of Local Enterprise Partnerships Local Enterprise Partnerships provide an obvious vehicle for Authorities to deliver the fruits of their co- operation and in particular to deliver a planning function related to the provision of overall housing and employment needs. However, our fear is that in the absence of specific guidance at a National level, it would be left to emerge at the Local (LEP) level and bearing in mind how long it has taken in the past for proposals to emerge from similar bodies, there could be a further Policy vacuum whilst appropriate arrangements emerge, also different arrangements for different areas will lead to inconsistency and conflict. In our view, if LEP’s are to be given a co-ordinating planning role, this needs to be made clear from the outset and guidance set out on how LEP’s should perform this role. We have submitted more detailed comments on this to the Business Innovation and Skills Committee Inquiry into LEP’s. It is not just in the provision of overall housing figures where co-operation between Local Authorities, or the role of another group like the LEP is required to resolve housing and planning issues. Another example concerns city region overspill and again the west of England provides an example of this. Bristol cannot meet cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w249

all its housing needs within its administrative boundary, which is why the RSS in the first instance proposed the urban extensions, which have fallen with the abolition of the RSS and the reaction of the west of England Authorities in deleting the urban extensions. This issue occurs around all the major cities in the UK and many other towns. If housing needs cannot be met in the administrative area of the main settlement and the adjoining Authorities are unwilling to accept what they consider to be overspill from the main settlement, how will this issue be resolved? Can Authorities be expected to resolve the issues voluntarily, or through LEP’s, where they will have considerable influence?

Issue 5—Data and Research It is important planning decisions, particularly those relating to provision of employment and housing, are based on recognised data backed up by credited research. In our view, the NHPAU provided such a service, which again has been set aside. We therefore consider re-instatement of the NHPAU, or the establishment of another independent body to provide data and research for Local Authorities to take on board, is an absolute requirement. September 2010

Written evidence from Rushcliffe Borough Council (ARSS 113) Summary — Rushcliffe Borough Council welcomes the removal of regional house building targets. — Regional Spatial Strategies were too top down, lacked accountability, limited community input and ignored the capacity of localities to sustain growth. — A more bottom up approach to housing delivery should lead to more sustainable patterns of housing growth which take greater account of local circumstances and the aspirations of local communities. — While abolition of RSSs may lead to a general lowering of housing targets, in reality many were unobtainable. A more locally controlled, bottom up approach could well result in higher delivery rates than would have been obtained under RSSs, where delivery was in many instances already becoming mired under the sheer weight of requirements and expectations. — It is critical that Government moves to put in place a workable and efficient planning system as soon as possible, avoiding the inherent weaknesses of the present Local Development Framework system. Any unnecessary delays could hinder local authorities taking positive action to bring about appropriate housing growth. — The Council welcomes proposals by the Government for a “New Homes Bonus Scheme”. However, given the lack of details at this stage as to how the scheme might operate, it is difficult to make any specific comments. — To operate successfully any scheme to incentivise housing delivery has to be seen to be providing substantial funding to help communities really feel that there is something it for them in accommodating additional growth.

Introduction 1. This written statement is a response by Rushcliffe Borough Council to the call for evidence by the Communities and Local Government Committee for its inquiry into the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies and related matters. 2. The Council was closely involved in preparation of the, now revoked, East Midlands Regional Plan, responding to all its consultation stages and being present at the Plan’s Examination in Public.

Implications of the Abolition of Regional House Targets 3. The removal of regional house building targets as part of the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) is welcomed by Rushcliffe Borough Council. It is the Council’s view that the process by which RSSs were prepared was too top down, lacked democratic accountability, limited scope for meaningful community input and paid limited regard to the capacity of particular localities to sustain growth. 4. In the case of Rushcliffe specifically, it was the Council’s view that the methodology used by the regional planning body to distribute development across the Greater Nottingham sub-area was flawed because of the very cursory regard given to the ability of the local environment and local infrastructure to sustain further growth. A top down regional planning approach, and the sheer extent of the geographical coverage of the RSS, invariably made it difficult for regional decision makers to take proper account of those local circumstances that ought to have been at the fore in deciding where growth should take place. 5. By way of example, across the Greater Nottingham sub-area, in making proposed changes to the draft East Midlands Regional Strategy, there was the application of a flat 19% increase to the proposed housing requirement figure of each local authority. This increase was made regardless of each authority’s existing cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w250 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

proposed growth requirements and/or the capacity to sustain further growth within the plan period. The implication of this simplistic approach was that those authority areas already identified to receive higher growth were hit disproportionately hard in terms of the overall increase in housing numbers. This example is very much seen as an illustration of the limitations of the regional plan process to take account of the subtleties of local circumstances.

6. By contrast, Rushcliffe Borough Council believes that the Government’s stated desire to establish a more bottom up approach to housing delivery, based on local communities having greater scope to establish their own housing targets, should lead to more sustainable patterns of housing growth which take greater account of local circumstances and the aspirations of local communities.

7. While the Council recognises that the abolition of RSSs is likely to lead to a general lowering of local housing targets, in reality many of those set by RSSs were surely little more than an aspiration whose delivery was never going to be realised because of, in particular, ongoing infrastructure inadequacies, continued lack of local acceptance that the targets were justified and question marks over the ability of the housing market and development industry to deliver the sheer scale of growth planned for by RSSs over a relatively short timeframe.

8. Conversely, a more locally controlled, bottom up approach, where identified housing targets are likely to be more deliverable and have greater local support, could well result in higher delivery rates than ultimately would have been the case under the regional planning regime, where delivery was in many instances already becoming mired under the sheer weight of requirements and expectations.

9. While supporting the abolition of the East Midlands Regional Plan’s growth requirements, in order to ensure that local housing delivery is not unduly stalled, it is critical that Government moves to put in place a workable and efficient planning system as soon as possible. Any unnecessary delays could hinder local authorities taking positive action to bring about appropriate housing growth. The Government should also be urged to ensure that any changes to the planning system remove the inherent weaknesses of the present Local Development Framework system. For example, being overly procedural and also unduly risk adverse in terms of the disproportionate level of work required to limit any uncertainty surrounding the delivery of growth related infrastructure.

Proposals to Incentivise Local Communities to accept New Housing Development

10. The Council welcomes proposals by the Government for a “New Homes Bonus Scheme” to financially support councils who take action to give planning consent and support the construction of new housing. However, given the lack of details at this stage as to how the scheme might operate, it is difficult to make any specific comments. At the very least, the suggestion that the new scheme would be more simplified than the Housing and Planning Delivery Grant, which was unnecessarily complicated, is very much welcomed.

11. To operate successfully any scheme to incentivise housing delivery has to be seen to be providing substantial funding to help communities really feel that there is something it for them in accommodating additional growth. Supporting local service delivery to the extent that council tax bills might be discounted may well be one way of doing this.

12. Where concern exists is whether there really would be scope to make sufficient funding available. It is understood there has been the suggestion that councils might be able to keep council tax receipts from each new home built over a six year period. By way of example, the delivery of 500 homes annually (which is not an especially high delivery figure for a single authority area) would, assuming an average council tax bill of £1,200, generate a total of £3,600,000 per annum.

13. The concern is whether such levels of funding would really be available to local authorities. The funding available through the Housing and Planning Delivery Grant by comparison was no where near as high. If, however, such levels of funding were genuinely made available it could well form a real incentive for local communities to support and facilitate the delivery of growth.

Recommendations for Action

14. That, following the revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies, the Government should proceed to put in place a new local planning system which avoids the many weaknesses of the present Local Development Framework system (eg overly procedural and risk adverse) as soon as possible.

15. That if there is to be incentivisation of housing delivery then the funding available needs to be set at a sufficiently high level to make a real difference to local communities in accepting housing growth. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w251

Written evidence from English Heritage (ARSS 114) The Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) were helpful in the articulation of the significance of the historic environment and therefore provided a useful tool to support its management and protection. In the absence of the regional Government Offices and the Regional Spatial Strategy we would be happy to work within any new, emerging structures provided that due weight was given to the historic environment and that the necessary protection was still in place. The recent publication of Planning Policy Statement 5: planning for the historic environment provides a powerful statement of the government’s commitment to protection. Whilst RSSs supported an integrated, co-ordinated approach to local planning, the new Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) may be better placed to support local distinctiveness, more community driven solutions and, we would hope, greater understanding of local heritage. In addition, because of the flexibility surrounding their creation, LEPs will be able to operate within boundaries that might be more appropriate for local businesses and communities. The issue of what to do with the evidence that has been collected and developed by Regional Development Agencies in support of Regional Spatial Strategies needs to be fully considered as a future tool for economic and social development. It is important that the work that has gone in to collecting this data across the regions, and the resource it represents, is not lost and where possible that it is developed for continued use by local enterprise partnerships.

English Heritage’s Role English Heritage is an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, with our funding agreement signed by CLG and DEFRA. We work in partnership with central government departments, local authorities, voluntary bodies and the private sector to conserve and enhance the historic environment, broaden public access to our cultural heritage, and increase people’s understanding and appreciation of the past. We are the UK Government’s statutory adviser and a statutory consultee on all aspects of the historic environment and its heritage assets. This includes archaeology on land and under water, historic buildings sites and areas, designated landscapes and the historic elements of the wider landscape. Conservation Principles sets out the guidelines for engagement with the historic environment which have informed Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5). September 2010

Written evidence from Legal & General Property (LGP) (ARSS 115) I write on behalf of Legal & General Property (LGP) to submit comment to the Communities and Local Government Committee Inquiry in to the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies. We welcome the opportunity to provide comment on emerging planning reform and look forward to working with the Government as it progresses the draft Localism Bill. LGP is part of Legal & General Investment Management which manages £320 billion and as such we are one of the largest institutional property fund managers in the UK, responsible for assets of about £9 billion as at the end March 2010. LGP is a major stakeholder in the built environment and has played an important role in delivering regeneration across all property sectors. Whilst we have a significant development programme, it is in our role as an investor that we write. It is clear that the importance of private sector investment from institutions including LGP in delivering future renewal will increase. The decision of the private sector to invest in land and property can be influenced by many factors, but the balance between risk and return is key. The impact of planning change on the prospect of securing investment is on the perception of risk and the certainty required to take major investment decisions. We believe that a critical role of the public sector will be to create the confidence and certainty to support private sector investment and that the planning system is fundamental to this confidence. We entirely agree with the Government’s overall proposition to create an effective and efficient planning system and would support any proposal to simplify and speed the planning application process. We support the principle of a consolidated national planning policy framework covering all forms of development; albeit that we consider that streamlining of national policy should not be at the expense of clarity and believe that the Government will need to clearly prioritise its objectives give the limited resources that will be available to deliver. We also welcome the intention to express a presumption in favour of sustainable development, subject to clarity over the definition. Our principle points of concern however relevant to the Committee’s terms of reference are: 1. Providing a framework for the consideration of major investment decisions. 2. A perceived lack of certainty in the planning system that has arisen as a consequence of the abolition of regional planning guidance. This strategic tier of planning policy was an important tool in the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w252 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

private sector’s ability to predict a planning outcome and provided a framework for the consideration of major development that had a wider impact and importance than merely local. We believe that the removal of strategic planning targets, for all forms of development, without replacement, has removed a key consideration against which major applications were judged and has been the cause of uncertainty and delay. 3. A consequential increased risk of planning opportunism, which could undermine committed or planned major investment and as a consequence, important regeneration. We very much hope that measures to replace the certainty that was imparted by the now revoked strategic planning framework will be tabled soon in a co-ordinated way, with full account having been taken of the potential consequences. In particular, we would welcome clarification from the Government over the anticipated role and function of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and further clarity over, what we believe will need to be a powerful incentive package to support growth in order for it to have sufficient weight in the balance of planning decisions. In the recently published timetable for reform the incentive proposal was described as “strong and transparent incentives for local authorities to build new homes” and we are concerned that, unless clarified, this might be a signal that the Government will only create the incentive package for housing and not all forms of development. We strongly believe that reform of the planning system, and the Select Committee, should consider all sectors. Furthermore, in our view, the LEPs could offer an opportunity to reinstate a degree of accountability, without diluting the Government’s fundamental principle of localism. We consider that LEPs could assume a sub- regional planning function, as well as replacing the functions of the Regional Development Agencies. We would welcome an explicit commitment from the Government that the outline proposals for the LEPs and their future performance will be assessed having regard to criteria including the delivery of agreed, target sub- regional housing and commercial planning permissions. I trust that the above is self explanatory however, if you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me. September 2010

Written evidence from Bloor Homes Northwest (ARSS 116) — Regional Spatial Strategy Housing Numbers should be reinstated. — Transitional arrangements should be expedited. — Revisions to the plan system should be enacted as soon as practicable to avoid a policy vacuum. With the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) the town planning system has been fundamentally altered. Regional Spatial Strategies were introduced as an important component following the 2004 Planning Act. This Act effectively introduced a cascade of development plans from planning policy statements at the National level, Regional Spatial Strategies at the regional level and then the local development framework. I am aware that the legality of the relocation of Regional Spatial Strategies will be considered following a challenge by CALA HOMES. Within this submission I intend to consider the implications on the house building industry with the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies. Various reports have indicated that the number of houses constructed in the 2009–10 period will be in the order of 120,000 completions. This compares historically to the completion levels of 1923. As a benchmark the Kate Barker Report “Review of the House Building Industry (2004)” indicated broadly that in this period we would need to construct something like 250,000 houses per year in order to meet demand. It is important to point out that this demand is not driven by the house building industry, not driven by the Office of National Statistics, not driven by Local Authorities or indeed Regional Planning Bodies—it is driven by human behaviour. The failure to provide sufficient homes to match demand has a fundamental impact on the economy and the movement of the population throughout the housing stock. It is noted by recent announcements from the Communities Secretary (Eric Pickles) that this Government has a fundamental commitment to the house building industry. Indeed it is a noted aspiration of the current Government to return Britain to a nation of home builders. However, it is my contention that with the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies and the removal of this important element of the planning process the number of new homes planned and constructed is likely to remain low for the foreseeable future. An immediate and direct impact of the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies has, according to the National Housing Federation resulted in some 85,000 new homes that were planned being cancelled or at the very least held back from production. Furthermore in the Bedford area, of particular note has been the impact upon plan preparation in the Milton Keynes and Aylesbury Growth Area. Milton Keynes Council has resolved to oppose development of the South West Milton Keynes Strategic Development Area (5,390 new homes). In short, in this major growth area, despite massive public and private sector investment—plan making to deliver much needed new housing and employment has stalled for the foreseeable future. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w253

At a time when the British economy is slowly emerging from recession this is a great worry to us all. However, in the longer term I am confident that the house building industry will react positively to whatever new planning measures emerge. However, at this time we are in a period of transition. As I have outlined many Local Authorities have delayed work on their emerging local development frameworks and many others are reviewing overall housing requirements in the context of the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies. At the very least this will result in a slow down in construction—at this very critical time—until the replacement arrangements are put in place. I am aware that it is unlikely that such arrangements will be in place until the latter part of 2011. In light of this continued uncertainty I would urge the Minister to reinstate the housing numbers from the Regional Spatial Strategies until at the very least a new planning system has been put in place. Failure to do this will exacerbate the already massive under provision of both private and affordable housing and potentially undermine the recovery of the British economy. I would also urge the Minister to ensure clear transitional arrangements are in place to avoid the policy vacuum that is currently resulting in delays to the planning process. In my view it is all too easy for Local Authorities to delay plan making whilst they await clarity from central government. A distinct, but related point is that as a result of the changes to the Planning System it seems almost inevitable that there will need to be fundamental change in the structure of the system itself. Any changes should be consulted upon—but enacted quickly to avoid yet more delay. September 2010

Written evidence from Essex County Council (ARSS 117) Executive Summary 1. It is unclear as yet as to how the abolition of regional house building targets might affect levels of new housing being provided in Essex. 2. The abolition of regional strategies and the overly prescriptive policy guidance that they contained is supported. 3. Concerns have arisen about the undue speed with which changes were made to the planning system, the absence of proper transitional arrangements, and lack of clear guidance from CLG. 4. A major repercussion has been considerable confusion and significant delays in the LDF process. 5. CLG Ministers abolished regional strategies but did not provide local authorities with additional funding to pick up the consequences. 6. Revocation of regional strategies has wider policy and procedural implications than just removing targets for new homes. 7. The attractiveness of incentives to local people in the New Homes Bonus will be a key feature that will determine the effectiveness of the policy. 8. The operation of the Bonus should be open and transparent and aligned with housing proposals in local development plans to prevent distortions in the delivery of public policy. 9. In two-tier areas, suitable arrangements should be put in place for both tiers to benefit from the Bonus. 10. Arrangements need to be clear for the distribution of the Bonus in situations where growth towns are under-bounded. 11. The regional target based arrangements provided a good service to ensure cooperation across large geographical areas for waste management and minerals planning, and similar arrangements should be developed in the future. 12. The role and participation of the Aggregates Working Party and the Technical Advisory Body for Waste in the East of England should be continued to provide technical minerals and waste support through sharing of best practice, data collection, arranging co-ordinated studies for consistent evidence base for sharing, and policy making to support the Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities. 13. There is a need for strategic-level planning that co-ordinates development and infrastructure between different areas, provides a wide range of environmental and climate change policies, and ensures that the needs of the wider than local community are properly addressed. 14. A strategic level of planning should be included as an important part of the system, that can co-ordinate cross-boundary planning issues and delivery, and ensure joint working across areas for particular wide ranging issues. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w254 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

15. Local economic partnerships (LEPs) could provide a means to consider strategic matters but there is a need for much greater clarity about their strategic planning role. 16. Arrangements should be made to archive all evidence based material associated with the production and monitoring of the former regional strategies, and make this available as an internet resource. 17. There is potential that LEPs could provide for a strategic level of research and data collection on cross boundary issues. 18. The expanded role of the AWP and TAB in the East of England could provide a research, data collection, collation, and sharing information point for the administration of waste management and minerals planning.

Essex County Council 1. Essex County Council is one of the largest county councils in England serving a resident population of 1.7 million and an extensive geographic area containing twelve districts. It has three national and regional growth areas namely Essex Thames Gateway, Haven Gateway, and part of the London, Stansted, Cambridge, and Peterborough growth corridor; and a regional growth point at Chelmsford. It has previously contributed to the production of the East of England Plan (a regional spatial strategy) through its participation in the work of the former East of England Regional Assembly. On the 6 September 2010 it submitted proposals to the Government for the creation of a new Kent & Greater Essex Local Economic Partnership.

Expression of Views 2. Essex County Council wishes to put the following views before the Select Committee for consideration.

1. The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development 3. Following the abolition of regional spatial strategies, it has been widely reported that the majority of local authorities across the country are reconsidering house building targets and the status of adopted development plan documents.143 A survey conducted by Roger Tym & Partners found that 51% of local authorities in England expect to review LDF (Local Development Framework) housing targets, and only 35% expect to remain with existing targets.144 4. Several Essex local authorities are currently reconsidering their housing targets. However, it is impossible at present to report on the outcome in terms of what might be decided or how many new homes might be involved as local authority decisions have still yet to be made over the next few months. Nevertheless, there has been a persistent concern in Essex that inflated regional housing targets have been imposed on the county without proper regard to the capacity of the local economy, transport and infrastructure, public services, and natural environment to cope with the growth. 5. Essex County Council supports the abolition of regional strategies and the overly prescriptive policy guidance that they contained. It also supports in principle the Government’s localism agenda and the transfer of executive decision making for housing proposals down to local councils. However, concerns have arisen about the undue speed with which changes were made to the planning system, the absence of proper transitional arrangements, and lack of clear guidance from CLG about how to put the major new changes to the development plan system into effect. 6. A major repercussion of the rapid abolition of regional strategies in Essex has been considerable confusion and significant delays to the LDF process. Local authorities with adopted core strategies already in place have been obliged to consider whether they should be reviewed. Those authorities already at or imminently approaching plan examinations have been put in the unenviable position of having to urgently update their evidence base at considerable cost. Other local authorities who are progressing their draft proposals have faced major confusion and uncertainty about how to take their plan making process forward. 7. The lack of adequate and clear CLG guidance on how to put the new approach into effect has created a number of uncertainties. The following issues are illustrative: — How should individual local authorities decide their own housing figures in the absence of a regional strategy—what evidence base, information sources, methodology, and material considerations should be used? — What should the balance of new housing provision be between meeting locally generated housing needs and at the same catering for the wider pressures of housing markets and migration patterns [ie, playing out at a strategic level involving many local authorities]? — How can the Government’s localism agenda of individual local authorities deciding their own housing figures be reconciled with the acknowledged need for strategic planning over wider spatial areas (but without any administrative machinery for making executive decisions about the latter)? — What should under-bounded local authorities do if their future growth is situated within immediately adjoining districts in the form of major urban extensions into them? 143 Planning Magazine, “Alarms raised over local target review”, 6 August 2010. 144 Planning Magazine, “Alarms raised over local target review”, 6 August 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w255

— At what spatial level should the “localism” agenda inform decision-making—is it at neighbourhood, town, or whole district/borough level? — If a five year housing supply still has to be maintained how should major speculative housing proposals be decided at the planning application stage if the housing numbers are uncertain? 8. The new arrangements have obliged local authorities to suddenly undertake substantial updates to their evidence base and further rounds of public consultation which are both time consuming and expensive. However, in an era of public spending cuts the CLG has not provided extra funding to support such activities even though these extra costs are brought about by CLG Ministers’ policy changes. 9. The abolition of regional strategies has not just removed housing targets but also a strategic framework of other policies on matters such as settlement policy, town centre hierarchies, green infrastructure, renewable energy, transport strategy, gypsy and traveller provision, and other issues. It remains unclear in future how these matters at a wider strategic scale will be administered, if at all. 10. Changes to the development plan system have taken place in advance of the introduction of the New Homes Bonus. At present local authorities are unable to take decisions about the revision of housing figures without full knowledge about the financial benefits accruing to communities from new housing. From May 2010 to date they have been obliged to make decisions as it were “with half the story missing”.

2. The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing 11. Without formal documentation or precise policy wording, and until further information is provided following the Comprehensive Spending Review, the implementation of this proposal cannot be adequately assessed. 12. The attractiveness of the incentives to local people will be a key feature that will determine the effectiveness of the policy. The benefits of development need to outweigh the actual and perceived detrimental impacts, which could require much greater incentives in certain areas of the Essex where the promotion of increased new housing development would be highly controversial. 13. The New Homes Bonus should be set up in such a way that it is fully open and transparent so that it does not appear that planning permission is being bought; and it also needs to be properly aligned with the housing proposals set out in local development plans. The latter should set out the agreed housing strategy for a local area being subject to widespread public consultation, sustainability appraisal, and independent testing. Operation of the Bonus should take its lead from local development plans and not the other way round. 14. Unless this is the case, there is concern that the incentives promoted by the Bonus could lead to distortions in the delivery of public policy such as, — favouring greenfield development rather than brownfield/regeneration projects as these can often be delivered much more quickly; — favouring housing delivery in those areas with higher Council Tax bands to maximise income; — deliberately steering housing growth to areas of high market demand to promote dwelling completions irrespective of the planning policy or infrastructure constraints; and — altering the dwelling mix to favour the construction of particular dwelling types which raise more income (eg, executive homes) contrary to the findings of local housing needs assessments. 15. The method of payment through the Bonus would not provide initial benefits to the local community, but rather payment that would trickle through as houses are developed. This could dilute the effect of the bonus, and might not address the early pressure put on local infrastructure and services to meet the increased demand from new residents. 16. Specific guidance should be developed to identify how income from the Bonus will be allocated to relevant authorities. In two-tier areas, arrangements should be put in place for both tiers to benefit from the Bonus. A county council provides the majority of services by value but it is not clear how it would benefit from the Bonus funding being provided. 17. Further guidance will also be required to identify how funding will be distributed proportionately across administrative boundaries for those local authorities that are under-bounded. For example, a major town that is growing beyond its boundaries into adjoining districts through urban extensions. The town’s own facilities and new housing areas would be inextricably linked. 18. It is emphasised that the Bonus rewards local authorities but it cannot of itself actually deliver new homes. The UK housing market plays an important role in determining the rate of residential completions, and social housing providers and private developers actually deliver the new homes based on market conditions and their own commercial judgements. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w256 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

3. The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, &c)

19. Regional spatial strategies co-ordinated strategic targets to ensure the adequate provision of non-energy minerals supply and the management/disposal of waste across a region. Without the strategic overview and target based organisation that this function provided, there is concern that some areas may not have sufficient waste management facilities to meet demand and there would be a disorganised supply of minerals. The former regional target based arrangements provided a good service to ensure cooperation across large geographical areas, and voluntary working arrangements between local authority groupings could take this strategic activity forward.

20. Joint working arrangements currently exist in the East of England through the Aggregates Working Party (AWP) and the Technical Advisory Body for Waste (TAB). These groups currently act only as advisory bodies with no executive powers, policy making responsibilities or political representation, and report to regional decision making bodies such as the East of England Local Government Association.

21. To assist the ability of the groups to effectively manage the responsibilities required, there would need to be a form of statutory duty or duty to co-operate placed upon relevant planning authorities. This could include agreements by authorities to share the management costs of the AWP and TAB, and to take into account policy decisions of the groups in plans developed at the local level.

22. Providing strategic groups to assist the management of minerals and waste across a large regional area offers a number of benefits. The groups can provide; — cheaper overall resource base by commissioning work to be shared by the whole area; — greater strategic organisation to improve joint working and reduce duplication of work; — a single point of contact for industry, and an agreed common approach to dealing with strategic matters; and — greater sharing of knowledge and expertise across a larger area

4. The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co- operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function

23. The Government’s proposals for the planning system leave a substantial gap between national and local planning. It is generally agreed145 that key planning issues require management at differing spatial scales, and that many planning issues are most efficiently and effectively dealt with at sub-national and sub-regional levels rather than the local level. Energy, housing, waste and minerals are examples of policy areas in which pooling of shared expertise can be a major benefit in a cost-effective planning process.146

24. There is a need for strategic-level planning that co-ordinates development and infrastructure between different areas, provides a wide range of environmental and climate change policies, and ensures that the needs of the wider than local community are properly addressed.

25. Essex County Council supports the creation of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs); and has recently submitted a proposal for a Kent & Greater Essex LEP to the Government for approval. The Government has suggested that LEPs might want to start “tackling issues such as planning and housing, local transport and infrastructure priorities, employment and enterprise, and the transition to a low carbon economy”. However, CLG Ministers appear adamant that they do not wish to see a further tier of development plans created between the national and local levels. Therefore, it is unclear how LEPs might tackle these strategic planning issues other than in a very general way through voluntary agreement.

26. Even with a statutory duty for local authorities to co-operate emphasised within national policy, adequate co-operation between different areas when required cannot always be guaranteed. This requires very robust partnership working arrangements to be put in place that can co-ordinate cross-boundary planning issues and delivery, and ensure joint working across areas for particular wide ranging issues.

27. Local economic partnerships (LEPs) could provide a location to consider strategic matters such as forecasting of housing and employment needs, and provide a wider geographical understanding of local labour markets, economic sub-areas, migration trends, and housing market areas to assist local areas to develop appropriate policy responses. Strategic assistance provided by LEPs could also assist local authorities that may not have the specialist skills or resources to produce local housing assessments. 145 The Future of Planning Report, TCPA (Town and Country Planning Association), 2010; POA (Planning Officers Society) Manifesto, POA, 2010; Shaping the Future, The RTPI Manifesto for Planning, RTPI (Royal Town Planning Institute), 2010. 146 The Future of Planning Report, TCPA (Town and Country Planning Association), 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w257

5. How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries 28. The evidence base to the former East of England Plan is considered an important resource that should remain available to the general public as an internet based resource. Arrangements should be made to archive all material associated with the production and monitoring of the RSS. 29. As identified above, there is potential that LEPs could provide a strategic level of research and data collection on cross boundary issues. It is not considered necessary to continue any further monitoring of former regional targets, therefore any future collection of data at a strategic level should be conducted at a scale appropriate to the needs of the area. 30. Section 3 above identified that the expanded role of the AWP and TAB in the East of England could provide a research, data collection, collation, and sharing information point to assist areas to formulate policy on minerals and waste. September 2010

Written evidence from Levvel Ltd (ARSS 118) Revocation of RSS 1. Introduction The purpose of this note is to respond to the Government’s consultation in respect of the decision to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies. In particular, it is intended to respond to the implications of devolving the responsibility for setting overall targets in respect of house building to local planning authorities. Whilst we support this policy, we consider that it would be helpful to provide guidance on the manner in which such targets are to be set. In general, we consider that it is logical for local authorities to be given responsibility for determining their own targets for development. However, given that development often faces local opposition, it would be helpful if the devolution of this responsibility could be accompanied by a statement of principles from the centre: — Central government should make clear its view that there is an acute shortage of housing in this country which has immense consequences for homelessness, for people’s quality of life and for economic competitiveness; — It should make clear that it expects to see this shortage addressed and that it considers that all new supply mitigates rather than exacerbates the affordability problem; — Local Planning Authorities should be required to base their targets for housing delivery on robust estimates of the level of local need and should take into account demographic changes—both in terms of population growth and the decline in household size; — The current proposal to incentivise housing delivery by matching 100% of Council tax receipts for new homes for six years should be formalised; — The relationship between CIL and S106 obligations should be clarified in order to make clear that affordable housing is not given a lower priority than all the infrastructure items sought through CIL; — It should be reiterated that, although the level of infrastructure and affordable housing that can be sought from development is limited by consideration of viability, the allocation of additional development will deliver additional affordable housing; and — Local Planning Authorities should consider their relationship with neighbouring authorities who constitute part of the same housing or employment market and should develop appropriate mechanisms to collaborate with them in order to ensure that the total quantity of development required is allocated.

2. Context Over the past 15 years the supply of housing in England and Wales has fallen far short of the targets set out centrally. In the face of constricted supply, prices have risen sharply and far faster than incomes. Addressing the shortage of housing in all tenures and easing the consequent pressure on affordability will require a flourishing housing industry and an adequate supply of land upon which to build. Moreover, in recent years, the development of new housing has become an increasingly important source of both affordable housing and infrastructure as well as providing crucial, skilled jobs. Despite these facts, the provision of new housing is generally unpopular at the local level. There is therefore some concern that the decision to devolve the responsibility for setting overall housing targets to the local level will hand an effective power of veto to those who object to the development of housing at a time when house building needs to be encouraged. Whilst we acknowledge that this is a potential risk associated with this policy cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w258 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

we also note that decisions about the provision of infrastructure and affordable housing and the capacity of new development to bear that burden are already made at the local level. Since the overall volume of development will be the biggest single factor in determining the level of such benefits that can be provided, it is logical that the two issues should be considered together. In moving towards such a system, we consider that it will be important to ensure that the system: — Makes it possible to put forward a positive case for growth; — Is transparent, consensual and encourages early engagement; and — Does not impose large additional costs on local planning authorities.

3. The Need for Housing The principal reason for our confidence that the revocation of RSS should not lead to the adoption of far lower targets at the local level is demographic. The ONS continues to predict substantial increases in population whilst average household sizes are falling. These facts have long been recognised. As far back as 2002, the Joseph Rowntree foundation concluded that, if house building rates continued at their then current level, the country would face a shortfall of over one million homes by 2022. In 2003, the Barker report noted that the rapid run up in house prices was at least in part a price signal pointing to a shortage. She estimated the level of increase in overall housing delivery required in order to stabilise prices at 1.1% in real terms would be an additional 145,000 homes per annum. To stabilise prices at zero growth in real terms would require an additional 240,000 homes per annum on top of the 155,000 homes for which RSS then made allowance. Since then, national targets have increased; most notably when Gordon Brown committed the government to the delivery of three million homes by 2020—an annual rate of around 240,000 per annum. Despite the fact that this target remains far below the level identified by Kate Barker as being necessary for the stabilisation of house prices, it was never reached during the housing boom up to 2007 and housing delivery since the market turned in the third quarter of that year has been far lower. Even if house building were to recover quickly, years of under-supply relative to targets set at the regional level mean that, notwithstanding the fact that some authorities have exceeded their targets, the national picture remains one of massive under-supply. At the local level, estimates of the overall need for housing have tended to find that the demand for housing has been generally larger than the RSS target. We have certain reservations about the findings of Strategic Housing Market Assessments—in particular about the scale of identified need for affordable housing relative to the need for market housing. Nevertheless, in many cases, the overall need for housing is found to exceed the quantity planned for by RSS policies. Thirdly, we would point out that the steep run up in house prices over the past 15 years is a clear price signal that demand has outstripped supply. Even though prices have fallen considerably from their peak in 2007 the relationship between house prices and household incomes is less affordable than it was during the majority of the Twentith century. This is an important issue for the economy and the international competitiveness of the UK in world markets. Since local planning policies must rest upon a robust evidence base, we are confident that any such robust assessment of the need for housing at the local level will, in the majority of cases identify a need for more housing rather than less. Whilst it would be desirable for the Government to give a clear signal that it recognises the shortfall in housing supply at the national level and expects to see it addressed, what is essential is that local assessments of the need for housing are robust and take into account the factors cited above. We recognise that the forecasting of demographic trends is not a precise science—either at the national or local levels. However, it would certainly be possible to identify the upper and lower bounds of a range. Where a local authority wished to position itself within that range could then be determined by other considerations, as we will consider below.

4. Challenges Local Opposition As regards the first of these points, it is certainly the case that, when invited to comment on proposals in Local Plans and Local Development Frameworks members of the public have tended to be opposed to, rather than supportive of, development. If the target for house building is to be set at the local level, where opposition is sometimes fierce, it would be helpful if Government could provide incentives to plan for growth. In this context, we welcome the proposed amendments to current Council tax arrangements which will provide some incentive to allocate additional residential development through the plan process. At around £7,000/dwelling,147 the proposed incentive payments associated with new development are considerable in proportion to the scale of housing delivery and may be a substantial motivator for local authorities but members of the public may 147 Assuming match funding of 100% of average UK Council tax receipt for six years. (£1,100 x 6) cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w259

see them as comparatively modest in relation to the scale of the entire Local Authority budget and thus a limited motivator.

Secondly, and in our view more importantly, in winning over public opinion current system provides little incentive to support development. Circular 05–2005 and its predecessors explicitly prevent developers from being asked to provide benefits beyond the mitigation of their own impact through S106 agreements. It is scarcely surprising to find that local people are not motivated to support development which is officially prevented from providing benefits.

The move towards a Community Infrastructure Levy ends this principle and allows local planning authorities to seek contributions towards the provision of any infrastructure that would “support the development of their area”. We have seen no reason to assume that its replacement by a Tariff, as announced in the document Open Source Planning, will revert to the status quo ante. The regulations which govern the introduction of CIL made it clear that the process is to identify the total level and cost of infrastructure required and then to divide it by the overall quantity of development (assessed on a per square metre basis).

However, because the overall quantity of development is assumed to have been decided at a prior stage, through the RSS, the impression was given that the amount of new infrastructure that could be delivered via planning gain is entirely independent of the overall level of development envisaged by the plan. This is not the case. In practice, delivery is constrained by the economic viability of development in the local area and it therefore follows that a higher level of development will allow the local planning authority to meet a higher proportion of its objectives. Linking the allocation of new homes to the benefits they will provide thus helps to make the case for new development. We will dwell on the means of doing so in greater detail below.

In the meantime, it is worth considering the current system. With the introduction of CIL, residential development is required to contribute towards planning gain in three distinct ways: — Through the Levy towards infrastructure required for the development of the area—which may include making good existing deficiencies; — Through Section 106 agreements towards infrastructure necessitated by the development itself; and — Through Section 106 agreements towards affordable housing;

Of these three items, only the second is limited by the nature of the development itself. If a development creates a need for a certain number of new school places, it can, and will, be asked to contribute towards the provision of those places.

However, the first and last items are limited by factor other than the nature of the development itself. If the schools in a particular area are already overcrowded or in need of replacement, the local planning authority may seek a further contribution towards new schools through CIL and this contribution would not need to bear any relation to the number of schoolchildren who were likely to move to the new development from other areas. Similarly, if the area has a pre-existing need for affordable housing, the local planning authority may seek new affordable homes—despite the fact that the development itself does not create that need.

However, although the amount of planning gain which may be sought from new development is not limited by the nature of the development, the maximum contribution that developments can afford to make is limited by the financial viability of that development.

In recent years, planning authorities have recognised that the amount of infrastructure and affordable housing that is needed in their areas often far exceeds the quantity that can be delivered from the amount of development envisaged by the RSS whilst retaining viability. Under the present CIL regulations, the functioning assumption is that, where need exceeds capacity, the gap will be filled by public subsidy—as previously. Whilst this is perfectly proper—there is, after all, no reason why developers should be expected to meet the whole cost of any infrastructure that the local planning authority deems desirable, guidance should recognise that central government funding is, itself limited.

Where there are insufficient fund (public and private) to deliver all the necessary affordable housing and infrastructure, it is surely sensible to consider whether the allocation of more development would deliver more funding for more benefits.

Moreover, as we noted above, an analysis of the overall need for housing in an area might reasonably produce a range of possibilities. However, where local authorities are able to consider their overall need for housing in light of their need for infrastructure and affordable housing, an incentive will be created to deliver a larger volume of affordable housing in order to secure the maximum level of contribution towards infrastructure.

In summary, we would suggest that, in setting the target for overall delivery of development, consideration should be given to the likely levels of infrastructure that can be secured from different quantities of development. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w260 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Complexity and Expense The process of developing a robust and credible evidence base in support of local planning policies is already complex and expensive—it comprises a host of technical documents and financial appraisals which are not only difficult for the public to understand but can be difficult to integrate with one another. It is not uncommon to see financial appraisals of the effects of two different aspects of policy, carried out on very different bases, in the same local authority evidence base. The justification is often that values and construction costs have changed but, since the Core Strategy upon which those studies are based is intended to last for 15 years, it is worrying if the evidence underpinning them struggles to remain pertinent for the length of time taken to adopt them. It might be argued that adding a further variable—the overall level of development—to this situation would create further confusion. Taken in isolation, it might. However, we would argue that the evidence collected to inform local policy could usefully be reformed in any case. The nature of the evidence that is now generally deemed to be required has emerged gradually in a piecemeal fashion. For example, since Circular 6–98 established the possibility of seeking affordable housing through planning policy, it has been necessary for Planning Authorities to demonstrate a need for additional affordable housing. Typically, this was done by means of a Housing Needs Survey. The publication of PPS3 in 2006 made it clear that Housing Needs Surveys should be replaced with Strategic Housing Market Assessments and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments. It also established the need for affordable housing policy to have regard to the economics of development. Even so, it was not until the decision in the case of Blyth Valley that this was universally acknowledged to necessitate a District wide assessment of the financial viability of sites in the Borough. Then, in February 2010, the emergence of CIL and the regulations which govern its use made it clear that Planning Authorities would need to draw up a schedule of all the infrastructure required in their area and then assess the impact on viability. This has added further to the confusion, which has, in turn, created further delay in the adoption of policy Where policies have already been designed to seek an ambitious level of affordable housing, the impact of a potential CIL has been confusing. It is not clear whether new studies of viability are required or how relative priority should be ascribed to different forms of planning gain sought through different mechanisms. For example, many districts consider affordable housing to be their top priority and that some of the items on the charging schedule prepared for the CIL are of far less importance. However, CIL cannot be reduced on a case by case basis in order to account for scheme viability, but affordable housing can. In effect, this gives all the items paid for through CIL a priority over affordable housing. Clear guidance on this matter would be welcomed by both planning authorities and developers and would help local people to get involved in consultations. At present, assessments of viability tend to take the form of a single study conducted at a late point in the policy development process, when policy is largely fixed. If the assessment then reveals the policies to be unrealistic (especially in the short term) it can be very difficult to change direction. In our view, greater stress should be given to questions of financial viability from far earlier in the process. This would allow it to be assessed iteratively and would prevent unrealistic expectations from becoming entrenched. As matters became known their impact on the appraisal could be included and tested, developers seeking to challenge specific assumptions could do so and land owners would be less likely to form unrealistic expectations about the “hope value” of their land. We recognise that few local authorities are starting with a blank sheet of paper in respect of their planning policies. Nonetheless, for the sake of simplicity, we would suggest that the following would be an appropriate sequence for evidence gathering. — Identify the overall need for housing of all tenures—drawn from demographic data and identifying a range. — Identify the sites available to deliver the housing requirements through the SHLAA as at present. — Identify the overall infrastructure requirement including any “triggers” for single large items (so many additional homes in settlement X would require a new school, Y new homes would require an additional bus route etc) — Distinguish necessary infrastructure (such as water mains and sewerage) from desirable infrastructure (such as improvements to town centre). — Carry out an initial assessment of the ability of development to provide affordable housing and infrastructure. Having carried out an assessment of the viability of developments it will then be possible to show not only what level of contribution towards infrastructure and affordable housing will be delivered by all of the planned development but also what levels would be delivered by higher or lower levels. This form of consultation is currently all but absent from policy formation. This approach would also allow local authorities to test strategic decisions like the balance of greenfield/ brownfield allocations. It is often argued that, since greenfield sites should be cheaper to acquire, they should cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w261

be able to deliver more infrastructure and affordable housing. In practice, the balance between greenfield and brownfield sites is often set as much by guidance as by a consideration of their relative merits. Moreover, the presumption against greenfield allocations creates an artificial scarcity which may push land values higher than otherwise.

Funding

To advocate more consultation and more research at a time when planning departments face financial pressures is, of course, difficult. However, whilst both can be expensive, we do not consider it a given that such a finance based approach would be more expensive.

First, many of the elements of the research (including research into the number of homes required) are already being carried out at present—the problem is that they are isolated from one another. The cost of bringing the studies together may be marginal. Second, although such appraisals might seem to be more complex than those undertaken at present, this may be misleading. Because such appraisals are currently carried out at a single point, a large part of their cost is scenario or sensitivity testing. However, if they were carried out iteratively, the number of options tested would tend to fall as stakeholders were able to submit their own data and improve estimates.

Finally, it is possible that the Local Planning Authority would not need to shoulder all these costs itself— developers currently spend considerable sums of money in making representations to local planning policy— if a mechanism could be found for those resources be directed at the development of the evidence base rather than at the identification of its flaws then the cost of the evidence base would be reduced and its robustness increased at the same time.

Such a mechanism may vary from place to place: an area where development is characterised by a large number of small developments will need to adopt a different approach to developer engagement than one where the majority of development will fall on a single large site or indeed one where there are several large sites in competition. Moreover, as we have acknowledged, few local planning authorities would respond to a new approach with a blank slate. The route forward for each authority will depend on the nature and robustness of the evidence already available to them. Whatever the situation, it is clear that where developers have a say in both the volume of development and the distribution of affordable housing and infrastructure burdens amongst that development, they have far greater incentive to engage constructively than when they are simply competing for inclusion among a limited set of allocations.

Another reason why it will not be possible to suggest a single, prescriptive formula for the manner in which local authorities should develop their evidence base in respect of overall development volumes is the range of different relationships between different authorities. Housing and employment markets do not necessarily follow local authority boundaries and this has been reflected in a variety of different approaches to the co- ordination of policy in at the local level. It is entirely right groups of authorites which consider themselves to constitute a single housing or employment market should wish to co-operate more closely with one another than those which consider themselves to be more self-contained. This fact is reflected in the range of cross border initiatives and, in some cases, joint working and commissioning arrangements. Such arrangements would not be encouraged by the adoption of a single blanket approach and the imposition of one could lead to aborted work.

Whilst we do not consider it appropriate to define the nature of the relationship that local authorities should have with their neighbours, it is essential that all planning authorities should consider their immediate context when developing policy. It would certainly be disastrous if all the local authorities which made up a particular employment market were to assume that their neighbours would make provision for all the housing required.

Local Authorities should be encouraged to collaborate and innovate in order to find ways of involving those with an interest in securing new development whether they are developers, landowners, or members of the public keen to secure the benefit new development brings. Such innovation may be the development of methodologies to which all developers can contribute data—thus reducing its cost, it may involve the acceptance of discrete elements of research from the developers themselves or it could even be that the local authority and its major stakeholders commission work jointly and agree to abide by the findings. Whatever approach is adopted, it is clear that, when setting the overall volume of development, consideration should be given to the simple fact that where desirable benefits are delivered from new development, more development brings greater benefit.

5. Existing difficulties

Local Authorities are enjoined to seek early engagement from developers but developers find it difficult to respond early where the evidence upon which they are being consulted is fragmented or non-existent until a late stage in the adoption process. Moreover, developers who are in competition with one another to see their sites adopted have little incentive to point out that infrastructure or affordable housing burdens are unrealistically high for fear that they may lose their allocation. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w262 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Whilst the decision to consider housing and other development targets at the same local level and at the same time as infrastructure and affordable housing requirements undoubtedly presents a challenge, it also presents an opportunity to resolve this dilemma. September 2010

Written evidencet for Lancashire, Manchester & North Merseyside (ARSS 119) Summary — Whilst acknowledging the demise of Regional Spatial Strategies, there is a demonstrable need for a level of planning at a greater than district/unitary level. A higher level policy framework is necessary for the repair of ecosystem services by reversing landscape scale fragmentation of wildlife habitats and populations and tackling the impacts of climate change on these. — The summary removal of a strategic layer of planning for nature conservation in the absence of effective replacement arrangements and structures would suggest that Defra and CLG are not working together on our Government’s declared intention to be the greenest ever.

Preamble This submission focuses principally upon “the arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, &c.)” It deals specifically with the implications for the natural environment of the revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategy in the North West. The loss of the North West RSS has substituted strong regional policy on the natural environment with weak national guidance provided by CLG’s Chief Planning Officer on 6 July. This has no force of policy behind it and was not consulted upon, unlike the policies it replaces. The UK Government’s precipitate abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies seems to have been based mainly upon opposition to the regional housing allocations imposed upon local authorities. These allocations certainly raised some fundamental questions here in NW England as to whether this region’s ecosystem services have the capacity to supply the drinking water and flood and effluent management that such levels of new development would entail. Indeed, following the Public Examination of RSS, the Government Office for the North West (GONW) belatedly began an assessment of the region’s environmental capacity. However, our fear is that “the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater” with regard to many useful and effective policies relating to the natural environment. The revocation of this Regional Spatial Strategy leaves a gap in the planning system, as for the first time since 1947 there will be no strategic planning policy layer. A strategic layer of planning is necessary to ensure that issues such as sustainable transport, investment in “green” and “grey” infrastructure, flood prevention, biodiversity loss, climate change mitigation, sustainable development and reducing inequality are addressed at a suitable level. These issues cross boundaries, and co-operation and co-ordination on a more than local scale will be needed to tackle them effectively. Without a strategic layer of planning, such issues cannot be dealt with properly and must either remain unaddressed, or be addressed in an uneconomical, piecemeal and ineffective manner by already hard-pressed local authorities. There is a demonstrable need for some form of strategic planning at a greater than local level to tackle biodiversity loss, adaptation to climate change and the strengthening of ecosystem services. Indeed, this seems likely to be the conclusion of the independent Lawton Review Making Space For Nature, to be presented to Government imminently. It is already alluded to (page 18 & page 20, third paragraph) in the Government’s Discussion Document, An Invitation To Shape The Nature of England (July 2010).

The situation until 27 May 2010 Regional Planning Policy for the Natural Environment followed policy laid out as referenced in Sections 2 and 3 of national Planning Policy Statement 9 (see Appendix 1 for wording—incidentally, a CLG consultation on a proposed replacement Planning Policy Statement: ‘Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment’ closed on 10 June). This policy required RSSs to: “(i) incorporate biodiversity objectives; (ii) address regional, sub-regional and cross-boundary issues in relation to habitats, species and geomorphological processes through criteria-based policies; (iii) include policies to conserve and enhance biodiversity at the regional and subregional levels; (iv) include targets for the restoration and re-creation of priority habitats and the recovery of priority species populations, linked to national goals; and (v) identify suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity.” cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w263

These policy drivers were translated into the North West RSS in a comprehensive policy for the natural environment (see Appendix 2 for the full text). RSS Policy EM1a stated: “Plans, strategies, proposals and schemes should secure a “step-change” increase in the region’s biodiversity resources by contributing to the delivery of national, regional and local biodiversity objectives and targets for maintaining extent, achieving condition, restoring and expanding habitats and species populations. This should be done through protecting, enhancing, expanding and linking areas for wildlife within and between the locations of highest biodiversity resources, including statutory and local wildlife sites, and encouraging the conservation and expansion of the ecological fabric elsewhere.” This policy built on PPS9 by requiring all local authorities to be pursuing a net increase in the region’s biodiversity resource. It was a very progressive policy on the natural environment, securing landscape scale biodiversity protection and enhancement in Local Development Frameworks and facilitating cross-boundary cooperation between local authorities. There were targets for restoration and recreation of Priority Species and Habitats of the North West to deliver a better environment for the people of the region and to make the ecosystem services provided by the natural environment stronger and more resilient in the face of climate change. The oversight brought by the RSS system meant that it was possible to keep track of plans and projects which were taking place within the region; so gaps in provision could be identified and effort targeted on areas which were most in need of conservation management, enhancement and creation.

Post Revocation Post revocation there is no longer a strategic planning tier between local authorities and the UK Government. Unitary and district authorities do not generally have the resources, expertise or oversight to consider the landscape and natural environment as a functional whole and are unlikely to look outside their own borders for a wider view because of costs, gaps in expertise and personnel constraints; particularly as they look to achieve major reductions in spending in the coming years. There was increasing momentum for joined up thinking and cross-border working on the environment with local authorities and their partners from across the region. This is now likely to stall and may even go into reverse. For example, the “Key Statement: Biodiversity” in the recent Ribble Valley Core Strategy consultation (page 27) addresses only the biodiversity resource of protected sites in isolation rather than a landscape scale approach to enhancement and restoration of priority habitats and species populations. In the CLG guidance issued on 6 July 2010, the advice in Section 18 of the Question and Answer document on Regional Policies for the Natural Environment is that “Local authorities should continue to work together, and with communities, on conservation, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment—including biodiversity, geo-diversity and landscape interests. Authorities should continue to draw on available information, including data from partners, to address cross boundary issues such as the provision of green infrastructure and wildlife corridors.” This advice raises a number of questions: — Are the resources for this “working together” to come from reduced local authority budgets. — What co-ordinating body will ensure the work is undertaken? — Are local authorities to undertake this work on a district-by-district basis without any strategic level of coordination? — How will it be ensured that effort is not duplicated? Surely cost savings accrue from economies of scale. For example, if all local authorities decided to create their own green infrastructure guide or Local Wildlife Site systems when in the past this work has been carried out on a more strategic basis, there will be a net increase in costs due to inefficiencies of scale. — What body will oversee the collation and provision of “available information” in place of the regional bodies that have been undertaking this work up until now? This information has to be curated by someone; who will be the curator now that the GONW is likely to be abolished? If data is curated at a regional or sub-regional level how might this be resourced? If each local authority curates its own data, again there are losses of economies of scale, and also loss of a strategic oversight and consistency as different systems and approaches are adopted. — If there is no compulsion to work together in the form of policy, how will it be ensured that conservation, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment on a cross boundary and landscape scale is undertaken? This already fails to happen across the Cumbria/Dumfries & Galloway border and now risks being replicated across NW England, the Pennines and the Cheshire/Shropshire Meres & Mosses. — What happens to the body of work, research and data collection that the GONW accrued over the time it was in existence? To “throw it all away” appears to be wasteful in the extreme. If it’s not to be lost, who will take on the responsibility? cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w264 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Warrington, Cheshire West & Chester, and Cheshire East unitary authorities all have in-house ecologists providing advice on planning matters in their areas; with the exception of the Peak District National Park area of the latter, which is covered by that National Park Authority’s ecology team. Halton unitary authority restructured and deleted its ecologist post a year or so ago. Following this decision, Cheshire Wildlife Trust was able to negotiate a Service Level Agreement to provide ecological advice on planning matters direct to Halton planning department. However, this only covers smaller applications not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment. There is no provision in Halton for the latter. In Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside, with one exception (Lancashire’s Pendle Borough Council, which has no ecologist), district/unitary authorities have pooled resources to provide a Greater Manchester Ecology Unit, Lancashire Natural Environment Service (provided by Lancashire County Council), and Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service respectively. The Merseyside and Greater Manchester bodies replaced the service provided by ecologists in the former Metropolitan County Councils when the latter were would up. The Lancashire County arrangements are more recent. However, there is no such arrangement in Cumbria, where the county council’s ecologist only provides advice on applications for county council planning decisions—principally relating to minerals and waste management outwith the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks. The Cumbrian district authorities have no ecologists and no buy-in of ecological advice for their day-to-day planning work. The Lake District National Park Authority has two ecologists although they don’t have the capacity to look at all planning applications. The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority has one ecologist who specifically deals with planning issues in that area of Cumbria/North Yorkshire. Because advice from Government was not to repeat regional policy in Local Development Frameworks, excellent policies pertaining to the natural environment in the North West RSS have not been incorporated into the Core Strategies of local authorities many of which must now, perforce, fall back on “saved” natural environment policies from outdated Local Plans/Unitary Development Plan Part 2’s produced in conformity with now absent Structure Plan or Unitary Development Plan Part 1 policies and guidance and revoked Planning Policy Guidance Note 9. This means that there is a large hole in the environmental policies of the local authorities in the region. As there is no longer a driver for a step change increase in biodiversity, local authorities have no policy lever to encourage developers to incorporate biodiversity enhancement. The regional basis for working meant that groups of NGOs such as North West Environment Link and Voluntary Sector North West were able to work together to influence policy and large scale schemes and developments as well as input into documents such as the North West Green Infrastructure Guide. The loss of the strategic level of planning means that it will become almost impossible for many of these groups to influence the 42 local planning authorities in the North West where once it was possible to feed comment into one place in the region. “The Big Society” was already happening in the North West with NGOs and voluntary groups involved in both policy making and service delivery on a region-wide basis. This policy input and delivery of services will become far more difficult for the voluntary sector in a future with no strategic layer. For instance The National Trust has one member of staff employed to engage in policy discussion and implementation in the North West region. This was possible at a regional level. However it will not be possible for this staff member to engage with all 42 local authorities in any meaningful or coherent fashion and there are not enough resources available to provide more staff. Similar difficulties are affecting the CPRE, FoE, the RSPB, the three local Wildlife Trusts and the Woodland Trust. In short, a strategic level of planning is necessary where there is the need to set out priorities for investment and solutions to environmental problems which must inevitably be addressed beyond the boundaries laid out by the “localism” agenda. It is essential to ensure that investment in green infrastructure, renewable energy, climate change mitigation and protection and enhancement of ecosystem services (to name but a few larger than local issues) is undertaken in a cost-effective, joined-up and sustainable manner. It needs to be aimed at a level where intervention can be most effective, and in many cases this is just not appropriate, efficient or practicable at a solely local level.

APPENDIX 1 REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGIES IN PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 9 2. Regional planning bodies should liaise closely with regional biodiversity fora or equivalent bodies, English Nature or its successors and the Environment Agency to identify the current regional and sub-regional distribution of priority habitats and species, internationally and nationally designated areas, and broad areas for habitat restoration and re-creation. Regional planning bodies should also liaise with the British Geological Survey and, where appropriate, local Regionally Important Geological/geomorphological Sites groups on geodiversity issues. Over time the distribution of habitats and species, and geomorphological processes and features, will be affected by climate change and such change will need to be taken into account. 3. Regional spatial strategies should: (i) incorporate biodiversity objectives; (ii) address regional, sub-regional and cross-boundary issues in relation to habitats, species and geomorphological processes through criteria-based policies; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w265

(iii) include policies to conserve and enhance biodiversity at the regional and subregional levels; (iv) include targets for the restoration and re-creation of priority habitats and the recovery of priority species populations, linked to national goals; and (v) identify suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity.

APPENDIX 2 NORTH WEST REGIONAL SPATIAL PLANNING POLICY ON THE ENVIRONMENT Policy EM1 Integrated Enhancement and Protection of the Region’s Environmental Assets The Region’s environmental assets should be identified, protected, enhanced and managed. Plans, strategies, proposals and schemes should deliver an integrated approach to conserving and enhancing the landscape, natural environment, historic environment and woodlands of the region. Plans and strategies should define spatial objectives and priorities for conservation, restoration and enhancement as appropriate, and provide area-based guidelines to direct decisions and target resources. These will be founded on a sound understanding of the diversity, distinctiveness, significance and sensitivity of the region’s environmental assets, and informed by sub-regional environmental frameworks. Special consideration will be given to the impacts of climate change and adaptation measures. Priority should be given to conserving and enhancing areas, sites, features and species of international, national, regional and local landscape, natural environment and historic environment importance. Where proposals and schemes affect the region’s landscape, natural or historic environment or woodland assets, prospective developers and/or local authorities should first avoid loss of or damage to the assets, then mitigate any unavoidable damage and compensate for loss or damage through offsetting actions with a foundation of no net loss in resources as a minimum requirement. With regard to specific elements of this integrated approach, the following should be taken into account:

Policy EM1 (B): Natural Environment Plans, strategies, proposals and schemes should secure a “step-change” increase in the region’s biodiversity resources by contributing to the delivery of national, regional and local biodiversity objectives and targets for maintaining extent, achieving condition, restoring and expanding habitats and species populations. This should be done through protecting, enhancing, expanding and linking areas for wildlife within and between the locations of highest biodiversity resources, including statutory and local wildlife sites, and encouraging the conservation and expansion of the ecological fabric elsewhere. Broad locations where there are greatest opportunities for delivering the biodiversity targets are shown on the Indicative Biodiversity Resource and Opportunity Diagram (see Diagram 9.1). More specific locations will be informed by sub-regional biodiversity maps and frameworks of statutory and local wildlife sites. Local authorities should: — develop a more detailed representation of this spatial information for use in their Local Development Frameworks; and — develop functional ecological frameworks that will address habitat fragmentation and species isolation, identifying and targeting opportunities for habitat expansion and re-connection. Active arrangements will be needed to address ecological cross-boundary issues within areas such as the Pennines, Solway Firth, the Mersey Estuary, the Lune Estuary, the River Dee Estuary and the Cheshire Meres and Mosses, as well as including biodiversity policies in any developing Marine Spatial Planning System in the Irish Sea.”

Policy EM1 (D): Trees, Woodlands and Forests Plans, strategies, proposals and schemes should: — support the aims and priorities of the North West Regional Forestry Framework and sub-regional forestry strategies; — encourage a steady targeted expansion of tree and woodland cover and promote sustainable management of existing woodland resources to enable the delivery of multiple benefits to society; — support the continued role of community forestry; and — identify and protect ancient semi-natural woodland and veteran trees. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w266 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from the Housing Forum (ARSS 120) Summary Following the abolition of RSS, local spatial plans will be the only mechanism for attracting and integrating investment in particular places. The Housing Forum’s views are: — Local decision-making on planning will require a positive vision of place backed up by clear and robust criteria for defining the “presumption in favour of Sustainable Development”. — Save time and money by using the “Tool Kit” we already have. — Follow through—a Planning Permission means a duty to develop. — Incentivise development more—through tax advantages and additional local borrowing permission. — The successful operation of localism, in the context of the abolition of RSS and other changes, will depend on the provision of infrastructure and on a good framework for integrated and focussed investment by the public, private and community bodies that are trying to promote development through the spatial planning process.

1. Local decision-making on planning will require a positive vision of place backed up by clear and robust criteria for defining the “presumption in favour of Sustainable Development” Focusing on achieving a positive spatial vision would be an entirely new approach for planning for housing, which has traditionally been based on backward looking views of place deficits, such as “meeting needs” or “balancing housing markets”. Positive plan making should be about charting the trajectory of what a place will need to be in the future. Localism can liberate communities and places to take the course that is suitable for them. A positive approach to housebuilding, which is welcomed by local people, is more likely to succeed when full information is available, and when communities can have confidence that the decisions made are right for their places. Such decisions need to be focussed on the delivery of this clearly articulated vision for spatial development, enabling decision-makers and communities to: — Understand how a place works and what it needs—for everyone. — Look objectively at evidence of how different types of development may affect a place. — Generate appropriate options and carry out sustainability appraisals of those options. — Establish publicly agreed criteria for satisfying “the presumption in favour of sustainable development”. — Ensure that the best option for development actually happens. — Evaluate the impact of development on the place in its entirety, and feedback the lessons learned. A vigorous market sensitive approach needs to be embedded in the collection of better market data and analysis for Strategic Housing Market Assessments.

2. Save time and money by using the “Tool Kit” we already have We should avoid any major structural reforms of planning. These would be a diversion of resources and political capital from the primary task of creating investor confidence, attracting inward investment (to UK plc and local places), and supporting delivery. It takes time for changes to bed-in, and for developers and councils to understand how they work, contributing to uncertainty for investors and delays in development. Our priority is to use the existing Sustainability Appraisal process for the purpose for which it was originally intended: to test the sustainability and deliverability of alternative broad locations for development at local, district or county level. They should now be used to set, transparently and authoritatively, the criteria for satisfying the presumption in favour of sustainable development under which many planning applications will now be promoted and automatically approved. Good Sustainability Appraisals could create greater certainty and investor confidence, sufficient to attract the infrastructure finance that will then unlock the “right” strategic allocations of land at district and local level. One simple improvement would be to make Sustainability Appraisals the subject of their own Examination in Public. By defining the criteria for sustainable development in this way, the subsequent preparation of spatial plans at any level would be quicker and more focussed on only those broad locations and sites that can satisfy the accepted sustainability and deliverability criteria.

3. Follow through—A Planning Permission means a duty to develop Not developing or delaying development of allocated or consented land undermines decision-makers’ capacity to improve the quality of life for everyone. Whoever conducts the planning functions, and the broader reach of Local Enterprise Partnerships could assist in this, a Planning Permission should carry with it a duty to develop. This could be a powerful driver cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w267

for development, along with any of the incentives now proposed. The Housing Forum has consistently advocated this view for several years. Planning authorities should therefore be in a position to intervene where there is a risk that the delivery of wellbeing outcomes will be undermined.

4. Incentivise development more—through tax advantages and additional local borrowing permission A powerful incentive to bring more land forward for development could be achieved through new tax and other fiscal measures for landowners, communities and local councils. A new generation of Public Private Partnerships, such as the Placeshaping Co-Investment Partnerships, advocated by The Housing Forum, could provide a brand for assembling the different elements of public and private financing needed. These approaches must be about investing not just to save, and achieve “efficiencies” but to create new wealth. Taxes must have the effect of discouraging short term land price speculation and encouraging investment in long term revenue generation from development. Speculative increases in land values arising from planning should be recovered in proportion to the level of investment and risk incurred by landowners prior to trading a site in a less than optimally developed state. Positive incentives should encourage landowners to participate in a consortium with public enabling bodies committed to bringing forward development. Landowners would obtain a guaranteed minimum price for their land after development and an agreed proportion of created value, subject to their participation in a new Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) for land development. Tax credits should be offered to landowners who defer any land receipt and profit-taking until the development is completed. VPAs would thus enable Local Planning Authorities and their partners to be more proactive in making the plan happen, and ensure that the wellbeing outcomes required are also achieved. VPAs would provide a more attractive, quicker and cheaper alternative to CPOs as the principal means of acquiring a sufficient interest in land to empower public bodies to act. Further incentives for local communities who accept development could be additional borrowing capacity for further local investment through local bodies. However well these reforms will work, they will not address the underlying causes of “boom” and “bust” in the housing market. A system which ensures development can follow infrastructure and in which public spending secures a proper return or investment is needed—in other words, to go much further to find a solution to the increasing unaffordability of housing and raise the political commitment of providing homes.

5. Operating Localism—the role of Infrastructure So that local government can make the legitimate political choices about whether to develop, or not, there needs to be certainty and predictability about the ways that the necessary infrastructure will be funded and delivered. Many of the difficulties experienced in promoting faster rates of development and achieving high quality sustainable development stem from the lack of a common agency in spatial planning. Central and local political leadership is needed to encourage the flexible long term partnerships of landowners, developers, councils and investors that are needed to make plans actually happen. Counties or sub-regional groupings make natural areas that could support a new generation of locally accountable city or county development alliances, building on the expressions of interest in Local Enterprise Partnerships, to drive spatial plan delivery for an area and join up all the sources of investment.

6. Accountability and Validation Localism and the opportunity for community organisations to participate in neighbourhood planning, and the new community rights to buy and build also carry important public interest responsibilities. An effective localist approach will need to ensure these local bodies are properly constituted, and have objects that are aligned with other public interest bodies. Where necessary, public bodies should also be under a duty to cooperate with them to ensure they can realise the opportunities offered through any new legislation. Standard company, trust, or industrial and provident society rules and registration processes should ensure that Memoranda and Articles of Association embody the promotion of social, economic and environmental well being. Such a test of “validation” to participate will also ensure objectivity in the process, and that community bodies act in the wider public interest, and not just their immediate self-interest. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w268 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from West Coast Energy Ltd (ARSS 121) Executive Summary — The main purpose of the RSS was to provide a bridge between national policy aspirations and local, site specific issues which would be determined by local planning policies. This link between national and local policy included understanding how the government saw the regions moving forward, be it in terms of housing or renewable energy. Every region had to play its part in reaching targets which were set. — WCE acknowledge the governments Localism agenda in which decisions which could potentially impact upon their locality should be made by those communities. However, whilst removing the regional tier within the system, it has created a reduced emphasis on the national planning policy, which until new plans are put in place, will reduce the expression of the need and wider benefits of renewable energy proposals. This in turn could lead to dramatically reduced progress in reaching the national renewable energy targets. — WCE consider it critical that the RSS targets should not be lost and should be placed elsewhere in order to ensure there is a continuation of renewable energy generation in the years to come. — As witnessed in most other major planning system changes, long delays in primary legislation and policy formulation can lead to great uncertainty. Taking this into account it is of upmost importance that delays are minimised and crucially intermediate plans or guidance relating to specific issues such as renewable energy proposals are formulated and are given full government backing. These measures will ensure that the uncertainty from developers is reduced and the UK can continue to work towards its binding targets. — WCE believe there are significant opportunities through the either minor changes to existing policy frameworks or through new policies and systems such as the National Planning Framework and Local Enterprise Partnerships. It is imperative that the thrust of renewable energy generation support is not lost from the national level right down to the local level. Furthermore it is important the industry does not lose targets which have been used to successfully guide proposals through the planning process. — If these are not done, investment in on-shore renewables could be severely hindered resulting in a dramatic decline in the amount of proposals which can significantly increase the renewable energy generation required to meet the UK’s national targets and obligations.

1. Introduction 1.1 This document provides evidence to the Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry in the recent abolishment of the Regional Spatial Strategies. It has been prepared and submitted on behalf of West Coast Energy Ltd. 1.2 The Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the revocation and abolition of regional spatial strategies and has invited the submission of written evidence. Although the Committee has specified it is focusing on issues around housing, it has confirmed it will also consider: — The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy). — How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries. 1.3 It is upon these issues, but specifically renewable energy, that this response will focus. 1.4 Whilst larger scale on-shore based electricity generating assets (above 50MW) are expected to be determined by a Secretary of State under the replacement for the Infrastructure Planning Commission regime. However, from past and emerging trends most land-based renewable energy schemes fall below the 50MW threshold and so fall to be determined by the local planning system, which is the subject of this inquiry.

2. West Coast Energy Ltd 2.1 West Coast Energy Limited (WCE) is a leading independent wind energy developer based in Mold, North Wales. The company was established in 1996 and operates throughout the UK. We specialise in the identification, design, planning and development of wind energy projects through to construction and operation. 2.2 As a result of our dynamic and innovative approach, we have established an enviable track record of wind energy development success by developing our own portfolio of projects and forming strategic alliances and joint ventures with key partners. Key projects include: — Cefn Croes, 58.5MW—the largest wind farm in the UK when constructed. — Rhyl Flats (offshore), 90MW—largest operating wind farm in Wales. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w269

— Tirgwynt, 24MW—first large scale wind farm proposal to be considered by Powys within the SSA Zone B. — Little Raith, 18MW—first consented wind farm in Fife. 2.3 WCE is presently involved in developing hundreds of megawatts of wind power generation for our future renewable energy needs, and to date, we have secured planning permission for a range of onshore and offshore wind farms totalling in excess of 570 Megawatts. The anticipated future development is extensive, with 3 proposals in the planning system, a further five projects anticipated to be submitted within the 2010–11 financial year, and a further 25 projects at various stages of design and assessment. WCE are developing these projects in order to help the UK meet their renewable and climate change obligations

3. Role of Regional Spatial Strategies 3.1 RSS’s emerged from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which abolished Structure Plans, and replaced Regional Planning Guidance (RPG). RSS’s were formally adopted for each of the English Regions and by 2009 each region had an adopted RSS. Since their formal adoption, RSS’s have been part of the Development Plan, however, prior to their adoption “consultation” draft documents were considered to be a material consideration as they indicated up to date direction of travel. 3.2 Section 38 (6) of The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires decisions must be made in accordance with all development plan policies in existence at the point of decision. For example, when a local planning authority or planning inspector makes their decision, regard would be given to all policies and information within formal adopted or near adoption plans including RSS which were used to inform local planning policies. Taking this into account it is clear that the regional level of policy was an important component of the decision making process. 3.3 When taking into account renewable energy policies within RSS’s, guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy indicated what is expected to be included within any policy and guidance: — formulation of criteria based policies which proposals can be assessed against; — spatial indication of where proposals could be located; and — formulation of indicative regional targets for the amount of renewable generation capacity which could be expected from the region and sub region areas including generation from wind, solar and biomass. 3.4 The main purpose of the RSS’s was to provide a bridge between national policy aspirations and local, site specific issues which would be determined by local planning policies. This link between national and local policy included understanding how the government saw the regions moving forward, be it in terms of housing or renewable energy. Every region had to play its part in reaching targets which were set. 3.5 These policies and targets which were included in all RSS’s were formulated on the basis of extensive studies and consultation whilst having regard to the real issue of national targets for renewable generation. Policies and targets for renewable energy generation were based on an evidence base showing what should be achieved in order to meet the UK’s binding targets. The RSS’s was used to link the national targets to the local policies and decisions in order to ensure targets could be met and the planning balance could be fully understood. 3.6 Taking this into account, the national need for an increased contribution from renewable energy was a major part of the development plan and was given considerable weight in the decision making process taken local planning authority officers, committees, planning inspectors and the SoS. The inclusion of targets within the RSS’s enabled the decision maker to fully understand the regions’ role in helping the UK to reach its renewable energy generation targets. Furthermore, targets were used by developers when selecting potential renewable energy sites in order to have a steer as to where capacity was available in terms of planning policy. 3.7 RSS targets and policies have been heavily relied upon when striking the “need” balance between acceptable impacts and renewable energy generation. This balance is discussed in numerous planning decisions including a recent decision at Carsington Pastures Wind Farm (Appeal Ref: APP/P1045/A/07/2054080). Issues such as the potential impact upon the Peak District National Park and archaeological remains were considered whilst taking into account the contribution the proposal would have to the regional and thus national renewable energy targets. Ultimately, in this instance, the inspector found that the contribution to the regional targets significantly outweighed any impacts pointing especially to the targets and lack of progress from Derbyshire. It is clear from this and many other consented schemes that a planning balance has to be made between possible impacts and contribution to regional targets. Furthermore the targets provide a meaningful and clear way of dealing with the “need” of renewable energy schemes and wider benefits of renewable proposals within the planning balance.

4. The Impact of Abolishing Regional Spatial Strategies 4.1 It must be understood from the outset that the abolishment of RSS’s has come as no great surprise to the industry or WCE. What has come as a surprise is the timeframe emerging which is essentially resulting in cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w270 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

a planning sector in “limbo” when considering larger applications which would have had a greater steer from RSS’s plans and policies. 4.2 The removal of the RSS tier, without an immediate replacement has resulted in some major issues for developers and decisions makers alike. The following points being of most concern to WCE: — The creation of a system where targets which would help in understanding and arguing the planning balance for renewable energy scheme being removed with no guidance or steer as to how to determine proposals. — The creation of a system which has significant uncertainly and inconsistency in decision making between each local authorities within a said region and also at the appeal stage due to the removal of a plan which contained robust and consistent guidance. — The potential for local authority officers and planning inspectors to significantly reduce the weight given to renewable energy schemes due to targets which were once within approved policy simply being removed. 4.3 Taking the above in account, WCE’s concern is that as the connection between national climate change objectives on the one hand, and local decision-making on the other, is weakened, renewable energy developments will find it more difficult to satisfy policy tests and gain consent. This is especially the case when taking into account that no formal alternatives to the RSS approach were or have been suggested and approved. 4.4 Further concern comes in relation to the abolishment of renewable energy targets within the RSS which were based on sound factual evidence including studies by some of the UK’s leading consultancies. To simply abolish these targets primarily due to the Coalitions’ desire to remove the regional element of the planning process is entirely wrong especially considering no other process has been formally approved. The letter issued by CLG on 6 July 2010 relating to the revocation of the RSS’s was accompanied by a guidance note on the related implications. Para 20 indicates that the evidence base associated with former regional plans may be relevant and could be used by decision makers when considering the potential for renewable and low carbon energy. WCE consider this to be a positive move, although the guidance makes no reference to how any evidence should be used and the weight that should be given to such existing documents which once supported the derivation of RSS targets.

5. The Future…. 5.1 WCE acknowledge the governments Localism agenda in which decisions which could potentially impact upon their locality should be made by those communities. This will require developers like ourselves to increase and enhance the amount of community liaison we undertake before and during the planning process. However, whilst removing the regional tier within the system, it has created a reduced emphasis on the national planning policy, which until new plans are put in place, will reduce the expression of the need and wider benefits of renewable energy proposals. This in turn could lead to dramatically reduced progress in reaching the national renewable energy targets. 5.2 It seems that in order to continue to tackle the challenge of renewable energy generation, the following systems and/or policies could be used: 5.3 New Local Plans — Part of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 required all local authorities to produce a “folder” of local development plans which will outline the spatial planning strategy for the local area. — These plans should provide strong policy support for appropriate low carbon development. Furthermore, it is considered that these plans provide a solid base in which to place the renewable energy generation targets from the RSS. Adding or referring to the RSS targets will emphasise the need for renewable energy proposals when local authorities are considering such proposals. — Due to the government’s intention to enable more local decision-making, emerging and current plans should have regard to the wider context and benefits of renewables, either through policies in the Local Plan, or through guidance contained within the new proposed national guidance. 5.4 County Council Policies — Should the government not consider local plans a suitable place to insert the targets originally contained within the RSS, WCE consider it critical that they should be placed elsewhere in order to ensure there is a continuation of renewable energy generation in the years to come. — County Councils, amongst other responsibilities, retain authority of mineral extraction and waste policies within their county. It seems there has been no particular indication from the government that these will be replaced or abolished. Taking this into consideration, the question which must be asked is why have important strategic industries/services such as minerals and waste been left untouched and an industry which is just as important (if not more) to the national interest been severely affected by the abolishment of RSS’s and thus strategic targets? cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w271

— In order to ensure the UK and in particular England continues to work towards meeting the national target, WCE feel important to have some form of targets. Owing to the type of work County Councils undertake within the planning system they could very easily lead themselves to increasingly work on renewable energy policies and include these regional targets (albeit reduced for their area) in order to ensure the local decision makers are continually aware of the expectations of national policy and targets. 5.5 National Planning Framework — The current Government have expressed their desire to deliver “a simple and consolidated national planning framework, which will set out national economic and environmental priorities, and how the planning system will deliver them.” — WCE consider that sustainable development should be a key theme throughout the document, including a strong presumption for renewable energy generation. Without this clear support from the national planning tier, it is hard to see where the weight for the benefits of not only renewable energy but a low carbon society can be provided in order to fully understand the planning balance of such proposals. — It must be noted that the even with this extensive support of renewable energy within the national tier, decisions can be taken whilst having particular regard to the governments localism agenda. 5.6 Local Enterprise Partnerships — LEP’s are intended to provide strategic leadership in areas in order to tackle issues including planning, infrastructure priorities and the transition to the low carbon economy. WCE considered that LEP’s present an opportunity to undertake that level of strategic guidance and consideration of the move towards a Low Carbon Economy should be an important requirement of the plans and proposals brought forward by LEP’s. 5.7 As witnessed in most other major planning system changes, long delays in primary legislation and policy formulation can lead to great uncertainty. Taking this into account it is of upmost importance that delays are minimised and crucially intermediate plans or guidance relating to specific issues such as renewable energy proposals are formulated and are given full government backing. These two measures will ensure that the uncertainty from developers is reduced and the UK can continue to work towards its binding targets.

6. Conclusion 6.1. With the abolishment of the RSS and subsequent loss of regional targets, the key aim for industry is to have a mechanism that ensures that the national imperative to secure more renewable energy generation is translated down to a local level as effectively as possible. 6.2. WCE believe there are significant opportunities through the either minor changes to existing policy frameworks or through new policies and systems such as the National Planning Framework and Local Enterprise Partnerships. It is imperative that the thrust of renewable energy generation support is not lost from the national level right down to the local level. Furthermore it is important the industry does not lose targets which have been used to successfully guide proposals through the planning process. 6.3. If these are not done, investment in on-shore renewables could be severely hindered resulting in a dramatic decline in the amount of proposals which can significantly increase the renewable energy generation required to meet the UK’s national targets and obligations. September 2010

Written evidence from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) (ARSS 122) The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is the charity that takes action for wild birds and the environment. We are the largest wildlife conservation organisation in Europe with over one million members.

Summary The natural environment does not respect the administrative boundaries of districts or counties. This is why strategic planning has an important role in delivering the Government’s aspirations for biodiversity and sustainable renewable energy. How will the new planning structures enhance the delivery of the Government’s objectives? The RSPB’s view is that: — The revocation of regional spatial strategies has removed strategic policies for the natural environment that overcame such administrative restrictions. — Voluntary arrangements may work well in some areas, but in others a more formal mechanism for strategic planning may be required. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w272 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— The proposed duty to cooperate must extend further than adjacent local authorities, and must include a mechanism to resolve disputes. — Local Economic Partnerships must have an environmental voice. — Environmental data must be kept up-to-date and be accessible to local authorities and the public.

Targets and Incentives 1. The RSPB does not wish to comment in detail on the abolition of regional house building targets or the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development. When we commented on the former regional spatial strategies, we raised concerns about the implications of significant housing growth in environmentally-pressured regions, particularly the East and South East of England, and the impact on biodiversity and water resources. We accept the need to make adequate plans for future household growth around the country and the need to do so in a way that commands democratic support, but we are not convinced that the combination of local decision-making and financial incentives will achieve this, or be affordable. 2. The decision to revoke regional spatial strategies (RSS)s appears to have been almost entirely driven by the contested nature of housing targets, particularly in the south and east of England. However, the revocation has swept away a raft of policies on other issues, such as the natural environment, that were largely not contentious and were the product of close cooperation between local authorities and other interested parties. It has also removed part of the statutory development plan for those authorities that have already adopted Development Plan Documents (DPD). This potentially undermines their effectiveness until these DPDs can be revised. 3. Regional spatial strategies provided a spatial framework within which to address the restoration and creation of priority habitats and the recovery of species populations. Facilitating that process, the biodiversity fora in each region identified the best areas of opportunity. For example, the South West Nature Map, a habitat opportunity map prepared by Biodiversity South West, was incorporated into the draft regional spatial strategy. The map identifies landscape-scale blocks of land termed “strategic nature areas” where most of the major biodiversity concentrations are found and where targets to maintain, restore and re-create wildlife might best be met. Its inclusion in the RSS would have helped local authorities to meet the requirement to “identify areas or sites for the restoration or creation of new priority habitats...” in their local development frameworks, as set out in national planning policies (paragraph 5(ii), Planning Policy Statement 9). 4. Strategic planning does not necessarily need to be located at a regional level, and the evidence and guidance assembled in regional spatial strategies on matters such as biodiversity can continue to be used following their revocation (although see our comments on data and research below). However, the loss of regional spatial strategies has removed an essential driver for local authority plans and decisions. For example, the previous government had intended to negotiate regional renewable energy targets. This raises the question of how local authorities will together make adequate contributions to national renewable energy targets.

Local Authority Cooperation 5. The natural environment does not respect the administrative boundaries of districts or counties. One should consider the role and functioning of species and habitats within whole landscapes or ecosystems. This is why strategic planning is essential for the delivery of the Government’s aspirations for biodiversity and sustainable renewable energy (eg ensuring appropriate location of wind farms). Voluntary arrangements may work well in some areas, but in others a more formal mechanism for strategic planning may be required. In our experience conflicts over the shared protection of the natural environment have arisen between local authorities where their respective interests are not aligned. 6. Areas statutorily designated for their biodiversity value illustrate this need. Many designated Special Protection Areas (SPAs), part of the Natura 2000 network, fall within multiple local authorities; 28 SPAs in England contain no fewer than five local authorities, and six SPAs contain at least ten. In these areas, special arrangements may be required to ensure that development can take place which respects the environment and the legal obligations of the Birds and Habitats Directives. 7. For example, the Thames Basin Heaths Delivery Plan, part of the arrangements for delivering housing growth around the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, involves no fewer than eleven local authorities. Prior to the preparation of the Delivery Plan, the development of even small-scale housing was problematic because satisfactory mitigation measures could not be put in place. For the Delivery Plan to work all of the authorities must adopt a common approach to mitigation, otherwise house building around the SPA will not be possible, even where local authorities wish to see that development go ahead. The Plan was until recently given a statutory framework by policy NRM6 of the South East Plan. It is uncertain whether an effective mitigation solution could ultimately have been developed in the absence of the policy requirements of a formal tier of strategic planning. 8. The proposed duty to co-operate may help to address this issue. However, it must be more than a mere duty to consult, and it must extend to all authorities which share protected environmental features. An analysis of SPAs in England shows that many, like the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, cover multiple local authorities. Many are in areas of development pressure where local authorities need to work together to ensure that cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w273

development can take place whilst continuing to protect these important wildlife sites. Nevertheless, we have found that not all local authorities will willingly do so. The duty to co-operate must therefore also include a mechanism for resolving disputes between authorities. Upper tier authorities could have a role to play in this, but upper tier authorities may themselves be interested parties (the Thames Basin Heaths Delivery Plan, for example, involves two county councils and three unitary authorities). 9. Strategic working arrangements will vary and must be tailored to the needs of the sector, for example, cooperation amongst local authorities in the same river basin districts. Certain sectors should be considered together because they are complementary, for instance, waste and minerals restoration may assist flood alleviation and contribute to biodiversity targets through habitat creation or restoration. The challenge will be to create appropriate groupings, based on an understanding of who needs to work with whom, and for what purpose. As discussed above, it is essential that local authorities work together on joint issues, to deliver shared solutions which are more cost effective and can provide more benefits for residents and the natural environment.

Local Enterprise Partnerships 10. Our engagement with regional development agencies showed us that they did not have sufficient in- house capacity, experience or expertise to deliver economic development within environmental limits. With their narrower remit and lack of funds, we consider that it is unlikely that Local Economic Partnerships (LEPs) will be able to bridge this gap in capacity and skills either. This takes place at a time when the need to halt the loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem services, and ensure their adaptation and resilience to climate change, is most urgent. 11. Previously regional sustainable development champions (e.g. sustainable development roundtables) and social, economic and environmental partnerships (SEEPs) have provided valuable advice and helped to shape regional policies. These were often hosted by the regional assemblies. That they have continued to exist in various forms after the assemblies’ demise is a testament to the strengths of the partnerships that have been created. For example, in the East of England, “Sustainability East”148, an independent sustainable development champion body, is running a joint event with Business in the Community to ask “how can we deliver the Big Society sustainably?” This forthcoming event is oversubscribed—illustrating the vacuum left by the abolition of the regional tier. The decentralisation minister recently said that he welcomed the involvement of voluntary organisations. The RSPB calls for emerging LEP proposals to build on their strengths and include environmental partners. 12. The RSPB believes that it is essential that environmental, as well as social and economic, representatives continue to have an effective voice in decision-making and help ensure genuine improvements in environmental and social wellbeing. However, we do not have all the answers. We ask the Select Committee how they consider the environmental voice should be included in local decision-making in the absence of the RSS.

Data and Research 13. Significant gaps remain in the data available on environmental resources across England, for example, on the location of key species, and the condition of local wildlife sites and Biodiversity Action Plan habitats. A robust evidence base must assess the state of the environment as well as that of the local economy. Therefore, finding a new home for regional environmental, economic and social data is a key priority. Much of this data is currently held by a variety of organisations in a number of different formats and is often difficult to access. While evidence will need to be “owned” and kept up to date by appropriate groups, information previously gathered from the regions should be kept in one place, and be accessible to local authorities and the public. September 2010

Written evidence from Merseytravel (ARSS 123) Please find enclosed Merseytravel’s response to the above Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry. Merseytravel is the combined Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) and Integrated Transport Authority (ITA) for Merseyside, and is the public sector body responsible for the coordination of public transport across the Liverpool City Region (including Liverpool, Sefton, St Helens, The Wirral and Knowsley, with the exception of Halton). Working with our partners across the local authority districts and the business community, our objective is to produce a fully integrated public transport system which is accessible to all. Merseytravel supports the Coalition Government’s localist agenda and the focus that it is placing on facilitating economic growth and the development of the private sector across the country. Transport is a central part of these efforts and, in particular, a lack of accessible and efficient transport links present a real barrier to economic growth and investment, as well as impacting on social inclusion and the challenge of reducing carbon emissions.. 148 http://www.sustainabilityeast.org.uk/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w274 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

As you know, Regional Spatial Strategies were introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 but, as of 1st April 2010, were replaced by the single Regional Strategy (consisting of the existing Regional Spatial Strategy and the Regional Economic Strategy until the Regional Strategy was adopted), under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act (LDEDCA) 2009.

The Regional (Spatial) Strategy is, of course, part of the statutory Development Plan, in line with which planning decisions must be taken unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As the Strategy decides how much development there should be, how it will be spread around each region and how it will be delivered, it affects not only housing but also infrastructure, transport, the environment and economic development to name but a few. As such, despite its faults, the Strategy was of great significance to the future of local areas.

Merseytravel is a strong proponent of the need for a mechanism to ensure co-operation between local authorities and other bodies, in particular ITAs, on important regional-level issues like transport. As such, this submission addresses the abolition of the Regional (Spatial) Strategy and its connectivity to transport.

1. Executive Summary — We support the localism agenda and the bottom-up approach that is being advocated. — However, we would urge for greater clarification in what happens to responsibilities following the dismantling of the regional tier of Government. — We also suggest that the ITA/PTE model is looked at as a successful example of a bottom-up model that allows local authorities to come together with other stakeholders to address shared challenges surrounding transport services and infrastructure. — We are concerned that, with the abolition of regional house building targets, there needs to be certainty about where housing will go so that the necessary associated infrastructure can be provided. — For matters such as transport, it is important that the Coalition Government’s new planning arrangements acknowledge and address that transport covers the area or parts of the area of more than one local authority. — Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) should be designed in response to local requirements and, where appropriate, should complement and build upon existing structures and established working practices, for example ITAs since they already work so well.

2 About Merseytravel

2.1 Merseytravel is the combined Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) and Integrated Transport Authority (ITA) for Merseyside. It is the public sector body responsible for the coordination of public transport through partnership initiatives, doing so with the aim of producing a fully integrated and sustainable transport network which is accessible to all.

2.2 Merseytravel operates at the level of the Liverpool City Region, largely reflecting functional economic areas and operating at the optimum strategic level for the provision of transport. The ITA/PTE model is a highly successful example of a bottom-up model that allows local authorities to come together with other stakeholders to address shared challenges around the provision of transport services and infrastructure, and to support policy objectives around economic development and regeneration, health and climate change.

2.3 Merseytravel has responsibility for producing and implementing the Local Transport Plan (LTP), which is the key policy framework for transport. Transport issues are of central importance to the development of regions. Merseytravel has long argued that transport must be considered within a wider context, linking with other policy areas such as economic development and regeneration, carbon reduction, housing and land use planning, skills, education and health. Focussing not just on the passenger transport network, Merseytravel has played a key role in investing in infrastructure that directly supports economic investment, or maintains key transport arteries.

2.4 We agree with the Coalition Government’s position that “planning decisions should be made at the local level wherever possible”. However, we would stress that as consideration of transport issues has to be at the heart of the economic revival and of regeneration, the planning system should include ITAs as statutory consultees in the planning process so that councils can make more informed decisions in the best interests of their local area. Whilst supporting the principle of localism we also note the importance of a strategic approach to decision-making in the correct circumstances.

2.5 There needs to be a balance between the need to stimulate economic recovery and the long-term requirements of a successful development as far as the local community is concerned. These are not mutually exclusive and full and proper consideration of transport matters in local planning can deliver a better development of benefit the local community, the local authority and the developer. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w275

3. Regional Transport Strategy 3.1 Within the Regional Spatial Strategy framework (or Regional Strategy framework following the LDEDCA 2009) sat the Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) and, therefore, the Coalition Government’s announcement to revoke Regional (Spatial) Strategies also includes the revocation of RTS’s. 3.2 The North West RTS provided the transport policy framework for the North West of England, including Merseyside, and encouraged close integration between regional transport, housing, economic development strategies and spending decisions. 3.3 The key objectives of the RTS were to: — maintain existing transport infrastructure in good order; — improve journey time reliability, tackle congestion and overcrowding in the region’s main; — transport corridors shown on the Key Diagram, particularly within and between City Regions; — secure a shift towards the use of more sustainable modes of transport; — secure safe and efficient access between residential areas and key destinations, including centres of employment, schools, shops and other services; — improve surface access and interchange arrangements at the international, national and regional gateways; — reduce the adverse impacts of transport, in terms of safety hazards, climate change, environmental degradation, residential amenity and social exclusion; and — integrate the management and planning of transport systems. 3.4 The RTS also identified a number of strategic transport management and investment priorities for the region, in order to help deliver the wider spatial strategy. 3.5 The RTS policies supported the vision and objectives of the Regional (Spatial) Strategy by concentrating on the development of better transport links within the region, and between the North West and other parts of the UK and beyond. They aimed to do this by significantly improving the quality and provision of public transport and by promoting a more structured approach to managing and selectively improving the region’s highway network. In doing so, the policies aligned with the Regional Economic Strategy objective to develop the North West’s strategic transport, communications and economic infrastructure, and with the policy priorities of the Northern Way Growth Strategy, particularly in terms of improving road and rail access to the North of England’s main ports and airports and creating better integrated public transport services within and between City Regions. 3.6 In addition, the RTS set out the need for a sustainable approach to integrated transport, which requires each mode to contribute to future travel needs in an efficient and complementary way. The RTS emphasised therefore that local authorities, the Highways Agency, the rail industry and other transport providers needed to work together to ensure that all of the region’s transport networks are planned, managed, operated and improved in an integrated context. 3.7 Accordingly, the abolition of the Regional (Spatial) Strategy means that LTPs will be the only main statutory policy framework covering the sub-regional level. This means that the proposals put forward by the Coalition Government (for example, LEPs or the duty to cooperate) and their remit in contributing to the LTP process will have to be clearly defined. 3.8 In addition, whilst Merseytravel has sole responsibility for Merseyside’s LTP, the removal of the RTS means that there is an increased danger of LTPs across the North West, and in other areas, been seen to ‘compete’ against one another. One way to deal with the issue of possible competition would be for central government to adopt a strong role in providing direction for the plans, monitoring them and exercising control in their development. We appreciate this goes against current thinking from the DfT on how LTPs should be prepared, and would require more consideration about how such control could be implemented in practice, but ways of preventing competition need to be instigated.

4. Regional Policies on Transport 4.1 The Government has indicated that local authorities should continue to ensure their land use and local transport plans are mutually consistent, and deliver the most effective and sustainable development for their area. Moreover, local authorities should work with each other and with businesses and communities to consider strategic transport priorities and cross boundary issues. 4.2 We fully support the Coalition Government’s localism agenda but, in our view, localism cannot be a substitute for a proper national and sub-national approach to the coordination of economic regeneration and development. The abolition of the regional tier of Government gives rise to a number of issues which are of concern to Merseytravel. Some of these may be addressed in the development of LEPs and Merseytravel has been fully engaged in discussion around a LEP for Merseyside. There are though obvious timings issues as the Regional (Spatial) Strategies have already been abolished whereas it may take some time to have a fully formed cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w276 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

LEP up-and-running. Concerns remain that LEPs will not be a completely satisfactory replacement. A strategic approach to development is even more important in a financially constrained environment. 4.3 Our first issue of concern is that the absence of a strategic planning model at a sub-national level particularly for land use and housing targets is of concern. Despite their obvious faults, Regional (Spatial) Strategies did at least give the opportunity to explore sub-national planning issues and coordinate activities across regions. Following the abolition of Regional Strategies, as we have already mentioned, the only remaining statutory plan for coordinating activities above the district level remains the LTP. 4.4 The second issue of concern is that the abolition of the regional tier and the potential replacement with the LEP model may give rise to groups of local authorities competing nationally against each other for access to investment and funding. Such an adversarial approach might not necessarily provide for the most constructive overall outcomes as far as the delivery of economic and social regeneration and environmental objectives is concerned. There is also a risk that such competition might actually increase costs. The abolition of the Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) with spending decisions based on the challenges and problems identified in the Regional (Spatial) Strategy has meant the danger of competition for funds has increased. 4.5 Related to this, if the administration and awarding of funds is simply moved back to Westminster and Whitehall, and away from the regional level then this would appear to run counter to the aims of localism. Without the RFA it appears that local authorities will seemingly need to apply direct to central government for finance and/or approvals. 4.6 Accordingly, we contend that a system needs to be devised which allows strategic thinking beyond the local level to deal with transport. ITA areas at least benefit from covering larger geographical areas, whereas in many other parts of the country the responsible local transport authority may cover quite small areas. 4.7 As the RTPI has quite rightly stated “Communities need some level of strategic thinking beyond the local level to deliver the things they need, such as hospitals and transport links”.

5. Implications of the Abolition of Regional House Building Targets for Levels of Housing Development 5.1 It is not Merseytravel’s place to comment on the abolition of regional house building targets. However, if there is no certainty about where housing is going to be developed then this does impact on decisions about the necessary infrastructure to be provided. Especially at this time when LTP3s are in the process of development such uncertainty is unwelcome. 5.2 Accordingly, we suggest, the Coalition Government needs to develop a planning system which crosses local authority boundaries so that the localism agenda does not curtail strategic planning across regions. We believe that ITAs should be statutory consultees in any reform of the planning system proposed under the forthcoming Localism Bill. 5.3 The RTPI has said that there is a “need to limit any adverse impacts that the abolition of Regional Strategies may have on investment (in transport particularly)”. We agree with this position and believe that the Coalition Government needs to provide more details on the replacement from the regional planning level as a matter of priority.

6. Incentivising Local Communities 6.1 We understand that local communities are to receive direct and substantial extra funding to spend as they wish as a reward for growth, including a “New Homes Bonus” for those local authorities who give planning consent and support the construction of new homes where they are needed. There are some potential pitfalls associated with this approach as it could incentivise house building in the most popular and/or economically buoyant parts of the country rather than those parts of the country facing challenges as a result of housing market decline, which affects large parts of the North West in particular. This could mean rewards for already successful areas but stagnation for others. In transport, further decline of inner city areas, for example, could undermine the vitality of existing transport provisions and any strong pressure for housing in inaccessible rural, or semi-rural, areas could create new transport pressures as a result on increased car dependency. 6.2 We also understand that the Coalition Government is working on business rate reforms to encourage economic development, as well as reforming the Community Infrastructure Levy to provide development incentives. 6.3 We would welcome the opportunity to respond to the Government’s consultation paper on the final incentives scheme, which we understand is to be published following the spending review. 6.4 Whilst we also welcome the opportunity to incentivise local communities, the Coalition Government needs to make sure that there are sufficient funds to incentivise local infrastructure as well. At the present time incentivisation appears only to apply to supply in one sector (housing) and needs to be looked at and developed across other sectors, such as transport infrastructure. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w277

6.5 The lack of a current formal role in local development decisions means that in ITA areas new development could take place without due regard being given to transport infrastructure requirements. This is a risk which is heightened if an overly competitive approach to development, particularly housing development, is adopted. For instance, it could that local authorities try to attract developers by minimising the contributions they need to make to infrastructure development, particularly transport. 6.6 One safeguard would be to make ITAs statutory consultees in local development control decisions.

7. Arrangements to be put in place to Ensure Appropriate Cooperation between Local Planning Authorities on matters formerly covered by Regional Spatial Strategies 7.1 For matters such as transport, it is important that the new arrangements acknowledge and address that transport covers the area or parts of the area of more than one local authority. 7.2 The previous arrangements meant that local transport authorities, including ITAs, could work together on a set of policies decided at the regional level. This, alongside the system of the Regional Funding Allocation, although imperfect, prevented competition between local transport authorities. 7.3 The abolition of the regional arrangements now means that there is no formal process for such cooperation to take place. Instead, it relies on the goodwill and professional integrity of those involved. 7.4 The establishment of LEPs may be one way forward but with details currently lacking on their shape, form, powers and funding this remains more of a hope than certainty. LEPs may prove to have a very valuable role at local level but, again, their ability to work across larger geographical areas, either together or on their own, is not clear.

8. Whether LEPs can Fulfil a Planning Function 8.1 As mentioned above, from the details about LEPs made available to date, they appear to provide for an interesting model through which to ensure coordination on economic development and related challenges, including transport. Any approach to partnership working, policy making and delivery that allows particular challenges to be address at the most appropriate spatial level is to be welcomed. 8.2 We welcome comments from Ministers that it is for the local authorities and businesses involved to set out how LEPs should be comprised and operate. However, much more information is required on their form and function and specifically on how it is expected that they will operate alongside existing non local authority bodies, such as PTEs/ITAs. We appreciate that in many ways this is will be decided locally and we are pleased to be involved in discussions on the establishment of a LEP in Merseyside. 8.3 LEPs should be designed in response to local requirements and, where appropriate, should complement and build upon existing structures and established working practices. Given the need to manage public spending effectively, going with the grain of existing arrangements, such as PTEs and ITAs would seem sensible. 8.4 We would therefore suggest that LEPs should be designed around, and seek to complement the strengths of, existing models of cooperation and established joint working. This is particularly important at a time of reduced public expenditure where going “with the grain” of existing arrangements is likely to be more efficient than creating wholly new structures to replace what is already happening. 8.5 Consideration of transport issues has to be at the heart of the economic revival and regeneration and a LEP approach may provide a real platform to drive regions, forward afresh, ensuring that all the key stakeholders are properly involved. 8.6 Within the Liverpool City Region context, the North West Development Agency has done some important work in recent years; however obviously RDAs will not continue in their current form and with their current functions. With the Government Offices also being abolished and with indications that the Government’s preference would be for models of partnership involving local authorities and other stakeholders, particularly the business community, rather than more formalised or statutory structures, we agree that regions should consider the opportunities that forming an LEP will provide. 8.7 There is no prescriptive model as to what an LEP should look like and what it might do. We understand that they are intended to be “bottom-up” bodies created to address the economic challenges identified by groups of local authorities in conjunction with the business community, building on and complementing those existing structures and working practices that have been proven to work well. 8.8 Significant issues around LEPs remain to be addressed, not least around governance, their powers, the involvement of the business community, and how they will work with existing organisations. We understand that further information will be provided in the White Paper on sub-national economic development expected in late September or October 2010 but by 6 September the Liverpool City Region needed to submit its outline proposal for its LEP to the Government, if that is the chosen option. 8.9 Transport has to be a central consideration within the LEP. For the Liverpool City Region, this will require discussion and agreement amongst the six local authorities, the business community, Merseytravel, the North West Development Agency, organisations such as The Mersey Partnership and Liverpool Vision, and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w278 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

possibly also the fire, waste and police authorities. In this way an LEP can be viewed as a “wrap around” body bringing existing organisations and expertise together in a way which provides additional private sector input to deliver on the economic, social and environmental aims of the LCR. The ITA would have a central role in these arrangements. 8.10 LEPs of course will also need to be considered in the context of policy development in a wide range of other areas, not least the review of local government finance and the ongoing spending review, proposals for city mayors and issues across education, work and skills and health. 8.11 We would also welcome further details about the mechanisms that will be put in place to ensure cooperation between LEPs and between LEPs and individuals in local authorities and bodies, such as PTEs/ ITAs, would be ensured, including how this relates to the proposed duty to cooperate. 8.12 There needs to be greater clarity over the distribution of the funding, powers and responsibilities held at a regional level, and how these will be redistributed once LEPs are in place. More specifically, if LEPs are not to have a statutory basis then further information will be required as to how the statutory functions of the RDAs and Government Offices (GOs) will be discharged, if they are to be retained. It is not clear by what mechanism the functions of RDAs and GOs will be redistributed following the creation of LEPs. We are concerned to ensure that the excellent work done by the RDA and Local Authorities Leaders Board is not lost. 8.13 Whilst we welcomes the idea of LEPs in principle, we are concerned to learn that the Coalition Government has said they are to be business-led; handing planning over to businesses, we suggest, is not in keeping with the localist agenda. It can be difficult for a private sector led planning system to take strategic (and often difficult) decisions that locally accountable bodies are able to make. 8.14 If the Coalition Government expects LEPs to be business-led, further information is required as to how accountability will be ensured. This is particularly pertinent given the criticisms levied at RDAs in this regard. In addition, how LEPs will interact with elected mayors, whether these are for the city councils or for city regions will be a central consideration.

9. Adequacy of Proposals Aalready put Forward by Government, Including a Proposed Duty to Co-operate 9.1 The status of measures such as the Duty to Co-operate remains unclear. Whilst it may be useful in helping to facilitate relationships between LEPs, this requires clarification. 9.2 Consideration also needs to be given as to how the new structures and bodies will comply with the requirements of the new Equalities Act.

10. Concluding Comments 10.1 Merseytravel believes that the sudden abolition of the Regional (Spatial) Strategies will cause a disjuncture in local development which could impact on economic development. The gap needs to be filled as a matter of urgency. 10.2 Steps also need to be taken to ensure that an overly competitive approach to regional development is not the outcome of the reform process. 10.3 One safeguard which would help would be to make ITAs statutory consultees in local development control. September 2010

Written evidence from Barton Willmore (ARSS 124) 1.0 Summary 1.1 This evidence is submitted by Barton Willmore LLP, the UK’s largest planning consultancy. Within the planning profession there are a number of concerns with the abolition of RSSs: 1. The drive to achieve the step change in housebuilding will be lost—housebuilding has the potential to be an important engine of economic recovery as well as meeting fundamental social needs; 2. Urban extensions around our major cities and towns are the most likely casualties of the localism agenda—potentially having an adverse effect on economic growth and sustainable development solutions; 3. No interim procedures were put in place when the announcement of the abolition of RSSs was made— leading to significant loss of momentum in bringing forward large strategic sites. 1.2 We therefore recommend the Government to: 1. Do more than they have so far to emphasise the social and economic benefits to the Country of higher levels of housebuilding as a context for localism, and to include in their National Planning Guidance a desired level of housing for the Country as a whole; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w279

2. Clarify the detailed position on incentives and the level of housing delivery to be increased; 3. Put in place effective arrangements for cooperation between adjoining local authorities; 4. Ensure that plans continue to be evidence based—particularly with regard to the assessment of housing needs (identified by a robust and independently examined methodology); and 5. Articulate, as a matter of urgency, a set of interim arrangements that will guide the planning process through the next three or four years, based on the continuation of Local Development Frameworks in order to avoid situations in which delays in the planning system result in a shortfall in housing land and the delivery of new homes.

2.0 The Implications of the Abolition of Regional House Building Targets for Levels of Housing Development 2.1 The problem that first began to be recognised in the middle of the last decade is that we were building far too few houses. The evidence is provided by demographic projections. These provide a picture of important social trends such as the effect on household formation of an ageing population, marital breakdown, more people living alone and more people moving into the country. They are not perfect tools but they are by far the best we have available to plan for housing, and they should not be discarded lightly. 2.2 Kate Barker, in her 2004 report on housing, first drew attention to the underprovision of housing, and the drag it was having on the economy because of the resulting rise in house prices. In 2006 the first Government Household Projections for England using 2001 Census data showed clearly that household formation was taking place faster than expected, at the rate of about a quarter of a million new households a year, indicating that this is the minimum level of new housebuilding that is required. 2.3 Housebuilding has not reached this sort of level for many decades. Even in the boom years of the middle of the last decade less than 200,000 houses were being built a year in England. This indicates clearly that a huge, sustained effort needed (and still needs) to be made to reach the levels of delivery required. It is our view that this needs to be led by Government, and local communities cannot be expected to respond to it without a central lead. The housebuilding industry needs to be re-energised, new forms of delivery need to be encouraged (and this is an area where we think the Government is making some positive moves) and the lessons of history suggest that a significant social housing programme also has to be a part of the strategy. 2.4 But, above all, sufficient land needs to be made available in development plans to accommodate these homes. 2.5 Regional Spatial Strategies showed what these higher levels of housebuilding might look like on the ground. In particular, they were able to look at city regions as a whole and plan for their needs across district boundaries. The resulting urban extensions, many of them in green belt, have been among the most unpopular features of RSSs. The concerns arising from the abolition of RSSs may therefore be summarised as: 1. A significant reduction in housing numbers because schemes considered unpopular by vocal residents of the immediate neighbourhood will be abandoned (this is already happening) to the disadvantage of those in the wider community that will benefit from new housing; 2. Those reductions impacting most significantly on areas of economic growth, because authorities are unwilling to meet the needs of neighbouring authorities, thus jeopardising economic growth; and 3. By abandoning regional targets the Government has limited the ability to identify the extent to which individual planning decisions contribute to addressing a national problem of underprovision. 2.6 We believe that a National guideline figure should remain for housebuilding as an acknowledgement of the problem, and an easily understood signal to the public in local areas of the scale of the problem to be addressed. A national target is a far cry from prescribing a target for each individual local authority, which was one of the most unpopular features of the Regional Spatial Strategies. We do believe it is important to have a guideline figure for national output in the National Planning Guidance we have been promised. This will be a benchmark against which the Government’s proposed incentives can be measured. Having Ministers simply saying that they aim to build more houses than Labour is hardly a substitute for this. Does it mean more houses than in the boom years of 2005–08 or the recession years of 2008–10? If it is the latter then the bar is being set much too low. 2.7 The “Big Society” needs to understand the big picture now that they are entrusted with decisions on the future of housing in their area and, cumulatively, for the Nation as a whole. Rarely do objectors recognise the need to build more affordable homes, and certainly not in their back yards. 2.8 The importance of this to the Nation cannot be underestimated. In social terms, there were 1.8 million families on waiting lists for affordable housing at April 2008. That’s one household in eight. The lists began to grow more rapidly in 2002, when they stood at 1.1 million (this predates the introduction of open waiting lists in 2003), and have been growing at the same rate ever since (Local Authority Housing Statistics, England 2007–08, Chart 2 and Table 2) (Appendix A). The average age of a first time buyer, not getting financial help, is now 37 years. Housing is one of the greatest sources of unfairness in our society today. We have a population divided into “haves”—largely older households who bought their houses some years ago and have benefitted from the rise in house prices—and the “have nots”—largely younger households on lower incomes who cannot cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w280 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

afford to buy a house at today’s prices. This has to some extent always been the case but is becoming increasingly worse. 2.9 The housing shortage also has important implications for the economy. First, private sector housebuilding can be an important engine of economic recovery. This does not just extend to the construction industry itself but to all the suppliers who benefit from people moving to a new house. The Home Builders Federation estimates that each house built creates 1.5 jobs. Second, encouraging private housebuilders ties in completely with the Government’s stated aim of rebalancing the economy in favour of the private sector. Third, it is important that there is a plentiful supply of houses in places where jobs are created—and this is one of the biggest worries about the messages that are coming out of the Government. 2.10 Our major cities are the driving engines of job creation. A Report by the Centre for Cities in June (Private Sector Cities: A New Geography of Opportunity) (Appendix B) showed that the largest numbers of private sector jobs created in the ten years from 1998 to 2008 (outside London which far outstrips any of the others) were in a number of large and medium sized cities—Bristol, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Milton Keynes, Portsmouth, Brighton, Preston and Reading. Creation of private sector jobs is key to the Government’s plans for economic recovery. But Private Sector Cities shows that in the recent past the picture is one of relatively limited population growth in economically buoyant areas. Restricting the physical expansion of buoyant cities restricts economic growth and job creation. It also limits people’s mobility, making it more difficult for them to access jobs in high growth areas because housing costs are too high (p20). In the current recession we cannot afford to jeopardise growth in this way. 2.11 Evidence that we submitted to the South West Regional Spatial Strategy EIP illustrates the point (Appendix C). Economic forecasts for the Region indicated job growth of between 365,000 and 465,000 between 2006 and 2026. The level of housing growth proposed in the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (which might relate to so called “Option 1” figures) would equate to an increase in workers of 149,000. Even allowing for reduced expectations of job growth due to the recession there is still a significant mismatch. The job growth forecasts allowed for significant improvements in productivity. With many authorities now reverting to Draft RSS levels of housing it can be seen how this could adversely affect job growth. 2.12 We think that this is what is in danger of happening, as the following examples show. Leeds was one of the first authorities to signal its intention not to adopt RSS housebuilding provision. It has resolved to revert to Draft RSS housing numbers of 2260 dwellings per year, compared with 4300 a year in the adopted RSS, a reduction of 40,800 houses over what would have been the lifetime of the RSS. Many of our large cities are constrained by administrative boundaries, such that the only areas for expansion are in neighbouring authorities. Bristol is a good example of this. Authorities around Bristol have all abandoned or reduced the size of urban extensions proposed in the RSS, amounting to the loss of 27,500 houses from the 87,000 planned in the RSS Proposed Changes. Cities such as Newcastle, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Hull, Sheffield are all tightly constrained also. 2.13 The Government has also stated its desire to rebalance the economy geographically, but this has been tried before and failed. At best it will take some time to achieve. In the meantime recovery from the recession needs to take priority and concentrating on the areas with a proven track record in job creation should be pursued. 2.14 We would single out three things that we think need to happen. 2.15 First, the most pressing issue is for the Government to put in place some clear interim guidance. The failure to do so has created a huge amount of uncertainty, and consequently inactivity, among local planning authorities and the development industry. The importance of this becomes clear when the likely timetable for implementing the proposed new local plan system, trailed in Open Source Planning, is examined. The Government has announced its intention to introduce the Localism Bill in November 2010 and have it enacted in November 2011, presumably to become effective from April 2012. However, looking at the sheer scope of the Bill, this timetable will be challenging. It is usual for regulations to have to follow before a new system is introduced. Councils will then need to move across to the new system, and in the case of local development frameworks this was not a rapid process. For the next three or four years at least, interim arrangements will be needed. These interim arrangements will need to be based on the local development framework system. 2.16 Second, we believe that it is important that LDFs should continue to be evidence based. Housing requirements should be assessed on “the provision of good data by the local planning authority to the electors in the neighbourhoods” (Open Source Planning p8) the principles of which should be as in PPS3 paragraph 33 (appendix D). This includes having regard to the Government’s latest published household projections and the needs of the regional economy, having regard to economic growth forecasts. If this is to have any meaning, there must be tough national guidance on the type of robust methodology required to identify a target and this must be independently examined. Like the Select Committee’s role in calling ministers to account, the Planning Inspectorate should have a role to play in ensuring Local Authority decisions are based on a robust evidence base. 2.17 Third, plans need to be based on cooperation between authorities where issues of common concern arise. In some cases authorities may need to cooperate with more than one group of authorities. We will examine this in more detail below. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w281

3.0 The Likely Effectiveness of Incentives 3.1 We are pleased that the Government has now confirmed its plan for incentives to local authorities in the form of the New Homes Bonus Scheme. This is a key part of the package they are proposing, which would otherwise have the appearance of a NIMBY’s Charter. In principle, we welcome the Government’s attempt to, in effect, change the politics of housing to try to garner support for development from local communities which is often lacking at the moment. However, the Minister’s letter to Council Leaders of 9 August was worryingly short on detail. Three questions arise. First, is the incentive enough? Second, is it affordable? Third, will the Government actively support the benefits of housebuilding? 3.2 It is understood that the incentive scheme will be financed from existing local authority grants, which, themselves may be expected to fall significantly, though the money from the Housing and Planning Delivery Grant will be added to the pot. Thus, there will be a fairly strong incentive for local councils to build houses as it will be possibly the only way of generating additional revenue, which they will badly need. The Minster’s letter of 9 August gives Councils the choice of using extra money to improve or maintain services or to avoid council tax rises. In practice, we believe that councils will tend to opt for spending on services, partly because they will be under heavy pressure to maintain spending and partly because the benefit to individual council tax payers may be quite small. 3.3 It is also understood that the money will only be paid to district or unitary authorities. This begs the question of how the precepting authorities will react to this—county councils where they exist, town and parish councils and police authorities. The county council precept is usually a very significant proportion of the Council tax bill. Increases in this could nullify any benefit to the district of council tax reductions. 3.4 Finally, there is the concern that, because there is a finite, and declining, amount of money available, the Government will end up giving with one hand and taking away with the other, thus nullifying the effect of the New Homes Bonus. The Chartered Institute of Housing has already warned that the Bonus scheme could cost over £1 billion by Year six and may need to be capped. The reality is that all authorities will build some houses, probably quite a lot of houses, the concern being that they will not build as many as are needed rather than that they will not build any at all. John Healy talks about “robbing Peterborough to pay Poole” but the reality may be that it will be “Poole that is robbed to pay Poole” because the residual left after top-slicing is so reduced. If this happens the effect of the New Homes Bonus may be significantly reduced. 3.5 We hope that the incentive scheme works, because localism will not deliver more homes without it, but we have misgivings about whether it will for the reasons set out above. More details are needed about how it will work before a full assessment of its effectiveness can be made. 3.6 We also think that, in parallel with the incentives scheme, Ministers need to sell the virtues of housebuilding more. We feel that mixed messages have emerged so far. The Minister for Housing has expressed himself in favour of more housebuilding on a number of occasions, and this is welcome, but he needs to say more about why it is a good thing. The Secretary of State’s pronouncements, particularly about protection of green belt, do cause concern, as this is where sustainable urban extensions to many cities need to take place.

4.0 Arrangements to Ensure Cooperation Between Authorities 4.1 We have said above that cooperation is important. We welcome the Secretary of State’s acknowledgement in a letter to the President of the RTPI that “’Larger than local’ is important to us” (Appendix E). Open Source Planning indicates that legislation will include a duty to cooperate (p10). This applies to all adjoining authorities, but we expect that in practice groupings will emerge related to counties or city regions, many of whom cooperate already through partnership arrangements and local area agreements. Councils will also continue to pool resources to provide services jointly in a bid to save money. 4.2 In respect of the matters listed by the Committee in the first bullet point (waste, minerals, flooding, natural environment, renewable energy, etc) we believe that authorities can and do cooperate, and we have few concerns about their ability to do this. 4.3 We do have concerns about the effectiveness of any cooperation regarding housing and economic development, particularly in city region situations where the core city is constrained by administrative boundaries and its development needs need to be met in other districts. Here, we think that there will be resistance by the surrounding councils to urban extensions in their districts, and generally the core city authority will defer to these sentiments, particularly if they are under the same political control. 4.4 We can only see a role for Local Enterprise Partnerships in planning if the constituent councils want them to undertake it. This might be an expedient to save money, but may lead to clumsy operation if each constituent authority wants to approve key decisions individually. Another possibility is that groupings that could form if Place Based Budgeting is introduced could also carry out strategic planning functions. 4.5 Pooling resources seems to be the only way that joint intelligence will be procured. We see little need to pool information and intelligence at a regional level if there is no regional strategy. The need will be at the sub-regional level—the county and city region groupings we have referred to above. Local Enterprise Partnerships are well placed to undertake this work providing their budgets allow. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w282 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

5.0 Conclusion 5.1 There are a lot of concerns about the way the new system will operate, which have been exacerbated by the failure of Ministers to announce transitional arrangements. We therefore welcome the Select Committee’s interest in these matters and hope that these comments will assist the work of both the Committee and Government. September 2010

Written evidence from the London Gypsy and Traveller Unit (ARSS 125) Summary — There is a significant unmet need for pitches for Gypsies and Travellers. — The response to this need must to be driven by central or regional policy, because of local opposition founded on prejudice and misconceptions. — Arguments for lower targets have been founded on special pleading, not “local knowledge”. — Without a supra-local lead there will be a reduction in the stock of pitches. — Any likely level of financial incentives will have an insignificant impact on the supply of pitches. Other forms of national/regional promotion are important. — The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments (GTAAs) are an invaluable evidence base for future policy in this area. The Government’s invitation to local authorities to disregard them is a waste of resources, an abdication of evidence-based planning and a capitulation to local barriers to inclusion.

There is a Significant Unmet Need for Pitches for Gypsies and Travellers This is evidenced by the full set of Gypsy and Traveller Needs Assessments. These were large scale studies conducted throughout the UK and adopted at the level of RSSs and the London Plan. The seriousness of this need is confirmed in reports by CRE and the Rowntree foundation as well as numerous local studies, including the response by the Gypsy and Traveller Community and others to the Draft Replacement London Plan. These showed a need for 800 additional pitches in London over 10 years. In his recently published alteration to the London Plan the Mayor has disowned all responsibility for a response to this need. Following the Government’s revocation of RSS, the Mayor chose to lobby for a greater regional role in areas such as housing finance and to retain all London Plan targets EXCEPT that for Gypsies and Travellers.

The Response to this Need Must be Driven by Central or Regional Policy, because of Local Opposition that is Driven by Prejudice and Preconceptions. Localism and the abolition of RSS will be a severe blow to this most disadvantaged social group. “Policy initiatives and political systems that are designed to promote inclusion and equality frequently exclude Gypsies and Travellers. This includes political structures and community development.” [Cemlyn et al 2009] Rather than promoting inclusion, “localism” will too often mean that the tyranny of the local majority [JS Mill 1859] exacerbates the exclusion of Gypsies and Travellers. There is a substantial body of research [for example, see Cemlyn et al 2009 and CRE 2006] that gives evidence of the prejudice confronting Gypsy and Traveller communities. We give just one example, from the Good Practice Guidance of the Royal Town Planning Institute: “Development management planners are often under pressure to consider racially motivated and discriminatory views and representations relating to Gypsy and Traveller communities. The incidence and adverse effects of such representations have not necessarily received the systematic attention of those working to eliminate discrimination. There are still circumstances where politicians, practitioners and members of the public apparently consider openly biased, discriminatory and unfounded remarks about Gypsies or Travellers as individuals or communities to be somehow legitimate or acceptable, in circumstances where similar remarks made about other black or ethnic minority communities would be immediately recognised as discriminatory and unacceptable.” [RTPI 2007] Only a small minority of London Boroughs has shown itself willing to stand up to local pressures in the name of tackling the disadvantage suffered by Gypsies and Travellers.

Arguments for Lower Targets have been Founded on Special Pleading, not “Local Knowledge”149 Special pleading will lead to an inconsistent set of targets which has no basis in the reality of local circumstances but is the worst kind of post-code lottery. 149 All these points draw on the Boroughs’ representations to the London Plan Enquiry. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w283

Bexley LB steadfastly refuses to recognise any need in spite of evidence to the contrary. Bromley LB contends that its high current pitch provision should reduce its target, while Barnet LB and Westminster LB argue that their lack of sites should reduce theirs. Barnet LB, with its low housing density, argues that too much weight is given to land availability, while high-density Tower Hamlets LB reasons that too little weight is given to its tight land supply. Other Boroughs make similar points and it is clear that, without regional targets, most Boroughs will have little trouble justifying a set of inconsistent but politically easy local targets that continue to ignore the needs of Gypsies and Travellers. Equity between boroughs pre-supposes a supra local authority. Here Haringey LB complains that “It is not clear why Haringey is allocated more additional pitches than some of our neighbouring boroughs” and Greenwich reasons that the amount built in a Borough should “make up” for where pitches have been lost over the last decade. Only after pitches have been added to the “shortfall” boroughs should the remaining pitches need be redistributed across all the Boroughs. It is this approach which will bring equity to the distribution.”

Without such a Supra-Local Lead there will be a Reduction in the Stock of Pitches Over the last ten years, before Gypsy and Traveller planning policy was up and running, the following London Boroughs closed Gypsy and Travellers sites [LGTU 2010] in spite of evident need: –18 Enfield Montague Rd 2000 –15 Harrow Watling Farm Close, 1999 –12 Haringey Wood Green Common 2004 –11 Lewisham Thurston Rd 2006 –10 Hillingdon Colne Park 1998 –8 Hackney Rendlesham Road 1997–2004 –5 Bexley Powerscroft 2002 –4 Bark & Dag Eastbrookend 2003 –3 Camden Dalby St 2005 –2 Newham Clays Lane 2003 +3 Hounslow Hartlands 2004 +8 Brent Lynton Close 1999 There is a trend of pitch closures which is very long term and will continue with the presently proposed policy. In spite of significant population growth, the number of Gypsy and Traveller pitches in London has fallen by 15% in the last 10 years from 600 to 500. The evidence is that a significant reduction in future pitch numbers will follow the new policy’s dampening of new development, driving London’s pitch total down towards 400 over the next five years. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w284 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Gypsies and Travellers Authorised pitches in London

pitch 700 numbers 600

500

400

300

200

100

0 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 year Total (including private sites) Social pitches Cumulative effect of closures Forecasts

Any Likely Level of Financial Incentives will have an Insignificant Impact on the Supply of Pitches. Other Forms of National/Regional Promotion are Important There is no direct evidence of the effects of incentives on development. However it is evident to any with a working knowledge of the policy area in London that financial incentives alone will have no significant effect on the development of Gypsy and Traveller sites. Much more effective will be positive engagement at the London/Regional/national level through: — The promotion of the many existing sites that are good neighbours and where the local community includes sites residents. — Building on HCA encouragement of innovative low cost solutions. — Disseminating good practice such as Croydon’s development in full consultation with site residents showing exceptional value for money; and Mendip DC’s use of Community Land Trusts in the development of pitches. — Studies to identify land for further sites should be brought forward, and planning for development begun as land is identified. — Working towards identifying or creating Registered Social Landlords willing to develop sites.

The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments (GTAAs) are an invaluable evidence base for future policy in this area. The Government’s invitation to local authorities to disregard them is a waste of resources, an abdication of evidence-based planning and a capitulation to local barriers to inclusion A full set of Gypsy and Traveller Needs Assessments was conducted during the last six years which were examined and adopted at the regional level. The London Assessment conducted by Fordhams Research with support from the Greater London Authority [GLA 2009]. It was a robust and useful study [LGTU 2010a] with, we understand, a budget of approximately £120,000.

In the latest alteration to the Plan the Mayor states150 “Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments (GTAAs) have been undertaken by all local authorities and if local authorities decide to review the levels of provision these assessments will form a good starting point. However, local authorities are not bound by them”. [GLA 2010a] 150 In this he follows DCLG 2010, para 14. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w285

All the indications are that, in London, the work of the assessment will not be taken forward as a part of the recurrent housing needs assessment in spite of its quality and significance as a data source. In London, a minimum of £120,000 will have been wasted. This does not include all the officer time involved. In other areas there have been examinations into the assessments and policies which have added significantly to the quality, coherence and consistency of the results. The waste to the nation of disregarding these assessments and examinations will be in the millions of pounds. The DCLG [2010a] now specifies that “Local councils are best placed to assess the needs of travellers. The abolition of Regional Strategies means that local authorities will be responsible for determining the right level of site provision, reflecting local need and historic demand, and for bringing forward land in DPDs.” In London, it is clear that this alternative to the GTAA will be a travesty of evidence-based planning. September 2010

References Cemlyyn C, Greenfields M, Burnett S, Matthews Z, Whitwell C. Inequalities experienced by Gypsy and Traveller Communities: A review. Research Report 12 EHRC [March 2009] http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/Documents/ Inequalities%20experienced%20by%20Gypsy%20and%20Traveller%20communites%20-%20a%20review.pdf CRE 2006: Commission for Racial Equality. Common Ground—Equality, good relations and sites for Gypsies and Irish Travellers, CRE

DCLG (2010) Letter from the Chief Planning Officer to Local Authorities (6 July 2010) GLA. (2009). Consultation draft replacement London Plan GLA (2010a). Minor alterations to the consultation draft replacement London Plan Gypsies and Travellers (including travelling show people) and Aggregates LGTU (2010a): London Gypsy and Traveller Unit. (May 2010) Objection to he London Plan consultation draft replacement and the Minor Alteration—Policy 3.9 Gypsies and Travellers Mill JS. (1859). On Liberty RTPI. (2007). Royal Town Planning Institute Good Practice Note 4: Part C: Accommodation and Site Delivery

Written evidence from Magdalen Development Company and Kennet Properties Ltd (ARSS 126) This submission is made on behalf of the Magdalen Development Company and Kennet Properties Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of Thames Water), which have jointly promoted a sustainable urban extension for some 4,000 new homes on the southern edge of Oxford City—referred to as the South Oxford Strategic Development Area (SDA). Located immediately adjacent to Oxford City, although located in the administrative area of South Oxfordshire District, the Strategic Development Area was identified as a specific policy commitment in the now revoked South East Plan as one of seven SDAs across the region. The SDA was identified as part of the spatial strategy for the Oxfordshire sub-region in order to provide a new supply of much needed housing in the area to address the acute issue of affordability locally and to reduce the severe congestion caused by in- commuting to Oxford due to the imbalance of jobs and homes in the city. Through their promotion of the urban extension, Magdalen and Kennet Properties therefore have an important perspective on the questions posed by the Inquiry.

Summary 1. Abolition of Regional House Building Targets — revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) has had the effect of stalling the preparation of local development plans that will inevitably now impact on the supply of land for housing in the Country; — as an example, a current shortfall in housing delivery in Oxfordshire will be compounded, maintaining the current affordability gap, delaying economic recovery and prolonging unsustainable patterns of commuting within the county.

2. Effectiveness of New Homes Bonus — there has been no evidence yet that the new homes bonus will be “powerful” or that it will give “direct and substantial benefit” as promised in the Parliamentary Statement of 6 July 2010; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w286 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— the revocation of RSS has removed the ability for housing delivery to be co-ordinated so that it avoids the most sensitive locations within a Housing Market Area, with individual authorities now having to meet all of their housing needs within their boundaries the bonus may lead to pressure for development to be located in environmentally sensitive locations; — despite the letter from Grant Shapps dated 9 August and the content of the 6 July statement, it is becoming apparent that there is a trend towards local authorities reducing their projected housing requirements, contrary to the evidence of need for both open market and affordable housing; — this trend appears to demonstrate that the local political imperative to reduce the scale of new housebuilding due to local objection may override the intended effect of the new homes bonus to incentivise local authorities to plan for more homes; — taking account of due process authorities are unlikely to be able to realise significant benefits from the bonus much before 2013; — a flat rate bonus may not incentivise authorities who’s Council Tax charges are low; and — there is a risk that prosperous authorities will opt to set low housing targets and forgo revenue from the bonus. Mechanisms should be put in place to avoid this happening.

3. Arrangements for Appropriate Co-operation — there should be a means of addressing both the scale and location of housebuilding at a more strategic level than just the administrative area of the local planning authority; — this is particularly the case where main urban area’s are constrained by their administrative boundary and expansion is therefore in the control of the adjoining authority; and — co-ordination provided at a sub-regional level would better reflect economic and housing delivery market areas, allowing for these important interlinking factors to be addressed coherently.

4. Duty to Co-operate Potential for Local Enterprise Partnerships to Fulfil a Planning Function — a duty of co-operation is to be welcomed and preferably should be a requirement of primary legislation; — Local Economic Partnerships (LEP’s) have the potential to assist with managing debate between authorities, and helping individual authorities to perform their functions, but to be effective business organisations will need to work alongside planning and policy making bodies; and — It would be sensible for LEP’s powers to extend to policy setting and plan-making.

5. Utilisation of data and research collated by Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards — the evidence base that has informed the now abolished RSS is comprehensive and in many cases has been tested thorough independent examination; — it would be counter productive not to make available to plan making bodies the Leaders’ Boards data and research, particularly that submitted as part of the RSS examinations in public; and — data and research would be best reviewed through the ongoing Local Development Framework processes.

1. Implications of abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development The primary objective for any system of development plans is for it to deliver more sustainable patterns of development. To achieve this objective the development plan system has traditionally involved two levels of plan-making; one strategic and one local. In order to achieve the strategic function we have had in the past both non-statutory regional planning guidance (RPG) and Structure Plans, which were part of the statutory development plan. In that context the need for strategic and local plan-making has long been understood by the public who have engaged in that process. Revocation of RSS on 6 July has removed from the system the strategic level of plan-making without provision being made for any replacement in this function. This has led to uncertainty as to the appropriate process and objectives for the local level of plan making. The void in the plan-making system has given rise to incidences of Council’s withdrawing their Core Strategies (South Oxfordshire and Aylesbury Vale for example). Withdrawal of Core Strategies is particularly concerning in planning authority areas where there is no up to date development plan. This is because with no Core Strategy or saved Local Plan policies, there is no basis for the assessment of planning applications. Where there are saved Local Plan policies these are often outdated, and may not therefore address issues that have gained importance in recent years, for example energy conservation and affordable housing. Policy uncertainty has also led to unwillingness on behalf of LPAs to make decisions to grant planning permission for large sites for housing and other forms of development. This will impact on housing delivery in the next five year period, leading to fewer housing completions. On current trends it seems that the cumulative shortfall in housing completions will worsen, as indicated by research conducted by Savills151 which shows that there could be a shortfall of more than one million homes by 2016. 151 Savills, residential Property Focus, May 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w287

The policy uncertainty does not only impact on the immediate supply of land for development, but also the longer term projects that are necessary to maintain the 15-year supply of housing land. There are decisions being made now by local planning authorities to delete proposals for Strategic Development Areas, even where these represent the most sustainable option for development in that area. In the last two weeks we have seen local authorities in Aylesbury and Milton Keynes overturn proposals for strategic releases of land adjoining Milton Keynes. Equally, the South Oxford Strategic Development Area, which was identified as a location for 4,000 new homes as part of a sustainable urban extension to Oxford City152 will now not proceed. The implications of this in Oxford are the inability for housing completions to match household formation/housing need. Oxford City Council’s Housing Provision Background Paper153 illustrates the point confirming that: “As in many other urban areas across the region, projected housing need in Oxford exceeds current supply and targets but in Oxford, housing land availability is the ultimate constraining factor.”

The affect of the revocation of RSS in Oxfordshire is the perpetuation of the “Country Towns” strategy, which diverts housing requirements away from Oxford City towards Banbury, Bicester, Witney and Didcot despite the fact that Oxford is the principal focus of jobs in the County. It was demonstrated through the RSS examination process that in recent decades this has been the cause of a widening affordability gap at Oxford and unsustainable patterns of development caused by the separation of homes from where people work, which in turn, has led to unsustainably long commuting journeys.

2. The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long term supply of housing

The Coalition has given a commitment to “…provide local authorities with real incentives to build new homes.” via their Parliamentary Statement of 6 July. In the intervening months, however, clarification of exactly what form the promised “powerful incentives” that will “give direct and substantial benefit” will take has not bee provided. Understandably, given uncertainty about the form of the “new homes bonus”, it has yet to be a factor in decision making by local planning authorities. Furthermore, it is uncertain what affect financial incentives might have on the delivery of sustainable patterns of development. There are local authority areas in which it is undesirable to increase the number of homes to be built because of their environmental sensitivity. The RSS process allowed for a balance to be struck across Housing Market Areas (HMA), such that environmental constraints that limit levels of housebuilding in one part of an HMA could be off-set by increased levels of planned housebuilding elsewhere in the HMA. The overall effect of this strategic level of plan-making was therefore to achieve a balance across the HMA. However, it does not appear that a process by which such balancing of environmental and market factors can be achieved will be put in place. Research carried out by Roger Tym and Partners indicates that 51% of planning authorities intend to change their housing targets.154 Since July it has been increasingly apparent that the trend will be for authorities to reduce their overall target rather than seek to increase it (West Oxfordshire District Council and Aylesbury Vale District for example). It seems therefore that the local political imperative, in response to local objection, may lead to a reduction in the scale of new house building and that the new homes bonus may not therefore be effective in overriding this. Even when the final form of the bonus is known, which as we understand it will be in the spring of 2011, planning authorities will need time to develop effective housing strategies and carry these through the development plan process. Due to the need for consultation and scrutiny by public examination this process is likely to take several years. This would suggest that planning authorities may not be able to realise a significant uplift in the delivery of land for housing until much before 2013.

There will need to be careful consideration of how the bonus is to be structured. A flat rate applied across the whole country is unlikely to be effective as authorities that do not levy significant levels of Council Tax will not benefit to the same degree as authorities that levy higher levels of tax. It will also be important to define who exactly will benefit from the bonus, particularly in two tier authorities where it is likely to have to be split in some way between County and District. Furthermore, issues could arise where development takes place on the edge of an urban area, but is actually located in an adjoining local authority area. This would have been the case with the South Oxford SDA, which was an urban extension of Oxford City that was wholly located in South Oxfordshire District. Given that most of the services provided to the urban extension would have been provided by Oxford City, a proportion of the funds generated from the scheme via the new homes bonus would logically go to the City Council. In such circumstances, the proportion of the new homes bonus that goes to each local authority will need to be the subject of an agreement that is set at the start of the planning process. 152 Government Office for the South East, The South East Plan, May 2009, Policy’s CO1, CO3, CO4. 153 Oxford City Council, Housing Provision Background Paper, 20 August 2010. 154 Roger Tym and Partners, Local Authority Response to Localism, August 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w288 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Finally, there is the question of whether all planning authorities will choose to pursue the bonus. In those authorities where levels of prosperity are already high, in the South East of England for example, there is the potential for authorities that do not need to secure funding via the bonus, forgoing the bonus and instead opting to build fewer houses. To avoid this it would be prudent for mechanisms to be put in place that will ensure delivery of the minimum number of residential units required to meet forecast needs. To be robust, it would be best for these minimum targets to be the subject of independent scrutiny including public examination. Therefore, unless the homes bonus scheme is truly a powerful incentive that provides direct and substantial benefits across all authorities, and is coupled with mechanisms to prevent “opting out”, there is a reasonable prospect that it will not be effective in securing increased housing delivery as is intended.

3. The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy, etc) Planning is not a function that can be handled solely at the local level. Planning issues are wide-ranging and often have impacts that extend beyond individual administrative boundaries, for example minerals and waste, flooding/drainage and renewable energy. At the strategic level there needs to be a means for managing debate between local authorities over the scale and general location of development. If planning authorities act without regard to strategic and cross boundary issues it will not be possible for effective strategic policies and development strategy’s to be formulated and implemented. An important consideration is therefore for the creation of a mechanism that will secure co-operation between authorities, via formal arrangements for strategic plan making. An example of where co-operation between authorities will be particularly important, as referred to above, is where the expansion of an urban area into an adjoining planning authority’s administrative area represents the most sustainable solution. The former South East Plan provided a framework for this, and put in place appropriate mechanisms for co-operative working. The abolition of the RSS has however left a void in the policy framework that is yet to be filled. Oxford’s administrative boundary is tightly drawn around the urban area, limiting development options. The constrained nature of the City in policy, geographic and heritage terms means that developable land within City limits is a finite resource. As a consequence high levels of housing need, very poor levels of affordability and constrained economic activity prevail. Through the formulation of the South East Plan it was determined that an opportunity existed to address the issues faced by Oxford through an urban extension to the south of the City, on land within the administrative boundary of South Oxfordshire District. Policy CO4 of the South East Plan confirmed that exceptional circumstances existed to justify a review of the Green Belt boundary in this location in order to accommodate some 4,000 new homes as part of a sustainable mixed use urban extension. Paragraph 22.20 of the South East Plan directed that the review of the Green Belt boundary to accommodate the SOSDA and subsequent plan making should be carried out collaboratively by South Oxfordshire District Council and Oxford City Council to a timetable and in a form to be agreed with the Government Office for the South East. Whilst the South East Plan was the subject of legal challenges and has subsequently been revoked, the need for additional housing to meet the needs of Oxford City remains. At some point in the future the debate about whether, and in which direction, the City should expand will need to be re-opened. If at that point it is again considered that an urban extension represents the most sustainable solution for Oxford, the absence a mechanism to plan for that and ensure appropriate co-operation between authorities will become a barrier to delivery. The efforts of individual planning authorities should therefore be co-ordinated if the objective of sustainable planning is to be achieved. In the absence of Regions, this either needs to be co-ordinated at a County level or some other sub-regional level that reflects economic and housing delivery market areas. In the latter, it would seem that Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) could have a role to play. We comment further in relation to the role of LEP’s in our response to question 4 below.

4. The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co- operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function A duty of cooperation is to be welcomed and to be robust it would be wise for this to be a requirement of primary legislation. If the duty is not limited to cross-boundary consultation, but also extends to policy setting and plan making where this is required to achieve the most sustainable solution, that would be advantageous. LEP’s have the potential to assist with this process. In Oxfordshire the County Council and surrounding Oxfordshire District’s have submitted a bid to DCLG to form the “Oxfordshire City Region Local Enterprise Partnership”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w289

The strengths of Oxford’s economy are in its world-class entrepreneurial universities and hospitals; internationally known research base; high quality environment and “brand”; cluster of biomedical and science- based industries, with a good supply of research and development premises and local support network; and highly skilled workforce. Growth in the health sector in Oxford over recent years has been greater than in comparable cities in the UK. Oxford’s growth reflects high levels of Government spending in general and its role as a centre for medical excellence and concentration of medical research and specialist facilities. Financial services and tourism have also grown. Manufacturing also remains important, principally at the BMW (mini) plant at Cowley155. As such, Oxford makes a significant contribution towards the prosperity of the South East. To ensure continuing economic success, key sectors of the economy must be nurtured and developed. This cannot however happen where a shortage of housing and disproportionally high house prices act as barriers to relocation of businesses to the City or the recruitment and retention of staff by businesses already located in Oxford. The Oxfordshire City Region LEP may well have a role to play in delivering the managed growth of Oxford City. However, to achieve this, the Partnership would be best structured so that businesses can work alongside policy making bodies such as County and District Councils. This would ensure that LEP’s will have the vision and ability to formulate or implement strategic policies. The impartial oversight of work carried out by the LEP would be beneficial. In this context Government Offices could continue to fulfil the functions of providing strategic guidance and arbitration.

5. How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection for further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries Prior to the formulation of Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards, Regional Assembly’s were responsible for the formulation of Regional Strategies. In many cases evidence gathering and development of evidence bases for RSS’s took place over a period of half a decade or more, with input from relevant planning authorities, business leaders and other bodies. The evidence base informing the now abolished RSS’s and inherited by the Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards is therefore comprehensive and in many cases has been tested through independent examination. It is therefore a valuable and potentially very robust resource. Accordingly it would be counter productive not to make available to plan making bodies the Leaders’ Boards evidence. To make the transfer of information manageable and ensure that data is the most up to date, it would seem sensible for the information submitted to support the RSS examinations in public to be released. This should be reviewed, and updated as necessary, through the Local Development Framework processes already underway in most local authority areas. September 2010

Written evidence from the Landscape Institute (ARSS 127) Introduction The Landscape Institute (LI) is an educational charity and chartered body responsible for promoting the protection, conservation and enhancement of the natural and built environment for the benefit of the public. It champions sustainable, well-designed and well-managed urban and rural environments. The LI’s university accreditation and professional procedures ensure that the designers, managers and scientists who make up the landscape profession work to the highest standards. There are 6,000 professional members working across both the public and private sectors, both within the UK and elsewhere across the world. Our advocacy and education programme promotes the landscape profession as one which focuses on design, environment and community in order to inspire great places where people want to live, work and visit.

Summary Our response to the Committee inquiry largely focuses on the significant role of green infrastructure (GI) in meeting a wide range of policy objectives, and the need to plan for GI at a scale that is larger than that covered by local authorities. The abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies could have a detrimental impact: 1. The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing. We believe that sustainable supply solutions will require high standards and minimal impact from the start to ensure the widest possible acceptance of schemes by local communities. Some possible examples can be found in the Landscape Institute’s position statement on the subject of housing. 155 Oxford City Council, Oxford Core Strategy 2026, Combined Changes, September 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w290 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

2. The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by RSSs (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy). There is a grave risk of the erosion of landscape character, local distinctiveness and the functionality of the natural environment resulting from both the RSS abolition and incentivisation of local communities to build. The Landscape Institute recognises that some cross-boundary matters may well be picked up by the Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), if they are to fulfil a planning function. However, it is important to remember that it is unlikely that LEPs will the entire country, nor will they necessarily be charged with delivering on matters formerly covered by RSSs. Furthermore, there may well be instances where cooperation between LEPs is necessary. 3. The adequacy of the proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to cooperate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function. The Landscape Institute welcomes this approach. It is crucial that LEPs, if they are to fulfil a planning function, ensure that this incorporates adequate consideration of the natural environment. The natural environment, through the ecosystem services it provides, has a significant role to play in delivering economic benefits.

1. The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing 1.1 Recent research156 commissioned by the National Housing Federation found that up 85,000 planned homes have been scrapped by councils across England in the wake of the Government’s decision to axe regional house building targets. At the same time, there is a general acceptance that there is a need to increase the supply of housing.157 The Government must therefore put plans in place that respond adequately to the housing shortage issue. We believe that sustainable supply solutions will require high standards and minimal impact from the start to ensure the widest possible acceptance of schemes by local communities. Some possible examples can be found in the Landscape Institute’s position statement on the subject of housing.158 1.2 We are concerned that the proposals for incentivising communities, as promulgated by Policy Exchange in its document Making Housing Affordable, are unrealistic because: — It is unlikely that a settle of 2,000 houses could easily accommodate a further 1,000 houses without significant impact on the local environment. — It is not just areas of special value, such as AONBs and National Parks, where consideration needs to be given to impact on landscape character, local distinctiveness, place-making and functionality in terms of green infrastructure. A local planning authority’s “off-limit” zones might be quite hard to defend. — In the example cited, a developer would be handing over £2 million of their profits to the community and/or householders. — £10,000 per household is a considerable amount of money and the Landscape Institute believes it is unlikely that 2,000 existing households would all be willing to contribute such sums to community facilities such as a park, as suggested, or reach agreement on how the money should be spent. — Despite ministerial protestations to the contrary, it will be perceived as bribery. — Revenue must also be available for the management and maintenance of the facilities constructed from the incentivisation money. 1.3 The Landscape Institute has concerns that the Community Right to Build (CRtB) scheme may conflict with previously developed, non-statutory community plans such as parish plans and village design statements. It will also be crucial, in light of proposals that housing development under CRtB will take place outside of the current planning system, to ensure that adequate minimum criteria on, for example, design and sustainability are developed and enforced. 1.4 We feel it will be important to define what a community is and how it will relate to who is invited to vote in any referendum under CRtB. This will be very important in terms of fairness and transparency. For example will the referendum encompass the entire parish in which the proposed new housing development is situated, or part of the parish, for example, the householders in the village? Outlying rural households may house important community members and it will be important to gauge their views as well. In particular we feel this is the case if a parish plan exists as that will be the community aspiration, into which all the parish will have already had the opportunity to give views. 1.5 We are also concerned about the sustainability of community leadership. In our members’ experience of community leadership for projects such as parish plans, parks’ friends groups etc, there is often a reliance on one or two individuals, with little or no scope for succession planning should something happen to them. We 156 www.housing.org.uk/default.aspx?tabid=212&mid=828&ctl=Details&ArticleID=3092 157 www.communities.gov.uk/housing/about 158 Landscape Institute (2010), Making it home: the power of landscape to create good housing, Landscape Institute. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w291

recognise the CRtB proposes a corporate entity, but if the initial enthusiasm is vested in a limited number of individuals, its sustainability could be precarious. 1.6 We also know that parish councils can feel threatened by what they perceive to be groups that are not democratically elected, taking the lead in local matters, leading to tensions. This may well be the case for CRtB groups and this will need to be taken in to consideration. In our members’ experience there are often different factions even in small village communities; landowners, those who want development for the betterment of the settlement, those who do not want development at any cost. It may be difficult to reconcile such differences. We appreciate the referendum is the mechanism for deciding. However it would be resource intensive for local authorities to have to organise many of these referenda. The wording of the questions on the referenda will also be important in terms of achieving fairness and transparency; and this may be a skill not held in house by local planning authorities.

2. The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by RSSs (eg waste, minerals, flooding, the natural environment, renewable energy) 2.1 The Landscape Institute is encouraged by the content of a recent Defra publication159 which, with regards the natural environment, states that: “Some issues will require partnership working between neighbouring local authorities, because nature and its services do not align themselves neatly to administrative boundaries. For example, on water management, biodiversity and habitat protection, green infrastructure and air quality.” 2.2 Here, the Government has acknowledged that there will continue to be a need for planning at a “larger- than-local” level on matters which do not necessarily fit within the administrative boundaries of local authorities. The document goes on to add: “…on issues such as planning, food production, water, flood risk management and biodiversity, where the impacts of our decisions do not stop and start with administrative boundaries, we need to move towards more integrated, management approaches that work at the spatial scale that best addresses the challenge. These are often call “landscape-scale” approaches. At the same time, we need to start making decisions that encompass all of the multiple benefits we receive from the land, rather than just focusing on one objective at a time—an approach which is wasteful at best and at worst limits our capacity to manage real risks such as flooding and climate change” 2.3 The Landscape Institute strongly agrees with thinking expressed here and has made representations160 to Communities and Local Government previously, backing the need to plan strategically in order to minimise any adverse impacts that may arise as a result of the loss of Regional Spatial Strategies. 2.4 The Landscape Institute recognises that some cross-boundary matters may well be picked up by the Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), if they are to fulfil a planning function. However, it is important to remember that it is unlikely that LEPs will the entire country, nor will they necessarily be charged with delivering on matters formerly covered by RSSs. Furthermore, there may well be instances where cooperation between LEPs is necessary.

3. The adequacy of the proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to cooperate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function 3.1 Information relating to Government proposals that Local Enterprise Partnerships could fulfil a planning function is limited and, where it does exist, is not sufficiently detailed to allow for a thorough assessment. However, the Landscape Institute is encouraged by two resources relating to this matter. 3.2 The first, a letter from Eric Pickles and Vince Cable to local authority and business leaders, dated 29 June 2010, states that: Local Enterprise Partnerships will need to create the right environment for business and growth in their areas, by tackling issues such as: — Planning. — Housing. — Local transport. — Infrastructure priorities. — Employment and enterprise. — Transition to the low carbon economy. 3.3 It is encouraging that the Government recognise the importance of planning in creating the right environment for business and growth and the expectation that Local Enterprise Partnerships will need to pay 159 Defra (2010), An invitation to shape the nature of England: discussion document, Defra. 160 www.rtpi.org.uk/item/3937/23/5/3 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w292 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

attention to this important matter. This is particularly important given the recent abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies, which played a key role in planning at the “larger-than-local” level. 3.4 The second resource, contained within Defra’s, An invitation to shape the nature of England: discussion document (July 2010), states: “The Government is also considering ways to support Local Enterprise Partnerships, and provide an opportunity at this level to further promote the economic benefits from a healthy natural environment and all its services” 3.5 The Landscape Institute welcomes this approach. It is crucial that LEPs, if they are to fulfil a planning function, ensure that this incorporates adequate consideration of the natural environment. The natural environment, through the ecosystem services it provides, has a significant role to play in delivering economic benefits. 3.6 The Landscape Institute believes that the primary mechanism for achieving this will be through the strategic planning of green infrastructure (GI) across the geographical extent to be covered by each LEP. LEPs must recognise the true value of a multifunctional, (GI) approach in achieving economic health and sustainability of an area. The Landscape Institute has outlined previously the economic benefits of GI in its position statement161 on the subject, including: — The positive impact of green space on land and property values — The creation of settings for investment — Providing a catalyst for wider regeneration — Job creation — Tourism opportunities 3.7 These benefits, broadly outlined in the Landscape Institute’s position statement, are supported by case studies. One of these, Crewe Business Park, South Cheshire, recognised from the outset the important role of GI in delivering economic objectives. In this instance, the business park has generated £4.5 million in capital receipts and created over 2,800 jobs. Crewe Business Park has been successful in attracting major companies, with some explicitly stating that the high environmental quality played a key role in their decision making process. Furthermore, the development has acted as a catalyst for wider investment, such as the Manchester Metropolitan University South Cheshire Faculty. 3.8 The North West has also been leading on research into the economic value of GI. One report162 finds that the region’s environment generates an estimated £2.6 billion in Gross Added Value (GVA), and supports 109,000 jobs. More recently, work undertaken on behalf of the Mersey Forest found that GI investment generated, on an annual basis, a gross monetised benefit of £5.5 million163. 3.9 The Landscape Institute believes that there are significant benefits in the LEPs taking a lead in strategic GI planning in terms of delivering against their economic objectives. LEPs will, in the main, be the right size of area to be able to take strategic cross-boundary and less parochial views than one local authority area, but will still be small enough for meaningful specific spatial intentions to be spelt out in a way that is readily understood by communities and developers. 3.10 We are keen therefore that Government promotes to LEPs, as has been suggested by Defra, the important role of the natural environment, and therefore GI, in delivering economic growth. 3.11 The strategic planning of GI, within the context of LEPs, will be central to achieving this. It is therefore fortunate that some proposed LEPs already have a basis for doing just this. For example, the proposed Solent LEP, which brings together the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) and the Isle of Wight, has a GI strategy164 in place which will partially cover the LEPs geographical extent. Similarly, a GI strategy165 has already been prepared for the Leeds City Region, an area which we note has also submitted proposals to become an LEP. 3.12 Despite efforts by Government to promote the role of the natural environment or GI, the Landscape Institute anticipates that not all LEPs will view the GI approach as an important priority, nor will they have the skills to undertake or even commission this work. It is here, that CABE Space’s expertise in GI strategy formulation and CABE’s expertise in sub-regional scale spatial planning will be of particular relevance and would be a useful centre of excellence for good practice. September 2010

161 Landscape Institute (2009), Green infrastructure: connected and multifunctional landscapes, Landscape Institute, London. 162 Environment Agency (2006), Environmental Economy Report for the North West, Bridge Economics. 163 Regeneris Consulting (2009), The economic contribution of the Mersey Forest’s Objective One-funded investments, Mersey Forest. 164 www.push.gov.uk/push_gi_strategy_adopted_june_10–3.pdf 165 www.leedscityregion.gov.uk/uploadedFiles/Leaders_Board/Meetings/Item%208%20Appendix%20A%20- %20Final%20LCR%20Green%20Infrastructure%20Strategy%20V5%20with%20maps.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w293

Written evidence from Professor Colin Jones (ARSS 128) Summary Supply of housing has not kept up with demand for a generation. Top-down approach to planning of housing is a longstanding tradition. Planning policies rather than the planning system (including RSS) has shaped the housing market cycle this decade by slowing supply. Effectiveness of these planning policies is linked to house price cycles, and in the aftermath of the credit crunch are unlikely to promote a quick revival in housing supply. Given the dominance of planning policies rather than the planning system in housing supply the Regional Spatial Strategies top tier (and the subsequent delay for the localism agenda to get off the ground) is unlikely to have much short term influence on housing supply. In the longer term revisions to policies currently in the process of development will need to be substantial to improve the position.

Introduction A discussion paper published by the last government in 2007 notes that “For a generation, the supply of new homes has not kept up with rising demand.” (CLG, 2007, p5). This statement is a useful starting point for this paper as it encapsulates the housing problem of the UK. Added spice to this quote is that the level of house building in 2010 in England, three years later, is at its lowest since 1924. The paper examines the role and form of the planning system in this outcome and considers whether this is a structural issue for the system or the consequence of planning policies. The latter leads into a discussion about the relationship between planning, house building and the house price cycle. Based on these insights it then looks forward to the role of planning in the market downturn and beyond. In completing this task it also reviews the influence of planning on the UK housing market cycle and hence the economy. Before proceeding it is useful to note that the discussion paper argued that a new national drive to support more affordable housing was required and set out the then government’s plans to build three million new homes by 2020. Only around a fifth of this target was to be directly met by more social housing and at least a further tenth was to come from other forms of “affordable housing” for rent or sale. In other words the new house building would primarily be in the private sector reflecting the current tenure structure.

The Evolution of Planning Framework in UK The planning system in the UK was established in 1947 and it has followed broadly the same principles since, exhibiting a relatively high degree of continuity although the context in which it operates has changed substantially. Initially the emphasis of specific policies was aimed at solving the ills of overcrowded cities and centred on restrain urban growth and channelling new development into new and expanded towns. The overall system is comprehensive and gives local authorities the responsibility for the production of strategies for the use of land and development control. The main attributes of the system is its flexibility and discretionary nature in the granting of planning permission. Nevertheless the precise role of local/urban plans has been periodically reconfigured, partly linked to the ideological stance of the government in power. Until this summer a two tier planning system in cities had broadly been in operation in different guises since the late 1960s although not universally applicable across the UK. A key function of plans is to ensure sufficient provision of land for new development and a critical input was the assessment of local housing land requirements. The system generally has a “top down” approach to this task although the mechanisms vary in constituent parts of the country. The process has been increasingly sophisticated but essentially involves assessing a future local housing needs based on population forecasts that is then fed into assessing annual housing provision housing requirements. As the role of social housing has diminished as a result of a combination of minimal new building over two three decades and the sale of council houses to sitting tenants so the planning system has become more pivotal to housing policy (Bramley, 1997). At the beginning of the noughties the frictions this created led to reforms to replace the plan-led “predict and provide” system with a “plan, monitor and manage” approach that ostensibly encouraged planning to steer the market rather than follow it (Prescott, 2000). The changes were also bound up with a new vision for planning entitled “spatial planning”, a term adopted from continental Europe, that supposedly signalled a move from a passive to positive approach to land use planning. It is also a time that unresponsive housing supply was identified as a major housing policy challenge (Bramley, 2007). The issue partially re-emerged on the policy agenda in the context of the Sustainable Communities Plan and then more fully in an independent government review by Kate Barker (2003, 2004). This review sets out a plethora of recommendations (Barker, 2004) aimed at changing the planning system. There is a focus on the need for greater use of market indicators as a basis of providing land for future development. In particular she suggests that the traditional approach of allocating land on the basis of household cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w294 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

projections (and related needs estimates) could be improved by setting targets for planning that are based on affordability measurements. In 2006 the planning system in England was reformed to speed up the system and make it more sensitive to market pressures. The new approach was firmly in the top down tradition. Two main levels of plan were introduced: Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and Local Development Frameworks (LDF). Regional Planning Bodies took responsibility for preparing, monitoring and implementing the RSS which involved the identification of both a rolling five year supply of developable land and up to a further fifteen years of potential housing land. It was thought this system should provide market and state actors with greater certainty. This complex system of allocating land for new housing involved numerous stages and inputs. At a general level, assessments were made of housing need, and future requirements for new housing were set out. This technocratic exercise outlined in Figure 1 was based on a range of background data including projections of future numbers of households and assessments of the capacity of regions and sub-regions to provide for this additional requirement. In practice these technical processes were subject to serious criticisms as they are data driven and have a debatable theoretical basis (Jones and Watkins, 2009). The problems started with the essential building block, the definition of local housing market areas. These functional areas were often simply taken to be convenient local authority boundaries and lack credibility (Jones et al, 2010). They are also embedded within the administrative regions even though housing market areas, for example Manchester, straddle such boundaries. The result is apparent sophisticated forecasts but scratch the veneer and their reliability is questionable. Perhaps the process was more important than the results as it promoted engagement of a wide range of actors, including housebuilders, social landlords, property agents as well as community and regeneration agencies. And while it was a flawed pseudo-scientific exercise it offered a vehicle for justifying increased house building and a mechanism for the identification of land supply. Notwithstanding these criticisms these new processes took time to set up and implement and this may have contributed to a slowing of new house supply. But the answer may also lie in specific planning policies which are now considered.

Figure 1

Housing Market Areas (HMAs)

Determinaon of funconal areas for planning

Strategic Housing Land Availability Strategic Housing Market Assessments Assessments (SHLAAs) (SHMAs) Assessment of the deliverability of new Assessment of housing market condions in housing supply, including land and market HMAs, focusing on demand condions

Source: Ferrari (2008 p8)

Recent Planning Policies Spatial planning set itself extravagant goals or claims about what it can achieve. Planning Policy Statement 1 issued in 2006 for England stated that planning aims to ensure the right development, in the right place at the right time (CLG, 2006) and the planning system was also now charged with the delivery of affordable homes, establishing sustainable communities and securing local economic development. It is useful to briefly review these policies and their impact.

Provision of Affordable Housing The previous government strongly encouraged the use of “planning agreements” by local authorities that oblige private housing developers to make social contributions (a negotiable development gains tax) in return for planning permission to build (CLG, 2006b). In the noughties the government chose to expand the supply of affordable housing by using this mechanism. The use of planning agreements to provide affordable housing placed it as central core of national housing strategy. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w295

However, there have been three problems with this policy. The most fundamental was that it failed to address the conundrum of using the planning system to generate affordable housing while the affordability problem is partly created by the constraints of the planning system. Setting aside this conflict it follows that this policy of planning agreements was only likely to be applicable where there are severe planning/urban growth constraints and not a universal panacea across the country. Second, the assessment of a developer’s contribution is a complex task and planning officers do not have either these skills or sufficient negotiating skills. Partly because of this problem the processing of these agreements and hence the developments themselves became very slow and cumbersome. There are also considerable doubts about the efficacy of the system in generating funds, albeit in kind. Third, it was decided that to promote social mix the affordable housing had to be normally provided on the same site as the private housing. This last ingredient added to the complexities. A major area of friction was the persistent differences between developers and planners about the type and location of affordable housing to be built (Rowlands et al, 2006). The success of the policy is also very dependent on the buoyancy of the private housing market and new house building rates, and in the first half of the noughties the numbers of affordable housing provided in this way did increase (Crook et al, 2006). However, the success of these agreements was heavily concentrated in areas of high housing demand/value, principally London and the South East of England with very few affordable housing units provided in northern regions. Overall though the use of planning agreements dampened the upswing in house building expected with the rise in house prices and therefore contributed to exaggerating the house price cycle.

Sustainable Development Sustainable development is an overarching goal of planning yet the term is subject to interpretation. The planning profession has emphasised environmental and ecological concerns and both the government and the planning profession have placed a strong emphasis on urban design as part of sustainable development within a compact city form. This has been translated into a policy that encouraged high residential densities by following a stringent defence of the green belts surrounding the cities, a minimum recommended development density of 30 dwellings per hectare in England (since 2006, although recommendations were higher between 2000 and 2006) and the reuse of “brownfield” land. There was a target in England for building 60% of new homes on re-used urban land. The consequences of these policies were seen in a transformation in the nature of housing development over the brief period of just five years. The contribution of flats to new house building in England rose from a fifth of the total at the beginning of the 1990s to 46% by the end of the noughties. If social housing completions are added the proportion of flats increased to half in 2008–09 This move toward flats built for sale induced a major reduction in the proportions of three and four bedroom housing units built in favour of smaller units, especially two bedroom properties.

The building of so many small flats, especially in city centres, raises long term questions for the housing market and sustainability. However, in the short term this trend was facilitated by the emergence of “buy to let” private landlords on a large scale who bought up many of them. At the same time over the last decade as the house price boom increased the unaffordability of house purchase many households have had to delay home ownership and there was a growth of long term private tenants.

The combination of land constraints and planning policy had increased development densities in cities. Much of this intensification of land utilisation incorporated redevelopment of existing housing including their gardens. The recycling of residential land has rose by around 50% over the latter half of the noughties. This is emotively referred to as “garden grabbing”. This reflects both the increasing drive toward higher density across the whole of England. Regions where there are high demand pressures are consistently above the average. Looking at the local authority level statistics it is clear that the statistics reflect not just demand pressures but also the availability of gardens/residential space to redevelop.

Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies The election of the Coalition government has seen some significant changes to the planning system notably the swift abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies and their replacement with the “Localism Agenda”. As part of this new approach minimum densities for housing developments have been abolished and gardens are to be reclassified and will no longer be treated as brownfield land. New house building is to be promoted by property tax incentives to the local authority.

The reforms are still a work in progress but the top down approach to forecasting/allocating housing demand/ supply has been abolished but otherwise individual local authorities will still need to follow the existing procedures. The essential difference is that these forecasts/allocations will be undertaken at the individual local authority level although they are encouraged to work with neighbouring authorities. This will take time to be implemented and could cause delays and uncertainty to the house building industry. There are additional fears that public expenditure cutbacks will limit the necessary new infrastructure required for new housing development. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w296 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Conclusions Planning policies rather than the planning system (including RSS) has shaped the housing market cycle this decade by slowing supply. The operation of these planning policies is also dependent on a buoyant housing market but has still not delivered sufficient housing supply in a housing boom. The effectiveness of these planning policies is linked to house price cycles, and in the aftermath of the credit crunch are unlikely to promote a quick revival in housing supply. The corollary of this conclusion and the dominance of planning policies rather than the planning system is that removing the Regional Spatial Strategies top tier (and the subsequent delay for the localism agenda to get off the ground) is unlikely to have much short term influence on housing supply. In the longer term the revisions to policies currently in the process of development will need to be substantial to improve the position.

References Barker K (2003) Review of Housing supply—Interim report: Analysis. HMSO, London. Barker K (2004) Review of Housing supply: Delivering Stability—Securing Our Future Needs, final repor— recommendations. HMSO, London. Bramley G (1997) Housing Policy: a case of terminal decline? Policy and Politics, 25, 387–407. Bramley G (2007) The sudden discovery of housing supply as a key policy challenge, Housing Studies, 221–42. CLG (2006) Planning Policy Statement 1, CLG, London CLG (2007) Homes for the Future, More Affordable, More Sustainable, CLG, London. Ferrari E (2008) Do planners need to understand housing markets? Paper presented to ACSP/AESOP Conference, Chicago, June. Jones C and Watkins C (2009) Housing Markets and Planning Policy, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Jones C, Coombes M and Wang C (2010, forthcoming) Geography of Housing Market Areas, Final Report to NHPAU. Prescott J (2000) Statement on PPG 3 by the Deputy Prime Minister, DETR, London. September 2010

Written evidence from the Theatres Trust (ARSS 130) Summary — The Theatres Trust supports the abolition of regional spatial strategies (RSSs). — We believe that local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) are necessary to deliver cultural infrastructure. — We believe that the proposed local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) to be formed between local authorities and businesses would provide a planning function and are necessary as a vehicle to deliver cultural infrastructure. — The Trust supports the concept of local financing and tax raising powers to be given to local government for use by the LEP. — The development of LEPs should follow a clear pattern with stakeholders and consultation with statutory consultees such as The Theatres Trust. — We are keen to promote the adequate provision of cultural facilities, in particular theatres within the UK. — The Theatres Trust would ideally like to be partner authority in LSPs to be able to facilitate, continue and support our work in relation to the strategic planning of theatres throughout the UK.

Submission: (1) The Theatres Trust welcomes the opportunity to give evidence to The Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry into the abolition of regional spatial strategies. (2) We currently deliver our UK wide planning advice role through The Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, Article 10, Para (v) which requires the Trust to be consulted on planning applications which include “development involving any land on which there is a theatre.” This applies to all theatre buildings. (3) We encourage applicants and developers to contact us at the pre-application stage for our expert advice at the earliest possible stage to safeguard theatre use, or the potential for such use, but also on the integral design and strategic location of new theatres. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w297

(4) We note the terms of reference for the new inquiry will be mostly focusing on the implications for house building targets which are not part of The Theatres Trust’s remit. (5) As The National Advisory Public Body for Theatres, established to “promote the better protection of theatres” we aim to secure sustainable cultural infrastructure in relation to theatres within the UK through the local development plans. (6) The Theatres Trust supports the abolition of regional spatial strategies (RSSs) because as far as we are concerned in terms of their guidance for strategic cultural provision they were ineffective and inadequate. The Theatres Trust has had far more success in advocating the protection and promotion of cultural facilities at a local level with individual local planning authorities in consultation with their local theatres and theatre groups. (7) We believe it is vital to have a level of strategic planning between local councils and national government to ensure proper coordination across council boundaries for the infrastructure of cultural facilities. (8) We believe that the proposed local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) to be formed between local authorities and businesses could provide a planning function and are necessary as a vehicle to deliver cultural infrastructure. (9) We understand that LEPs will not replicate Regional Development Agencies but will look to secure the future growth in private-sector jobs and helping business start-ups. (10) The Trust sees cultural provision as an essential component towards employment and enterprise and business start-ups. Cultural industries, in particular theatre, draw on the active support of their communities. They are places where people feel part of their local community, working together and being personally rewarded whilst giving something back to their communities. They often show the way and are an example to others looking to achieve the aspirations of the “Big Society”. (11) The vision for the coalition government’s “Big Society” is one which empowers local people and communities, encouraging volunteering, community organising, and involvement in local fundraising activities. This already happens with local theatres as they strive to improve their building stock. (12) The Trust believes that there are real benefits to be gained from place-making and working in partnership. This is localism in action, with local councils and businesses preparing their own plans for improving planning and enterprise. Local enterprise partnerships will need to help generate more private sector jobs, as the public sector shrinks. (13) However, partnerships will have to have a realistic purpose and should take an active part in setting direction and achieving delivery of a business plan identifying key priorities for the LEP. Partnerships should be given powers to shape their local economy and the financial flexibilities that will allow this to happen in practice. (14) The Trust supports the concept of local financing and tax raising powers to be given to local government for use by the LEP. And that the LEP should have the ability to co-ordinate developer contributions which could be directed towards new or improved cultural facilities. (15) The Theatres Trust wishes to assist in the development of LEPs where cultural infrastructure is set as a long term economic strategy. (16) The development of LEPs should follow a clear pattern with stakeholders and consultation with statutory consultees such as The Theatres Trust. (17) As part of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health (LGPIH) Act 2007, the Government introduced a degree of coercion to the voluntary framework of local strategic partnerships (LSPs). The Act imposes new duties to consult and to cooperate. Partner authorities were expected to continue to be involved or even to lead in determining the implementation arrangements for the local area agreement (LAAs) and the monitoring of progress against targets. (18) Unfortunately, unlike other comparable stakeholders and statutory consultees such as Sport England (who we often benchmark with and share policy principles), we were not included as a partner authority. We therefore have found it difficult to participate in the strategic planning for new theatre buildings throughout the UK. (19) The Theatres Trust supports coercion provided by the voluntary framework through the “duty to cooperate” and would be happy to take on the responsibility to participate in local partnership working and LSP aims and priorities when local planning authorities are drawing up their local plans. (20) The Theatres Trust would ideally like to be partner authority to be able to facilitate, continue and support our work in relation to the strategic planning of theatre buildings throughout the UK. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w298 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from Savills Planning and Regeneration (ARSS 131) Executive Summary — Our evidence is concerned exclusively with the planning regime for renewable energy developments but is informed by our wider experience of the planning system in England. — The former RSS was valuable as a mechanism for translating and applying national renewable energy targets at local level; and for identifying those areas of greatest potential/least constraint for renewables development at a sub-regional level, regardless of local administrative boundaries. — New arrangements are necessary to ensure that these functions continue to be fulfilled in the forward planning process and to assist decision—making at the development management stage. — A regional tier is not required to achieve this. Instead, the new national planning framework should emphasise the weight in favour of renewables projects; and require LPAs to plan positively for renewables on the basis of spatially realistic research into the potential for, and constraints to, renewables in their areas. — Co-operation between LPAs should be encouraged where it is necessary in order to achieve spatially realistic evidence. — LEPs may have a useful part to play in supporting collaborative research by LPAs. — To avoid the need for LPAs to “unpick” progress already made on new-style plan coverage in their areas, the Government should be open to revisions to LDS to allow for collaboratively produced topic-based SPDs and/or AAPs for renewables to be prepared across LPA boundaries. — The Government should consider giving statutory weight to the new national planning framework.

Scope of Evidence 1. Whilst the main focus of the inquiry is on the implications of the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) for house building, the call for evidence identifies a number of other topics of interest to the Committee. These include: — Arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate co-operation between Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) on other matters formerly covered by RSS. — The suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) may fulfil a planning function. — Arrangements to ensure effective updating and collection of research on matters crossing LPA boundaries. 2. Our evidence is concerned with these issues as far as they relate to planning for renewable energy projects that fall below the 50 MW “major infrastructure” threshold.

Our Interest in the Inquiry 3. The Savills Planning and Regeneration team is one of the largest of its kind in the United Kingdom. We are actively involved in advising both private and public sector clients on planning, development and regeneration throughout the country, including dealing with many challenging and controversial proposals. 4. We have particular expertise in the renewable energy sector, once again acting for both private and public sector clients in relation to most renewable technologies, but in particular, wind energy. 5. Our evidence is informed by our experience of the planning system in England at large but is especially concerned with its role in supporting the delivery of renewable energy and the associated electricity distribution infrastructure.

The Relevance of Former RSS to Planning Decisions on Renewable Projects 6. In relation to renewable energy development the principal function of the former RSS was to establish a framework for translating national renewable energy targets to the local level. 7. A subsidiary, but important, function was also (in certain cases) to identity those broad locations with the greatest potential (or least constraint) for renewable energy developments, regardless of local administrative boundaries. 8. In other respects, whilst RSS would often contain broad spatial and development management criteria for renewable projects these policies would, in general, simply duplicate the principles embodied in national planning policy and lack the detail necessary to be applied effectively as tools in development management at a site specific level. That said, during the transition to the new local planning arrangements introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (The 2004 Act) RSS was, the most (and possibly only) up-to- date component of the statutory development plan in many areas. To have the principles of up-to-date national planning policy embodied in the statutory development plan is an advantage to effective planning decision making. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w299

Possible New Arrangements 9. There are, therefore, two principal functions of the former RSS that need to be addressed in whatever new arrangements are established: — A mechanism for translating/disseminating national renewable energy targets to a local level. — Ensuring that national planning principles are embodied in locally prepared development plan documents (DPDs). 10. We comment on each in turn.

(a) National Targets at a Local Level 11. The Coalition Agreement indicates that the Government proposes to maintain and, possibly, to increase the previous Government’s targets for renewable energy, subject to the advice of the Committee on Climate Change. 12. Although there have been indications that insofar as any increase would be related to wind energy, the majority of the increase would be in offshore rather than onshore wind, the clear implication is that onshore wind (which is of greatest relevance to the land use planning system) will be expected to provide at least as much generating capacity as was previously planned for. 13. The existing suite of national planning policies, including in particular PPS1 (and its accompanying supplement) and PPS22 (and its accompanying practice guide) embody a positive approach to renewable energy projects of all kinds, urging LPAs to adopt spatial policies (and take development management decisions) that facilitate renewable energy projects wherever their effects can be handled satisfactorily. 14. In the light of the Annual Energy Statement issued by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in July 2010, it may be anticipated that the same permissive approach will be reflected in the new national planning framework, whatever its eventual form. 15. Current national policy is that significant weight should be given to the contribution of an individual renewable energy project to meeting national targets and the draft PPS on Climate Change promulgated by the previous Government proposed that the weight in favour of renewable energy projects should be assessed in individual cases by reference to regional targets established in RSS. Neither approach envisages that targets should be viewed prescriptively, however, and there is, perhaps, a distinction to be drawn with regional housing targets in this respect. 16. Policy is cast on the basis that there is an intrinsic weight in favour of renewable projects regardless of their size, because of the contribution they will make to the aims of national policy. The relevance of national and regional targets to individual planning decisions was principally in providing a context within which the relative weight attributable to the need for renewable energy provision as part of action to combat climate change could be weighed against other important considerations, such as landscape and countryside protection policies. 17. The advantage of targets derived from regional studies over targets established at a national level is that they have typically reflected an assessment of both the energy potential and planning constraints applicable at a local (or at least at a sub-regional level). 18. Although a regional tier of policy is not necessary in order to convey the significant weight in favour of renewable projects that is embodied in current national planning policy (and implicit to the current Government’s energy strategy), there is a need to provide a mechanism of some kind through which the implications of national policy can be translated to a local level having regard to both potential for renewables in that area and the particular planning constraints that apply.

19. This is a different challenge to the one presented by, for example, meeting housing need where typically the requirements can be assessed largely (if not exclusively) at a district level. In the case of renewable energy the need is a national one and the potential contributions to meeting the need that may be made at a district level will vary considerably from place to place, according to the characteristics of different areas and of the different technologies concerned.

20. Against that background, we suggest that the following is required: — First, the national planning framework should reflect the national energy strategy and carry forward the permissive approach to renewable energy projects currently expressed in PPS1 and PPS22 giving weight to the contribution that they may be made by renewable energy projects of whatever size in achieving the national energy strategy; and requiring LPAs to plan positively for renewables in their area. — LPAs should be required to undertake realistic assessments of the potential for renewables in their area and to plan positively to achieve that potential through policies in DPDs. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w300 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

21. The latter could require collaboration between LPAs at two levels: — First, for many LPAs it will only be possible to assess the potential for renewables in their areas— and particularly for technologies such as wind energy—by considering issues that extend beyond their own administrative boundaries. The degree to which “cross border” co-operation is necessary will vary according to the size and location of the LPA concerned and there can be no “one size fits all” solution. We consider that the best incentive to LPAs to collaborate in the preparation of appropriate research as part of the evidence base for DPDs documents would be an explicit requirement to demonstrate how the spatial scope of the research that forms the evidence base properly takes into account these issues as part of the soundness testing for new DPDs. — Secondly, few LPAs will have the necessary “in house” expertise to conduct robust research and it will be logical and cost effective for adjoining LPAs to jointly commission research to inform their respective DPDs in those circumstances. That in itself would contribute to consistent policy making across local administrative boundaries. — Assisting in the collaborative preparation of robust research may be the most effective and practical contribution of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in planning for renewables and would not be dependant upon a wider statutory planning function for LEPs. 22. It is important to acknowledge the practical implications for LPAs of moving to a new planning policy structure whilst the transition to the arrangements created by the 2004 Act is still not complete. The 2004 Act envisages that DPDs will be prepared in sequence led by core strategies and culminating in subordinate development management and site allocation DPDs. Few LPAs have achieved full plan coverage in their areas and it would be desirable to avoid the need to unpick the progress that has already been made in order to weave in a new approach, since that would be likely to further delay the completion of comprehensive plan coverage and place unreasonable pressures on LPAs at a time of resource constraint. 23. For these reasons we believe that the Government should consider promoting the use of either topic- based Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) or Action Area Plans (AAPs) to deal specifically with renewable energy needs either on a district wide basis or on a shared basis across a number of co-operating LPAs; and be prepared to allow revisions to already approved Local Development Schemes (LDS) where necessary in order to accommodate this. SPDs may offer the fastest and most flexible option in most cases but may be difficult to achieve on a “cross border” basis where existing DPDs are not already well aligned. That may well be the case where adjoining districts fell within different former RSS areas for example. 24. We consider that this combination of: — Clear national policy. — Evidence base prepared with appropriate spatial scope, subject to explicit soundness testing. — Flexible plan making across district boundaries. will achieve the desirable elements offered by the former RSS, but in a manner better attuned to the needs of local areas and with the potential for faster plan preparation and review.

(b) National Policy as part of the Development Plan 25. Under the plan-led system established by the 2004 Act the development plan has primacy and national planning policy is simply one of the “other material considerations” to be taken into account by the decision maker. As we have pointed out, the former RSS was typically closely aligned with national planning policy. As part of the development plan this ensured that national planning principles were “built in” to policy making at a local level. 26. In our view it is important that national planning policy carries equal weight with local policy and so the prospect of given statutory weight to the new national planning framework ought to be considered. September 2010

Written evidence from Fairview New Homes (ARSS 134) Introduction Fairview New Homes is an established and respected house builder with more than 40 years experience developing residential, mixed use and mixed tenure sites across London and the southeast of England. Fairview New Homes work closely with local communities to deliver innovative and sustainable development solutions. In this document Fairview New Homes is submitting this evidence on its own behalf, but has also joined with a broad range of organisations engaged in the development sector (including in addition to property developers; investors, consultants and other advisors) represented by law firm Hogan Lovells International LLP. Representations jointly on behalf of Argent Group Plc, Baker Associates, CJC Development Company Ltd, The Church Commissioners for England, Crest Nicholson Limited, Fairview New Homes Limited, Gleeson Strategic Land Limited, Property Development Specialists and Welbeck Land Limited, were submitted by Hogan Lovells International LLP under separate cover dated 14 September 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w301

Fairview New Homes is able to draw on direct experience of the consequences of the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies and is well placed to reflect on over 50 years development experience when commenting the implications of the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies not only for itself but for the commercial property sector.

Summary The revocation of regional strategies has outside London created a policy vacuum resulting in uncertainty for the development industry, delay in local development frameworks being progressed, delays in planning applications being determined and some development projects being put on hold or abandoned. These uncertainties and delays are leading to a slow down in the delivery of much needed housing development thereby frustrating economic growth. The abolition of regional guidance and the housing targets in particular is being used by those opposed to development as a means of slowing down development approvals and the delivery of new housing. In the absence of guidance at a regional level, national policy (in PPS3 in particular) is absolutely vital to housing delivery. Clarity is required on how authorities should calculate housing need to achieve consistency. Some housing markets cross local authority boundaries. It is essential that a means of achieving co-operation between local authorities within a region is put in place as soon as possible. The proposed statutory “duty to co-operate” is likely to be too vague to achieve the required levels of co- operation. More certainty is required on this issue. Insufficient detail currently exists regarding the proposed incentives based system. However, financial incentives are open to abuse and are unlikely to lead to better planning. There is either a risk that local authorities will be motivated by the amount of financial gain on offer rather than ensuring that the right development is delivered in the right place meeting appropriate need, or they are not incentivised at all and utilise the opportunity presented by the abolition of the RSS to resist and/or frustrate development If incentives are to be introduced, the way in which they are distributed and applied needs to be established. Incentive funding should be used for purposes related to the development which has given rise to the incentives being paid.

The Submission This submission in turn addresses those issues raised in the Inquiry terms of reference i.e. (i) the implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development; (ii) the need to ensure cooperation between local authorities on matters formerly covered by regional plans; (iii) the likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development; and (iv) other issues.

(i) The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development Uncertainty/Delay caused by the abolition of targets Within the short term the revocation of regional strategies and the absence of any clear interim guidance has created in some places a policy vacuum resulting in severe uncertainty for the development industry. That has manifested itself in various ways, including: 1. a delay occurring in relation to the progressing of Local Development Frameworks (“LDFs”) (particularly pending announcements by the Government of further revisions to the LDF system); 2. a delay in planning applications being processed and determined and/or proposals being resisted unnecessarily; and 3. certain development projects being put on hold or even abandoned by those promoting them, particularly where due to the degree of complexity of the project planning promotion costs are disproportionately high. The uncertainty relates principally to the general policy context within which all of the above issues need to be considered. Ultimately the uncertainty/delay is leading to a slow down in the delivery of much needed housing development. There are numerous examples of Councils delaying or withdrawing their Core Strategies. The latest example is Aylesbury District Council which on 8 September was considering a recommendation to withdraw its Core Strategy from the examination process. One of the unintended consequences of the abolition of the RSS is the inability and/or unwillingness of Local Authorities to engage in meaningful pre-application dialogue with prospective developers of sites within their area. This in turn results in developers being unable to quantify/qualify investment risk, which ultimately will result in the ‘flight of capital’ from the development sector and a dramatic reduction in the supply of new housing. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w302 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

An opportunity for opponents of new housing development Supporters of the regional strategies and the housing numbers which they contained saw them as providing a means of ensuring that housing development would be delivered, particularly within those areas where local authorities and communities are resistant to additional housing development. The revocation of the regional strategies is accordingly being treated as an opportunity to slow down or even frustrate approvals for new housing development by those who are opposed to it. However, in circumstances where the "need" for new housing remains pressing no evidence base has been established to justify this approach.

Regional Differentiations It is often the case that opposition to housing development is most acute in those areas which are under greatest pressure in terms of the need to provide more housing and the scarcity of land available upon which to provide it. It is for this reason that the greatest resistance to the housing numbers set out in the regional strategies was from those local authorities and communities faced with the greatest challenges to deliver the housing numbers. In assessing the implications of the abolition of regional strategies it is therefore important to bear this distinction in mind and to appreciate that, as a result, the implications have been very different from one region to another.

(ii) The need to ensure cooperation between local authorities on matters formerly covered by regional plans Co-operation between local authorities In the absence of “overarching” planning policy at the regional level under which local authorities are obliged to pursue clear targets and objectives, the issue of co-operation between local authorities becomes absolutely fundamental. Co-operation will be essential to ensure a co-ordinated approach towards the delivery of development and essential infrastructure, which will in turn secure economic growth. These issues are particularly problematic where development and infrastructure has to be delivered across wide areas including across local authority boundaries. Until their abolition, the regional strategies acted as a framework within which the development and infrastructure required was reasonably assured. In the absence of regional strategies going forward, there should be an obligation on local authorities to put in place, by a defined time, appropriate structures to achieve a replacement framework. The proposed “duty to co-operate” has to date been expressed extremely vaguely and is likely to be inadequate. An analogy is the statutory duty contained in Section 39 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Section 39 contains a statutory duty on a person or body who exercises certain plan making functions to “exercise the function with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.” That statutory duty has been much too vague to have any meaningful effect. If it is proposed to create a similarly vague statutory duty upon local authorities generally to “co-operate” in relation to matters previously covered by regional strategies no solution will be provided. Instead, local authorities should be required to put in place structures within defined parameters and by a defined point in time in order to address the vacuum which has been created. If Local Enterprise Partnerships are to be used for that purpose, their role needs to be clearly defined. This will be particularly important where, for example, cross-boundary housing needs assessments are required. National Planning Policy will have a vital role to set the context for the new structures under which local authority co-operation will be achieved. The relationship between national and local policies will need to be clear. National policy and advice should help to clarify the way in which housing need is assessed, to ensure consistency of approach between local authorities and that Core Strategies comply with national policy.

(iii) The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development The New Homes Bonus—is the principle of incentives a good one? One of the main objectives of the planning system should be to ensure that housing is delivered on the most appropriate sites to meet the housing need which exists. A system based on incentives risks skewing the decision making process. Decisions on development projects may, under an incentives based system, be taken not on the basis of proper and balanced planning decisions in the public interest founded on planning policy, but instead on the amount of incentives and hence financial gain which would be generated if a development project is approved. Indeed, the question arises as to whether the amount of incentives which would be achieved can and should properly be a “material consideration” in the decision making process on a planning application. An incentives based approach also again raises the question of regional differentiations. It is doubtful whether a “one size fits all” approach in relation to incentives is appropriate having regard to the different pressures in different parts of the country because of the regional differentiations referred to earlier. It is entirely possible that an affluent local authority will not be sufficiently incentivised by any amount of financial incentives notwithstanding a clearly established need for more housing to be delivered within that authority, particularly in circumstances where the local electorate does not welcome more housing development. Conversely, a poorer authority may decide to approve new housing in order to procure incentives, notwithstanding that the housing cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w303

development which would trigger those incentives is of the wrong type or in the wrong place. In short, an incentives based approach is open to a range of potential abuses.

The prospect of the refusal of applications in areas where incentives are less important is a particular concern in circumstances where the Government has signalled its intention to restrict the right of appeal to the Secretary of State on planning applications. In those circumstances the “downside” for a local authority in refusing a planning application is significantly less than at present where there is a reduced risk of a decision being challenged on appeal. At the same time amending planning legislation to provide that Inspectors' reports on local development documents are no longer to be binding upon local authorities would exacerbate the problems.

How will the incentives scheme work in practice?

It is not clear how the incentive system will work in practice. Without more detail, it is impossible to predict whether the system will be effective. That the Government has so far revealed little of this detail adds to the current level of uncertainty. There are a number of specific concerns, including the following.

Funding the incentives

It appears to be the intention that the incentives will be provided from central Government funds. It is unclear, however, whether this is genuinely new and additional funding or whether it is a “re-hashing” of central Government funding which already exists. We would be surprised if, in the current economic climate, genuinely new funding is proposed.

Allocation of the incentive funds

There are important questions to be answered regarding the allocation and use of the incentive funds. At present, Council tax revenues are split between District and County Councils. Will the same apply in relation to financial incentives? If a District Council is obliged to hand over part of the incentives to a County Council, the incentive may be less attractive. On the other hand, it is arguably appropriate that County Councils should receive part of the incentives funding. The answer to this issue may differ from one area to another, again indicating the difficulty of a “one size fits all” approach.

Equally important is the question of who will decide upon the allocation of the incentive funds received and the purposes for which they may be allocated? There is a strong case to suggest that the funds should be applied towards matters which bear a relationship to the development which has generated the funding. It would seem perverse for an authority to be able to use the funding for matters completely unrelated to the development. Will the local community and the elected members be made aware of the use to which the funding is to be applied when the decision is taken to approve or refuse the relevant development? Will the decision to approve or refuse based on the incentives be led and driven by employed officers of the local planning authority or by the elected members?

All of these questions demonstrate the complexity of any system of incentives and the detailed considerations which will need to be grappled with if the proposal is to be pursued.

Alternative approaches

A number of alternative or refined approaches are possible. These include the following.

Successful housing delivery could be rewarded with priority bidding status for infrastructure funding.

Local authority performance tables could be created. Those authorities who deliver housing at an early stage to meet identified need calculated in accordance with national policy could be rewarded by enhanced incentives to recognise the benefits of early delivery.

The benefits of regional planning include providing a policy basis on which large scale and strategic development can be delivered. These benefits have been seen in London, through the successful implementation of the London Plan. London, with its elected Mayor of London, is obviously in a different category from the other regions. It would be possible to consider rolling out the London model, with the elected Mayor, to other appropriate areas in England such that a new system of regional planning can be put in place under the control of elected Mayors. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w304 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from the Chartered Institute of Housing (ARSS 135) 1. Introduction 1.1 CIH welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Select Committee’s Inquiry. CIH is the professional body for people involved in housing and communities, with a diverse and growing membership of over 22,000 people both in the public and private sectors. CIH exists to maximise the contribution that housing professionals make to the wellbeing of communities. 1.2 Many of our members are involved in the delivery of new homes for social rent, low cost homeownership and specialist supported housing. We also have members involved in the strategic housing role in local authorities, and therefore the planning system and changes to it are areas of great importance for them and the communities they serve.

2. General Comments 2.1 We strongly believe that robust strategic spatial planning above the local level is essential for strong and well-functioning places. We have made this point in a recent joint letter to the Rt Hon Eric Pickles.166 There, we stressed the need for developing new forms of inclusive strategic planning and investment, ie any form of planning (statutory or otherwise) which enables communities to express a vision for the future of an area wider than their own. We believe that taking this forward is particular urgent (given the abolishment of the RSS) in order to limit any adverse impacts that this may have on investment whilst communities consider and implement alternative approaches. 2.2 In the light of forthcoming demographic challenges, ie population increases, new household formations and an ageing population, the need for more housing development and more affordable housing in particular, is now critical (currently there are a record 4.5 million on housing waiting lists and 2.6 million in overcrowded housing). 2.3 The transition to a new planning framework must be made quickly, efficiently and with minimum disruption to maintain ongoing development. Uncertainty and confusion will put delivery of much needed housing at risk. 2.4 The new planning system needs to be one that promotes growth and development, encourages a robust strategic approach and is clearly linked to economic growth. 2.5 It appears that the proposed incentive system in itself will not necessarily deliver the right housing in the right places; it needs to be coupled with well understood evidence and strategically planned responses. 2.6 The housing needs and aspirations of the most vulnerable and marginalised groups in communities must be safeguarded in the localist approach.

3. Specific Issues 3.1 This section will now address the specific issues that the Select Committee has raised for consideration.

The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development 3.2 Housing delivery in England has not kept pace with the growth in household formation, resulting in significant shortfalls in affordable accommodation; there are already a record 4.5 million people on housing waiting lists and 2.6 million in overcrowded housing. By 2011, it is predicted that there will be more than five million on waiting lists.167 The need is clearly acute and it is vital that changes made to the planning framework are handled in such a way as to minimise uncertainty over where and what development is required and ensure minimum time is lost in ongoing delivery of much needed homes. 3.3 The abolition of the regional spatial strategies (RSS) and CLG’s advice that local authorities may wish to review decisions has had a range of responses from local authorities. In some areas authorities have confirmed the numbers that were established in the RSS and development is progressing. In other areas however, decisions have already been reversed or put on hold, which in the short term means fewer homes being delivered. The long term impacts will not be known until the authorities revise or refresh their local development plans making clear the evidence and priorities they are setting for their locality. The resulting uncertainty is likely to hinder investment and, where developments are halted or advance more slowly due to that confusion, may experience a loss of funding made in principle, including investment by the Homes and Communities Agency. Such uncertainty could also hinder robust conversations between housing strategists and developers in relation to viability and planning gain, quality and housing mix on schemes. 3.4 In cases where local authorities are reviewing plans and decisions, it must be made clear on what evidence base they are implementing changes, and this must be done as soon as is practical, given the concerns about time scales for delivery. The evidence collated for RSS made clear and vital links between housing 166 Localism must not miss the bigger picture on planning http://www.rtpi.org.uk/item/3937/23/5/3 167 For more evidence see; Responsible choices for a fairer future: CSR submission and evidence document, NHF/CIH/NFA http:// www.cih.org/policy/CSR_July2010.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w305

development and economic growth, demographic changes and environmental concerns; all of which should be considered in the evidence base being used. And more evidence on the benefits nationally and locally of house building needs to be clearly demonstrated in plans—for example, the modelling for our CSR submission that demonstrates that, for every £1 on spent on house building, £1.40 in gross output will be generated.168 3.5 The research gathered at the regional level enabled a greater methodological consistency across local areas, and the regional structures and process were well developed; it is likely that, in some areas, there will be a gap in the policy and evidence at the local level, where there was reliance on the shared evidence base. A presumption in favour of following the RSS evidence and numbers until local authorities have had time to review core strategies and refresh their evidence base, should be considered to prevent greater confusion and delay to much needed development. This would enable local authorities to develop a strong system of inclusion and conversation with all groups in local communities as well. The Decentralisation and Localism Bill should include directions for assessing needs that will support both consistency and robust plans that local authorities can ensure maximise planning benefit for local communities. 3.6 The need to involve communities in robust consultation processes to set new core strategies and planning frameworks is a critical issue. However, more clarity is needed about what ‘local’ means in planning decisions, and how potential disagreements in and between communities will be resolved and reconciled in the process. In particular this needs to be considered in relation to the economic and social advantages which development can bring, but which is likely to cover a more dispersed area than the small locality (and community) in which the development actually takes place. This consideration also applies in respect of the type of housing that may be needed in a local area. CIH has many members involved in providing housing for very marginalised and vulnerable groups and there is real concern that these may loose housing opportunities in a new planning framework. In particular, concerns were strongly expressed about the difficulty for the identification and development of sites for gypsies and travellers, and doubts about the ability of the incentive system to address this. Now that targets and the regional architecture, including government offices have gone, it makes strong local leadership even more important in order to build the right homes in the right places, taking into account the needs of marginalised groups and local communities.

The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development, and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure an adequate long term supply of housing 3.8 Incentives that can encourage communities to support develop are welcome, and it is appropriate that communities should receive benefits from new developments in their area. However, there are still many questions around the proposed New Homes Bonus, and need for greater clarity before a realistic assessment of its potential impact can be made. 3.9 CIH understands that the New Homes Bonus will be funded from existing finances rather than additional monies, ie where it is a benefit to one locality, it will be a loss to another local authority where there is less opportunity to build (either in terms of availability of land or agreement with communities). Whilst this may also indirectly incentivise local areas to work together to develop a strategic approach—which is to be welcomed—it may take some time before local communities averse to building feel the impact of those decisions. The risk is that this may happen in areas where affordable housing is most greatly needed. Areas where the necessary development would be small in number, such as in villages, will not necessarily see the amount of benefit received from the incentive as enough to compensate for development. 3.10 There will need to be some clear guidelines for the use of the New Homes Bonus; in particular it should be clear how it might work alongside, rather than replacing, current housing planning gain tools such as section 106 agreements. The incentive, by itself, will not necessarily deliver the right type of housing in the right places (size, tenure or specialist provision), without a robust strategic approach by local authorities. The strategic approach needs also to be developed across local boundaries to maximise the connections to economic growth and job opportunities. Other mechanisms to support development should also be included, such as a review of the meaning of “best consideration” that will encourage public sector bodies to prioritise use of land for affordable housing before other purposes. 3.11 In terms of the nature and level of the incentive, we understand that building affordable housing will bring an increased level of incentive of 125% of match funding, but what the term “affordable” encompasses could usefully be further refined. As with planning gain currently, the inclination may be to agree to local cost home ownership as acceptable affordable housing, where the real need may actually be for social rented housing or specialist accommodation. Again, this is a particular concern for those CIH members working with more marginalised groups. 3.12 The problem of how extensive the incentive scheme can be in the climate of public sector cuts is also a critical issue; it could be hugely damaging to the aims of localism if new homes are agreed but the timing of development means that money for the incentives has run out by the time they are completed; consideration should be given to providing at least part if not all of the incentive on planning consent. Quality and design should be recognised as significant element that can also encourage acceptance of development along with robust environmental standards, and some reflection of long term sustainable measures (for example Lifetime 168 Ibid. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w306 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Homes standards) could also usefully be reflected in the incentives. The incentive scheme as currently modelled is very expensive and raises questions as to its viability. Furthermore, given that local authorities have lost considerable amounts of money they would previously have got through s106 due to the economic downturn, development incentive money is simply a replacement rather than an additional resource.

3.13 It also has to be recognised that even the most generous incentive scheme can only achieve so much. For instance, a recent survey169 commissioned by CIH has revealed that a small but active minority of generally older home owners is opposed to new housing being built in their area. The results showed that 15% of respondents agreed that they were opposed to new homes being built in their area and this rose to 20% for retired people and 22% for those who owned their home outright. This implies to things, firstly local authorities will have to become better at engaging with communities around the social and economic benefits of new housing (including presenting robust data of local housing need) and secondly there needs to be a better understanding of the “right” level of incentives that will make people accept new housing as well as anything else that would help make communities more comfortable about it. It is important that any consultation exercise is as inclusive as possible and gives equal voice to all section of the community and not only to those who are already engaged if NIMBYism is to be avoided.

The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies, and

The adequacy of the proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed “duty to cooperate” and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function

3.14 The government has proposed a “duty to cooperate” to ensure that local authorities work together on matters formerly covered by the RSS. These areas (including transport for travel to work issues) could usefully be explicitly set out in the Decentralisation and Localism Bill and in the proposed National Planning Framework. Without that there is a risk that a parochial approach will lead to loss of housing opportunities and shared solutions, particularly for some marginalised groups where the numbers for scheme development work at a sub regional rather than local level.

3.15 Some sub regional groups under the previous structures made significant progress in developing the data and evidence and strategies that reflected local priorities and characteristics, and the new framework should provide incentives and encouragement for these partnerships to continue.

3.16 Local Enterprise Partnerships may be another route for planning delivery, in particular as this may encourage stronger links between economic and housing development. If this is the case, it will need to be clear how the planning powers they have work through their democratically accountable local planning authority partners. It is likely however, that the current economic situation will mean, rightly, that their capacity is concentrated on encouraging economic growth.

How data and research collected by the now abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries?

3.17 The evidence base that supported previous RSS was developed and held by a range of partner bodies, such as Regional Development Agencies and Regional Observatories as well as the Regional Local Authority Leaders Boards. There was a consistent methodological approach and robustness in linkages made to economic development which would remain a useful model for local authorities. However, increasingly this was based on a housing market area rather than local authority boundary, which would make any comparison and analysis going forward more difficult, unless authorities are encouraged and incentivised to take shared strategic approaches on key elements forward (as paragraph 3.15). It will be important to make the wealth of research and evidence available for future use and easily accessible; potentially the Homes and Communities Agency, in partnership with a lead local planning authority, or with regional observatories, might be the well placed body to support and work with local authorities in ongoing research and evidence gathering.

3.18 Needs assessments in future must also take account of the impacts from the wide reforms being taken forward by the government. Modelling has suggested that the Housing Benefit reforms will mean people moving from some high value private rented sector areas, to cheaper areas, and a consequent increase in demand for social housing. Local authorities may also need to take shared strategic approaches to how they use the private sector in meeting their homelessness duties in the future. This reinforces the need to ensure the new planning framework supports a robust strategic approach across housing and planning by local authorities. (CIH in its CSR submission has made the case for ongoing investment in this vital strategic function). 170 September 2010

169 YouGov survey for CIH http://www.cih.org/news/index.php 170 Responsible choices for a fairer future: CSR submission and evidence document, NHF/CIH/NFA http://www.cih.org/policy/ CSR_July2010.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w307

Written evidence from the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain (ARSS 136) Executive Summary — The Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain (The Guild) is the national representative body of over 90% of Travelling Showpeople (Showpeople). — For the past four years the Guild has been actively involved years in the drawing up of policies for Showpeople within the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) for each of the English regions. — The accommodation assessments (GTAAs) carried out in the preparation of the RSSs were the first time any census of Showpeople has been conducted. Furthermore, the assessment process established positive working relationships between the Guild, Showmen, regional bodies and involved groups of local authorities to meet the identified needs. Examples are included within this document. — The Guild’s experience of the RSS process was wholly positive. All stages, from survey to Examination in Public, were carried out in exemplary fashion by regional officials and the Planning Inspectorate with full participation by LPAs. — The revocation of the RSSs without any replacement system has been detrimental to the continuing process of partnership working to tackle the high level of overcrowding and homelessness amongst Showpeople. The GTAAs showed that over 36% have no permanent settled home. — The “intention to revoke” planning guidance 04/2007 on Planning for Showpeople announced by the Secretary of State on 29 August as part of the revocation of RSSs and replacement by “light touch regulation” will exacerbate the situation. — At no stage has there been any consultation on these changes with the community of Showpeople who feel disenfranchised and disillusioned given the importance of permanent accommodation. — The Guild would welcome the opportunity to make their presentation at a hearing into these important affairs.

Introduction 1. The Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain (The Guild) is a long established organisation, founded in 1889, representing over 90% of Showpeople, the community who organise fairgrounds and circuses. Showpeople are independent business people who pay large sums to local authorities for use of grounds, few of whom seek any council or government assistance for living accommodation. 2. All regional branches of the Guild were involved in making representations within reviews of RSSs and welcomed the opportunity to speak on behalf of members. 3. Many Showpeople live on overcrowded and unsatisfactory sites whilst others have no home at all. Some have temporary planning consents or live on sites awaiting the outcome of planning applications. The changing patterns of working and living have had a significant impact on the residential needs of our members which is why the Guild supported use of RSSs to tackle the problem of under provision of permanent plots. 4. Traditionally livelihood involved attending large multi-day fairs in our own or adjoining regions. Now Showpeople also work at smaller fairs or provide rides, stalls and shows at events such as school or village fetes. Fixed-price equipment hire, where attractions are hired at parties, weddings, corporate hospitality and promotional work, now form a significant part of our income. These events are usually one or two days long. As a result showmen tend to return to their yards after a short time away and it is no longer appropriate to refer to them as “winter quarters”. This brings clear advantages for uninterrupted access to education for our young and continuity of health care for all. 5. It is rare for planning applications to be passed by Local Planning Authorities and over 70% of successful applications only ultimately succeed at Appeal. The RSS process, by quantifying need and seeking to establish ways of meeting this, was welcomed as an attempt to correct this historic imbalance. 6. The abrupt revocation of all RSSs by the Secretary of State could have the effect of throwing onto the scrap heap all of the hard work put into the development of regional planning policies for Showpeople by the regional assemblies, local authorities and the Guild.

The Guild’s Involvement in Developing RSS Policies for Showpeople 7. The RSS’s adoption of policies for the accommodation needs of Showpeople grew out of the Gypsy and Travellers Accommodation Assessments (GTAAs) carried out by all local authorities. The Government decision to include Showpeople in the process came part way through the exercise. However, the Guild immediately recognised that it was an important project and enthusiastically gave assistance. 8. Some GTAAs were handled on a regional basis with one study for an area; others were county wide and some on a joint borough basis. Where these were done well there were Steering groups including the Guild and other Travelling Communities with local authorities scrutinising information and testing findings. The results of GTAAs were submitted to each local authority who would make their own comments, sometimes challenging the outcome, and then reported to Regional Assemblies. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w308 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

9. There would then follow a major public consultation on these figures including exhibitions and public meetings with feedback encouraged from local people including from travelling and settled communities. 10. Regional Assemblies would then come up with proposals for meeting these needs which showed, without exception, high levels of requirement for plots due to the homelessness exposed. Nationally these GTAAs showed over 36% of Showpeople have no permanent home. There is no simple answer to meeting such needs and discussions reflected that. 11. The process ended at Examinations in Public, run by PINS, where all local authorities, residents, parish councils, individuals and travelling communities had the opportunity to test the evidence, following which the Inspectors would make recommendations. Local Authorities would then build this into Local Development Frameworks. 12. This was the first time that such debates on planning issues had been held in anything other than the adversarial background of planning applications as all factors, environmental constraints, sustainability, political practicality, and of course the desperate need of the communities concerned, were balanced. There was a clear need for a changed balance between local authorities who, for political expediency only, routinely refuse planning applications and Showpeople who have a crisis of homelessness causing stress, poor health and lack of educational opportunities for young people.

The Benefits of the RSS Process for Showpeople 13. At the commencement of the RSS process, the Guild believed the outcome would be that for the first time there would be figures of need that could be used in planning applications but could not easily be dismissed by local authorities. It was our view this would be a positive outcome. 14. However the actual process was beneficial in itself. The Guild has always wished to see fairness in planning. It is the view of the Guild that showmen should have the right to live anywhere land is appropriate. We have always argued that there should be no “ghettos” of Showpeople or policies that state that Showpeople shall only live in areas where Showpeople already reside. Such an approach would not be considered acceptable for any other section of society and therefore should not be for Showpeople. The former planning guidance (22/91) was very good in describing appropriate land but had a requirement for local links to be established. This was too restrictive and effectively kept all new homes within boroughs where Showpeople already lived. 04/2007 removed this as an absolute requirement. 15. The system of joint working established by boroughs and the involvement of the Guild in Steering Groups was most positive. Local Authorities gained an awareness of the reality of the homelessness; the Guild and Showpeople an understanding of political difficulties faced by Councillors. In local areas this joint structure was having a positive impact. Therefore in some boroughs where there were no existing communities of Showpeople, officers and councillors began to recognise the justice of having positive policies that would enable Showpeople applying for sites to be fairly considered. 16. Joint working is recommended in 04/2007 and meetings around RSSs encouraged this. Since the hearings there have been very positive results with local authorities directly approving planning applications, for instance in East Cambridge, South Gloucestershire and Bromley. There have been LPAs working with the Guild and local Showpeople to meet needs highlighted. For instance Mole Valley, Runneymede, Chiltern, Broxbourne, Norwich, Berkshire Unitary Authorities, and County Councils such as Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Kent have been seeking to establish joint working arrangements. There are more around the country.

An Example of RSS Policies for the North West Plan Partial Review 17. The planning issues relating to Showpeople in North-West England are similar to those in other regions. Many plots are overcrowded and accommodation is distributed unevenly. 18. Of the 444 authorised plots in 2007 some 356 or 80% were in Greater Manchester. However, even these are distributed unevenly. Five of the 10 Manchester authorities do not have any Showpeople within them. 19. The draft RSS proposed that the total number should increase by 285 in the period 2007–16 and from 2021 to 2016 proposed that the number should increase by 3% pa (compound). This totalled a further 122. 20. Based on a Guild sponsored survey of needs and preferences the policies proposed that 46% of the 285 new plots up to 2016 should be outside Greater Manchester. The EiP panel reduced the compound growth to 2% and therefore the latter figure to 76, recommending that LPAs should identify sites in their LDFs. 21. As with other RSSs the Guild’s regional branch was fully involved in policy development and supportive at the March EiP, only suggesting minor amendments. 22. As in other regions the Guild’s North West branch was very satisfied at the way that the policies had been developed. Its members felt that their views had been properly taken into account. Consequently the Guild is disappointed that RSS system was abolished before the draft policies could be adopted. However, as in other regions, the Guild is keen to salvage what it can from the EIP panel report in trying to secure similar increase in and distribution of new plots through the LDF process. Without an RSS system this could become increasingly difficult. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w309

The Results of Revoking the Policy 23. The Secretary of State’s revocation of the RSSs has put all this progress in jeopardy. His view that the RSSs forced the local authorities into actions against their wishes is unjustified . RSSs did not prejudice the local planning authorities’ duty to consider all planning applications on their merits. They did not identify sites for Travelling Show people and did not force local authorities to spend money on sites. Indeed the majority of Showpeople aspire to own their own plots and few seek Council or Government built and funded sites. All they wish to have is a fair chance at obtaining planning permission on sites that they, with expensive and expert advice, have found and purchased. 24. Since the revocation of Spatial Strategies the Secretary of State has given advice to local authorities on planning needs of Showpeople. He has said that local authorities should meet genuine local needs and historical demand and that they can, if they wish, use existing GTAAs for this or they can undertake new ones. 25. However this assumes that local authorities will be reasonable and fair. For instance, the GTAA for Surrey Heath recognised a need in their area for 10 plots, the EiP said 13. The Council have, with no new GTAA and no evidence to support their decision, decided for political expediency to put in their draft LDF a figure of 0. Selby participated in a regional GTAA which identified a figure of 10 for their borough, and again for political expediency their Policy Committee has decided that a figure of 0 is what they will use. Neither of these boroughs are taking the Secretary of State’s suggestion of undertaking a new GTAA, they have just decided on a figure of zero in their plans. This will not meet “genuine local needs”. 26. The Mayor of London reduced the figure of need for Showpeople in his proposals for the London Plan by 27% with no logical justification other than this was the sort of figure the boroughs might accept. This is not a reflection of need but of political convenience. He has now issued a new proposal which takes them out of the plan altogether and puts the onus back to individual local authorities. It could be considered that this is because he does not want to be publicly seen as providing for Travellers in any way and wants to wash his hands of the matter. 27. All of these actions contrast with the approach prior to the revocation of Spatial Strategies whereby partnerships were being developed and none of these will assist meet the identified need for new plots to settle the issue of homelessness. This is back to the days when Councils wanted to push Showmen out of their boroughs, despite the considerable payments made by Showpeople to them for use of parks for fairs. The Showpeople were wanted as providers of council funds at events, but not wanted as residents and neighbours. 28. DCLG have indicated that funding will be available for local authorities to build new sites for travellers in their areas but this is of very limited value to Showpeople. 29. Also DCLG have stated that joint planning between boroughs shall be encouraged, and whilst this is welcome the consultation on this and structures for implementation should have been completed prior to the revoking of the existing system. Joint working is essential for a fair resolution of the needs but Councils with no Showpeople will resist participating in such exercises. 30. At best the decision to revoke existing systems prior to the establishment of new ones will cause delay, and at worst despair as many homeless Showpeople now see no prospect of finding permanent homes for themselves. 31. The level of need identified in GTAAs reflects families who are in desperate need of permanent homes. This is an actual figure representing real people, not a theoretical abstract that will disappear with a vote at a Planning Committee. 32. With proper guidance on the definition of “genuine local need” and “historic demand” and a system whereby local authorities will participate in joint planning exercises, perhaps through County structures, there is scope for discussion on a new strategy, but this should have happened prior to the RSSs being scrapped as at present local authorities are defining matters themselves in their own interests. Although the Secretary of State has made clear in public announcements his concern for the health of the travelling communities, current uncertainty is causing severe stress and distress.

Proposed Revocation of Circular 04/2007 Planning for Travelling Showpeople 33. On 29 August 2010, Bank Holiday Sunday, the Secretary of State published a statement that it was, in his words “Time for a Fair Deal for the Travelling and Settled Communities”. http://www.communities.gov.uk/ news/corporate/1700758. This says that as part of the process of revoking the Regional Spatial Strategies he would be revoking the existing planning guidance on Showpeople, 04/2007, and replacing this with “light touch regulation” to remind Councils of their statutory responsibilities. 34. He said that he would be rewarding lawful behaviour by Gypsies and Travellers in Council owned sites by giving them the same rights as residents of council properties. He also said that local authorities would be encouraged by payment of grants to build new local authority sites. 35. There are very few showmen on Council owned Showmen’s sites and limited desire from showmen for Council built sites and so limited benefit to our members from this approach which indicates a complete lack of knowledge of this community. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w310 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

36. There has been no consultation with the Showmen’s Guild on this matter. Showpeople feel excluded from this process and therefore excluded from the concept of localism and that they are considered to have no value. 37. However the quoted justification for the revocation of 04/2007 is questionable. The statement refers specifically to “some local councils” who have reported that 04/2007 has “compelled them to build on the countryside”. The Guild have applied under FoI for evidence from any local council who has been compelled to build anywhere because of these guidelines which say completely the opposite. They require local authorities to identify potential sites within their boroughs and put these into local plans. Hopefully, local authorities who have been “compelled” by Regional Spatial Strategies and Circular by 04/2007 will supply evidence to this Committee, and if not then the Secretary of State will supply this when he attends. 38. It is only lazy authorities who have seen Planning Appeals grant temporary permissions for Showpeople to live on, for example, greenbelt sites until, as 04/2007 states, the LDF process identifies appropriate land. 04/2007 states that councils can bring this work forwards if necessary. Therefore 04/2007 compels councils to be reasonable and nothing more. 39. Furthermore the Secretary of State avers on 29 August that “unauthorised encampments cause tensions between the settled and travelling communities” and that it is the unfairness of the planning system, apparently in favour of the travelling communities that causes community tensions and if this is changed such tensions will disappear. This is just plain wrong. There have never been any community tensions between showmen and local people or reports of anti social behaviour anywhere in the country. Guild rules require that showmen follow strict codes of conduct on sites and these are upheld at all times. 40. Where over 36% of Showpeople have been identified by the GTAA process to be homeless, it is hard to justify a claim that the system is biased in their favour. 41. Unless there is actual evidence of major failings of the existing guidelines it is our submission that this “revocation” of 04/2007 should be halted until replacements are prepared and subject to consultation, including Showpeople themselves.

Conclusion 42. It is reasonable for a government to review and change laws and processes which were inherited and with which they do not agree. However it is not reasonable to simply revoke existing practices without an analysis of the existing system, evidence of the issues involved and proposals on which to consult or any notion or idea as to what will replace them. 43. The abolition of the RSS process and the announcement of revoking 04/2007 which is part of that process should not have been done until everyone, travelling communities and local authorities, knew what would be in their place. 44. It is essential that the new structure includes: Requirements that local authorities reflect the actual levels of need found in GTAAs within Local Development Frameworks; Structures for joint working that involve all local authorities and partnership with the Guild; The Travelling Showman’s community being treated as equal partners in this process instead of being completely ignored. So far there has been no discussion and no consideration. This should now be rectified. September 2010

Written evidence from the Planning and Development Association (PDA) (ARSS 137) Summary Revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies — The effects of revoking RSSs are of more immediate concern than abolishing regional targets; — longer-term, planned numbers will probably be reduced in many places; guidance is needed on how to produce policies with housing numbers that are not maxima and which allow them to be exceeded if proposed development does no “harm”; — the sudden revocation of RSSs left a planning vacuum, which is deterring developers from submitting planning applications in many places; and — the new planning system will not be operational for up to four years, so interim guidance is needed to prevent a lengthy hiatus in planning for housebuilding. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w311

Community incentives to accept new housing — the impact of the New Homes Bonus will be difficult to judge until the scale of grant reduction is known; and — if houses cannot be built profitably the Bonus will not be achieved by local authorities, so it is equally important that Ministers address development viability as well as incentivising local authorities.

Co-operation between local authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships — currently LEPs seem to be driven by the need to agree local authority groupings rather than their boundaries being determined by their purpose and goals; — LEPs should be statutory consultees on cross-border matters, particularly infrastructure; and — there should not be too many LEPs and they should be sufficiently strategic in scale.

Implications of the abolition of regional housebuilding targets for levels of housing developments The policy vacuum left by the revocation of RSSs is having more impact on developers currently than the longer-term effects of the abolition of regional and other targets. The need for substantial numbers of additional houses is widely accepted across the political spectrum as a result of discussions about housing numbers at RSS level and the work done by bodies such as the NHPAU over the last decade. However it will remain difficult to persuade people in the locations where it is most needed of this case. Housebuilding levels are determined by the effects of the credit crunch, economic uncertainty and mortgage shortages at present, not by the existence or otherwise of regional targets. Nevertheless targets are important and their absence can, as has been the case in the past, restrict housebuilding output to below market demand levels. Without top-down targets, excessively low figures should not be allowed to be substituted at local level, without proper evidence and sanction. New national planning guidance approved by Parliament should determine how far local authorities will be free to reduce numbers; the evidence needed to justify numbers and whether these are to be the only test for local plan policy and for determining planning applications, or whether other more flexible, criteria-based policies will be encouraged (eg whether a particular planning application involves sustainable development and it does no harm to the objectives of the plan). It seems inevitable, because that is the wish of many local authorities, that the policy targets in many high demand areas will be reduced. However it will depend on the nature of planning guidance issued whether those numbers are ceilings that cannot be exceeded or just one amongst other measures against which planning applications are judged and hence housebuilding output.

The revocation of RSSs The revocation of RSSs was not a surprise because it was clearly indicated in the Conservative Party’s policy documents of 2009 and was confirmed in the Coalition Agreement. However of great concern has been the inadequate attention that has been paid to the need for transitional guidance following that revocation. The sudden withdrawal of draft and adopted plans by some local authorities has created a planning vacuum in those areas and left applicants without a planning framework or any plan backing against which to make planning applications. This will both disrupt the pipeline of land that is always required to maintain development and could also prevent smaller sites that could come forward from doing so. Our members’ experiences suggest that local authorities have responded in a number of ways: — the suspension of existing approved or emerging Core Strategies and other development plan documents; — suspension of work on plan documents in order to change policy—generally assumed to mean a reduction in housing numbers; — suspension of policy development pending further guidance from Ministers; and — continued support for Core Strategies based on RSS often, but not exclusively, in areas in the Midlands and North that are seeking regeneration. It had been expected that Ministers would provide advice to secure a smooth transition to the new system, including instructions on the process and evidence base required to change existing plans. This is vital because it provides confidence that the system will continue to support the development of much needed homes as well as the economic and employment benefits of housebuilding. An essential element in any such guidance is the status of five and ten to fifteen year land supply and how this should be calculated on up-to-date data. Moreover, the evidence base to which new plans refer must be kept up to date and, following the abolition of NHPAU, local authorities will need a consistent source of data to produce equitable results between authorities. Ministers do not appear to have considered this or to regard it as necessary. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w312 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Without adequate transitional guidance developers currently lack confidence to make planning applications and this is likely to continue for as long as there is no enforceable timetable to end it. Furthermore, if local authorities continue to suspend plan-making until the new system comes into effect (probably in April 2012) the transition could last for at least four years because replacement plans will take at least another two years to produce. Planning must not be left in suspension for such a long time. To allow the system to function and to provide a framework for making planning applications, Government must provide local authorities with an indication of the time within which they must make changes to their development plan (preferably short); remove doubts about work that may be redundant because of changes in legislation (the Decentralisation and Localism Bill); set out the evidence base required for any reduction in housing numbers in local plans and set out other tests of soundness and sanctions if the work on development plans continues to be suspended. The Government has undoubtedly created problems for itself in respect of such guidance because it may conflict with the “localism” agenda and the freedom it wishes to grant to local authorities. But a lengthy planning hiatus also conflicts with the Government's aim of delivering high levels of housebuilding. However much Ministers may dislike the existing system, it cannot be summarily halted without publishing effective and workable arrangements that both local authorities and applicants understand.

The effectiveness of the Government’s incentives plan and its nature and level if an adequate long-term supply of housing is to be secured Since the New Homes Bonus is intended to change the attitude of local authorities and communities to development it is the essential accompaniment to revocation. It is vital that full details are published as soon as possible, because too little information is available to allow judgements to be made about its likely effectiveness. We understand that the Bonus can be accrued by local authorities in the next financial year so they are being encouraged to grant planning permissions now to benefit from completions in 2011. The system is understood to be financially neutral, funded from a reduction in grant funding to local authorities, with this acting as an incentive to build homes in order to secure the Bonus. We do not yet know the scale of grant reduction that local authorities will suffer to allow us to judge whether six years of additional community charge receipts will be sufficient to overcome objections in the most NIMBY areas. To fully incentivise them, Government must make it clear to local authorities that the Bonus is part of a package of arrangements, including Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy, which will be attached to the development of new homes. However, given that new house prices are still 20% below their 2007 peak the amount local authorities can take should not be so great as to further damage development viability. This issue must be central to any new policy and local authorities must be assisted and required to understand it. It is not just local authorities that require incentivising. Developers need to see a reduction in the heavy and expensive burden of regulation which is now a major obstacle to development. Unless housebuilding levels can be increased, simply incentivising local authorities will be deeply unpopular with councillors and local communities because the anticipated revenues will not be received. As much attention must be given to the problems of development viability as to the New Homes Bonus, because otherwise it merely reduces local authority grants.

Co-operation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function Very little will be known about Local Enterprise Partnerships until after the Spending Review on 20 October. They are supposed to provide strategic leadership and set out economic priorities, creating the right environment for growth by tackling issues such as planning and housing, local transport and infrastructure but it is not clear how they will fulfil the planning function envisaged by BIS and CLG, if all such powers reside at local level. BIS/CLG also said that Partnerships should include groups of upper tier authorities and could match regional boundaries if they chose to do so but the 56 bids submitted are all much smaller and a number reflect county boundaries. If they are to fulfil an effective sub-regional planning function and work together on matters formerly covered by Regional Spatial Strategies they must not be so fragmented that they cannot offer adequate strategic direction; it is difficult to imagine that such small groups can be genuinely business-led and focused on sustainable economic growth. There have been 56 bids submitted, far too many to deliver strategic leadership at sub-regional level. When assessing the bids Government must seriously consider whether they do cover meaningful economic areas and have genuine critical mass—many business leaders fear they will turn out to be no more than council-dominated cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w313

talking shops with no sense of strategic priorities and little economic impact. A further significant factor is whether there will be sufficient funding for them to carry out any meaningful duties and, again, this will not be known until after the Spending Review in October. LEPs should have a key role in advising on cross-boundary problems, particularly infrastructure and large scale development, and should be a statutory consultee on development plans and major planning applications, which have cross-boundary impacts. September 2010

Written evidence from Baker Associates (ARSS 138) Introduction This submission on spatial planning without Regional Spatial Strategies is made by Baker Associates, consultants with a track record in making spatial planning work. Our experience in partnering planning authorities to prepare development plans of all types is second to none, we assemble evidence on all types of planning issue to inform choices, we facilitate many types of engagement activity, and we promote strategic and local residential and commercial development schemes. We have advised CLG and its predecessors on the form and use of the development plan system, and we support planning authorities as consultants to the Planning Advisory Service and in our own right. We are committed to achieving worthwhile change through the positive use of development plans as the core of the planning system. We set out in this submission our view of how the coalition government’s concern for localism should be developed and applied in the field of planning, maintaining this principle whilst local and central government carry out their essential roles. We use a live case study to illustrate what needs to happen. The submission begins as requested, with a bullet-point summary.

Summary — spatial planning needs to address the issues of the place; there are strategic issues and so plans have to be able to be strategic — “locally determined” means decisions being taken by the local planning authority, but cannot mean only taking the local area into account or handing decision making to limited-interest groups — there is no need to create new strategic planning areas; plans can be for existing districts which are understood and accepted, and having only one plan covering each area will make planning simpler and faster — housing is an issue that transcends administrative boundaries, and cannot be divorced from other issues such as economic development, movement and infrastructure — the housing provision within a plan must be determined according to evidence, the evidence must look at the functional area rather than the administrative area, and there must be a reciprocal relationship between plans that deal with the same functional area — the planning system must work to create an unavoidable obligation on planning authorities to plan to address the situation that is demonstrable from independent evidence—this is the fundamental requirement for a positive and successful planning system.

Background There is a need for a strategic component to the development plan. Nobody who has any appreciation of planning, or cares for the issues planning deals with, has ever doubted the need for planning to have local and strategic components.

Definition of “strategic” Strategic matters can be defined as matters that are very important, which concern more than one authority and topic, relate to extended timescales, and on which decisions need to be made in order to give priority and common purpose to the objectives for an area. The development plan system had evolved to its most appropriate form so far in order to address the issues places and communities face. The strategic part of the two-part development plan was prepared at the regional level, and ultimately made by the Secretary of State, with the Government advised by regional assemblies comprising local government elected members and co-opted social, environmental and economic partners. A further stage of evolution of the two-part development plan system was needed, with a full cycle of plan preparation allowing a review of RSS to be informed by a round of LDF preparation. The bottom-up element of the process as well as the equally necessary top-down element would thereby be called into play. The two parts to the development plan should be developed alongside each other in a dialogue, with the necessary decisions being taken at the appropriate level. This is a fundamentally different approach to the hierarchical cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w314 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

relationship objected to by supporters of good planning as well as by the opponents of development to meet other peoples’ needs.

The Coalition Government’s Task The coalition government is right that people should be involved in choices for their area, and this principle is embedded in the modern planning system. Whilst the need for involvement can never not be true, there are limitations to the matters that need to be addressed that can be resolved in this way. The wholesome model of people working amiably and creatively on the future of a patch of land within an established community to provide a desirable facility cannot be extrapolated to deal with the housing needs of the country or of less favoured groups in society, and it cannot deal with waste management, energy generation, transport infrastructure or major arts, sports or leisure facilities. There are some matters to be dealt with that arise from and affect wider areas and greater timeframes than are of interest to people “acting locally”. There are essential checks and balances needed in any arrangements to empower people involved in making decisions on matters of such consequence. Any arrangement that transfers power to self-appointed bodies and away from elected and accountable politicians taking leadership responsibly is likely to have damaging implications. The coalition government must be mindful of these matters of governance when formulating an approach to fill the very real gap created by the removal of the most recent form of strategic planning. Some matters that are capable of influence by spatial planning and which should be addressed can only be addressed through a strategic response. Climate change is acknowledged by most people to be the biggest issue facing the planet, and the connections with energy use and emissions means that how much and how people travel is an issue in tackling climate change. Travel demand is a consequence of the distribution of homes, jobs and shops, and health, education, leisure and cultural facilities, as well as social networks. These are all to do with the distribution and form of settlements and nothing at all to do with administrative boundaries. Shaping settlements and the relationship between settlements is a role of strategic spatial planning. Incidentally and ironically, green belt policy, a little understood and anachronistic favourite of many proponents of localism, was intended to perform this strategic settlement-shaping role before effective development plans were part of the planning system, but has been completely misused and has had perverse effects in its influence over travel demand. Any form of planning system that confines itself to only local areas and to the short term will do nothing to address climate change and indeed will exacerbate the problem through the tendency under market influences for development to become more dispersed. Economic development is generally seen as desirable in giving more people greater opportunity, and nurturing economic development in partnership with businesses and employers is seen as a vital activity of government at all levels. Neither people looking for work nor the investment decisions of employers respect administrative boundaries. There is a relationship between the number of people in employment and the number of homes required. If housing is not available, either potential economic development is stifled by the absence of a suitable workforce or long distance commuting increases, and probably both will occur to some degree. Infrastructure is self evidently strategic. The collection, treatment and distribution of water for instance, is determined by natural systems (and gravity) and by the pattern of need. It cannot be dealt with by neighbourhood units, and administrative boundaries have no role to play. Housing provision is the most sensitive issue for development plans and the controversy caused by housing numbers has led to the removal of regional planning. If nothing else happened the likelihood is that the same sized population as we have now would occupy about 10% more dwellings in 20 years time because of the falling average household size. Without at least this level of provision the population of some settlements will fall. Areas that have the potential to make a useful contribution to the economy need to be assisted with greater levels of housing, but the same successful settlements cannot accommodate all of the growth required in the existing built up area whilst maintaining the levels of accessibility that urban areas should provide, or the quality of life that residents seek. The sustainable way to provide for further development is through well- planned development at the nearest available point on the urban edge. A consequence of historic boundaries is that this may be in a different administrative area. The coalition government must now find a way for the very proper concern for genuine local involvement to be married with the need to address wider areas and the longer term.

Incentives Incentivisation is suggested by the coalition government as the preferred alternative to the imposition of targets to achieve the delivery of sufficient development. The idea is entirely unconvincing and will come to nothing. Payments to local authorities or direct to communities (who?) would not deal with the profound political objection to development rooted in members’ expectations of strong objection from vocal groups of established residents. The mechanics of payment as suggested to date would in any case be unworkable and the likely consequences regressive. If there is money it should instead be directed to local authorities to fund the provision of strategic infrastructure that is identified as part of a locally made integrated strategy that addresses development requirements according to sound evidence. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w315

How to Achieve Locally Determined Strategic Planning The form of spatial planning that we go forward with has to promote the coexistence of the small view and the big picture. “Localism” is right if its proper interpretation is essentially that of subsidiarity; that is, decisions being made at the most local scale at which they can properly be made. The geography of the English regions is not very helpful as a basis on which to plan and the regions need not concern us further. There is not across the country a readily identifiable administrative unit for which plans should now be prepared, and the coalition government should not specify ‘new’ strategic planning areas. Strategic planning has to deal with areas that present themselves as where functional relationships exist. The form of such areas will inevitably be fuzzy, because different considerations have different spatial relationships. Retailing, work, education, leisure and social networks have different geographies and these will vary for different groups in the community. Plans should be prepared for the existing Districts, in that they are as good as anything, and they are known and understood. What the coalition government must do is establish beyond doubt the obligation for any plan to take account of what the evidence says about its place, and for the plans for each part of a functional area to have a reciprocal regard for the other parts. Evidence includes evidence of the implications of ignoring the evidence of need. At the same time decision making must stay firmly within the democratic system, with elected leaders being responsible and accountable. Engagement is essential, with community groups (including communities of interest as well as of place) and stakeholders all having the opportunity to be involved through well designed and well understood programmes which involve both deliberative and inclusive activities. There should be a duty on planning authorities to assist participants to become informed. The weight that is attached to community and stakeholder views on planning matters should take account of: — how representative of the community they profess to act for, the proponents seem to be; and — the extent to which the views are informed, by for instance the evident issues and possible responses. Local spatial plans must meet a standard before they can carry any weight. The standard must relate to the way the plan flows from the evidence, and from informed engagement. The means of testing that the standard is met must be rigorous. The test must be applied independently, and the findings of the examiner must be binding. A very significant consequence of this way forward would be for the development plan for any area to be one plan. The tendency to wait for the “higher” level of plan has caused huge delays in putting plans in place, meaning they have rarely been topical and influential, and has led to a colossal waste of resources. A one-part development plan could be the flexible, dynamic and effective tool that has eluded the system for decades. Though the skills are currently not present in sufficient quantity amongst local authorities to make plans of the quality required, these skills can be brought to bear.

A Case Study—The West of England The West of England (the former Avon County, comprising the cities of Bristol and Bath, the town of Weston-super-Mare, and their rural hinterland) demonstrates the need for strategic planning and provides a real example of what can happen when authorities believe they are under no obligation to plan properly. This rapidly developing situation calls for a form of responsible localism and a process with bite that prevents authorities planning as though the world ends at their administrative boundary. The West of England functional area can be delineated according to a range of statistical information relating to housing markets, travel to work areas, transport infrastructure and flows, retail catchment and spheres of influence, and clusters of industries. Bristol is a “Core City”, the eighth largest English city, and it has the third highest GDP of any urban area. There is an important interrelationship between Bristol and its surrounding areas, with very high work in-commuting as well as use of higher order retail culture and leisure facilities. A substantial part of the urban area of Bristol is in South Gloucestershire, and the immediate periphery of the urban area is within the areas administered by South Gloucestershire, Bath and North East Somerset and North Somerset Councils. These Councils administer areas that are seen as rural and have always turned away from Bristol. Previous joint working for the greater Bristol area with the Joint Structure Plan did not lead to strategic decisions being made and implemented. The emerging South West RSS set out a spatial strategy with clear links made between development and infrastructure planning and delivery. With the RSS in place Unitary Councils could make their plans knowing what was required to be in the plans of neighbouring Districts. The RSS recognised that the city of Bristol has an essential role within the region, identified from (tested) evidence the level of development needed for the West of England, and determined how the need should be met from potential brown and green sources of supply according to the principles of sustainable development. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w316 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

It is interesting that in some of their activities the four Unitary Authorities recognise a functional relationship across the West of England and the merit of a strategic and cooperative response. Multi Area Agreements exist which promote strategic relationships, and a submission has been made to the coalition Government for a West of England Local Enterprise Partnership which seeks to “lay the foundation for a long-term sustained, prosperous and productive West of England”. A LEP may provide the appropriate structure to address the strategic housing need that exists for an area, building on the economic functionality which exists, and coordinating the infrastructure requirements with housing delivery. This is not proposed in the West of England LEP submission. The mutual feeling between the West of England Unitary Authorities does not extend to making provision through the LDFs for the delivery of essential homes required to support the economic strategy and the claims for achievable growth. The table below indicates the level of housing need from a number of evidence sources, as required to be used by PPS3: Housing, and from the emerging RSS (which used evidence). It also shows what authorities are currently proposing to provide following the removal of the RSS, based on latest statements or consultations on their LDFs. WEST OF ENGLAND HOUSING REQUIREMENT/PROVISION 2006–2026 Latest National Affordable Household housing need Projections Draft RSS RSS Proposed (from published Emerging Core (2006) 2006 Changes 2008 SHMAs) Strategies 2010

Bristol 63,000 28,000 36,500 30,520 26,400 South Glos 33,000 23,000 32,800 18,060 21,500 North Somerset 36,000 26,000 26,750 18,080 15,000 B&NES 19,000 15,500 21,300 16,940 15,500 West of England 151,000 92,500 117,350 83,600 78,400

There is clearly a large gap between evidence-based need and currently proposed planned provision. The opportunity to make their own decisions on the level of housing provision is encouraging the Unitary Authorities to get on with their LDFs, but there are clearly significant potential implications of every authority acting only on its own agenda, encouraged by its interpretation of localism. If left unchecked, the consequences will be felt in increased housing need, the inability to deliver infrastructure, and the constraint of economic development. The Independent Examination of the Bristol Core Strategy is currently taking place. The Inspector has handled matters wisely so far, but recognises that his conclusion of the Examination may well turn on his interpretation of where the appropriate balance should lie “between evidence and localism”. There are general issues illustrated by the West of England situation, but there are particular circumstances too and how the Inspector finds on these will affect what messages emerge and influence other planning authorities. Bristol City Council cannot realistically plan for the level of housing that will be needed by the future population of the plan area to be met within the plan area. The Inspector could find that this is what the evidence shows and simply note that this leaves the need unmet—because he can do nothing else in the absence of a larger area strategic plan or any control over the neighbouring authorities. Alternatively he could report in a way that allowed others to draw the conclusion that it was “alright” for a planning authority to do what it wanted, by reference to an inevitably selective set of local views, in spite of evidence indicating that the proper response should be something else. This would be a most unfortunate message. This case study demonstrates that the obligation on plan-making authorities to follow the evidence, the test that plans have to meet, the way the test is carried out and how its findings are applied, will all be fundamental to the value the planning system can make to the social, economic and environmental needs of the country in the future.

Conclusion Unwanted paternalism cannot be replaced by undesirable parochialism. Whilst local plans and their approach to housing provision have to be locally determined rather than imposed, there is an irrefutable need for strategic planning. Rather than strategic planning areas being prescribed by government, local authorities preparing plans for their areas should be placed under obligation to make plans that address what the evidence says about how their places work and what they need. Plans for districts that form part of an identifiable functional area should acknowledge and address their role as part of that area. Plans must still be subject to some form of independent testing, with the test defined in terms of the plan properly addressing evidence as well as the influence of informed engagement, and the findings from the test have to carry weight. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w317

Written evidence from the Federation of Master Builders (ARSS 140) Introduction We are writing in response to the Communities and Local Government Committee Announcement No.2, Announcement of Inquiry and Call for evidence; abolition of regional spatial strategies of Wednesday, 28 July 2010. The Federation of Master Builders (FMB) is the largest employers’ body for small and medium sized firms in the construction industry, and with 11,000 members is the recognised voice of small and medium sized builders. FMB is committed to promoting excellent standards in craftsmanship and assisting builders to improve levels of building performance and customer service. Within its membership, the FMB has around 2000 firms which engage in house building, either as their primary function, or as part for the suite of building services they provide. The remainder of this submission is divided into four sections as follows: 1. Executive Summary and Recommendations. 2. The Effects of Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) on House building. 3. Can Incentives Deliver? 4. Policy Requirements to ensure an adequate long-term supply of housing.

Executive Summary and Recommendations 1. The immediate effect of the abolition of RSS has been to dramatically increase levels of uncertainty and delay in a system already notorious for its slowness and unpredictability. 2. A study undertaken by the National Housing Federation has concluded that plans for over 100,000 homes have been shelved by local authorities since the revocation of RSS, despite it being widely recognised that the UK needs more homes, not fewer. 3. While incentives are welcome housing delivery is too complex to be susceptible to a single policy solution, and while abolition of RSS is unhelpful, it is far from being the only factor inhibiting delivery of housing in the kinds of quantities needed to satisfy demand. 4. Development viability is the single most important factor influencing housing delivery: Ensuring viability requires and acceptance by policy makers that a development can only support a finite amount of taxation and regulatory burden before it becomes unviable and the entire public benefit is lost. 5. The FMB calls on the Government to ensure that local authorities undertake any planned reviews of housing delivery within defined time scales, within a back stop time limit, and based on robust, independent assessment of housing requirements. 6. The FMB calls on the Government must ensure that an effective system for regional and sub regional integrated planning solutions is quickly implemented to replace RSS.

The Effects of Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) on House Building 7. The immediate effect of the abolition of RSS has been to dramatically increase levels of uncertainty and delay in a system already notorious for its slowness and unpredictability. This section discusses the reaction of local authorities to the abolition of RSS and the immediate implications for house builders.

Local Authority Reaction 8. Since formal revocation on 6 July, local authorities have acted quickly. Based on evidence from the House Builders Association and others it is clear that, while some authorities have retained their Core Strategies, others have suspended them pending revision, or pending further direction from the Minister. This has often been done without any indication of next steps or time frames. 9. The variety of responses reflect the variety of attitudes towards house building and development, and the FMB has received anecdotal evidence to suggest that many have used the opportunity afforded by the revocation of RSS and their house building targets to reduce planned numbers, issue blanket refusals on a wide range of current applications, and or delay taking decisions on controversial applications. 10. The impact of abolishing housing targets on planned future delivery could be substantial. A study undertaken by the National Housing Federation has concluded that plans for over 100,000 homes have been shelved by local authorities since the revocation of RSS, despite it being widely recognised that the UK needs more homes, not fewer.

Specific Implications for Housing Delivery 11. In the short term, many smaller projects currently under consideration will be lost or delayed as a consequence of blanket refusals and reduced targets. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w318 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

12. In the medium term, the overall effect from the developers’ perspective is a considerable thickening of the fog surrounding the future of many project proposals as they no longer have a planning framework on which to base their applications. 13. Given that planning applications for housing projects typically cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to prepare and may take years to achieve an implementable permission, it is likely that many applications will not be brought forward as the additional uncertainty will make the risk too great to warrant an application. 14. This in turn will have an impact on the supply of land in the planning pipeline for future building which could result in a shortage of supply in future years with the possible impact of restraining house building recovery and inflation of prices for land with implementable permissions. 15. There is also the more serious problem that, in the absence of clearer transitional arrangements, local authorities may choose to continue the suspension of local plans until the new planning system comes into force April 2012. This would result in four years of planning paralysis in the affected areas as any new plan would take a further two years before becoming operational. With housing delivery already far behind the rate required the housing crisis can only deepen if four years of planning indecision are added to the plethora of other existing problems constraining supply.

Can Incentives Deliver? 16. Current Government policy is based on the assumption that the removal of housing targets will not result in decreased housing delivery as incentives will create support for increased housing output. In order to determine whether the proposed government incentives are likely to deliver new housing the in the numbers required, it is first necessary to understand what will need to be delivered.

Demand and Supply 17. The need for more housing is clear. In its July 2007 green paper, Homes for the future: more affordable, more sustainable, the Department for Communities and Local Government set “a new housing target for 2016 of 240,000 additional homes a year to meet the growing demand and address affordability issues.”171 18. In August 2009 the Government’s own housing adviser the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU) stated that at least 237,800 new homes are needed every year between now and 2031. In September 2009 the Smith Institute et al published Mind the Gap—Housing Supply in a Cold Climate, which stated that we “need to build at the rate of at least 250,000 new homes a year to match annual population growth”172 and cited Town and Country Planning Association projections of between 275,000 and 280,000.173 It also noted that housing completions for 2009 were likely to be below 100,000 and that this would lead to a shortfall equivalent in size to the city of Nottingham.174 In order to restrain long term price rises and address affordability issues, it cited an NHPAU estimate of 300,000 new homes being required annually.175 19. According to the House Builders Federation, just 123,000 homes were built in 2009–10, the lowest number since 1923. 20. The outlook for supply suggests that the industry will not come close to delivering these numbers in the near future. In terms of the house building industry, the medium term forecast from Experian for the ConstructionSkills Network expects housing output to remain well down on its 2005–07 peak in 2014. 21. Even optimistic estimates are not encouraging: “On a best-case scenario at 10% growth each and every year it would take seven years to get back to the 2007 completion levels. Of course, this ignores the accumulating backlog, which could well reach 1 million by the end of 2010”.176

Incentives 22. How the incentives are to work is not yet fully clear as the details have not been published at the time of writing. However, what is known is that the intention is to allow local authorities to keep council tax revenues from new homes, and to match fund them for six years. 23. Using Chelmsford as a random example, the town has 65, 472 dwellings, an average council tax of £2,100 per dwelling and at peak output was delivering around 700 dwellings per annum. On this basis, we can assume that, if the local authority delivered 700 new homes every year for six years, and the Government allowed the retention of additional council tax receipts, the policy would result in a total of £30.87 million in 171 Department for Communities and Local Government, “Homes for the future: more affordable,” July 2007, p7. 172 David Pretty & Paul Hackett (The Smith Institute, The Town and Country Planning Association, PricewaterhouseCoopers) “Mind the Gap—Housing Supply in a Cold Climate,” September 2009, p4. 173 David Pretty & Paul Hackett (The Smith Institute, The Town and Country Planning Association, PricewaterhouseCoopers) “Mind the Gap—Housing Supply in a Cold Climate,” September 2009, p9 174 David Pretty & Paul Hackett (The Smith Institute, The Town and Country Planning Association, PricewaterhouseCoopers) “Mind the Gap—Housing Supply in a Cold Climate,” September 2009, p4. 175 David Pretty & Paul Hackett (The Smith Institute, The Town and Country Planning Association, PricewaterhouseCoopers) “Mind the Gap—Housing Supply in a Cold Climate,” September 2009, p9 176 David Pretty & Paul Hackett (The Smith Institute, The Town and Country Planning Association, PricewaterhouseCoopers) “Mind the Gap—Housing Supply in a Cold Climate,” September 2009, p11 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:53] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w319

additional council tax revenues over the period. This would be doubled to £61.74 million by match funding each additional home’s council tax receipts for each of six years.

24. In this contexts the policy assumes that the £61.74 million of additional income over six years, combined with section 106 contributions and other benefits of development, can be used to convince local people and local authorities to accept the addition of 4,200 new homes over the period. This means an increase in the size of the town by around 6.4%, and an additional eight to ten thousand inhabitants when the general perception is that it is reaching the limits of its capacity. In the absence of further detail it would be unwise to speculate any further on this example but what is clear is that delivery will still require drive and leadership within local authorities, and that pro development authorities will still face a formidable communications challenge in areas with significant anti development sentiment.

25. Overall, while incentives are welcome housing delivery is too complex to be susceptible to a single policy solution, and while abolition of RSS is unhelpful, it is far from being the only factor inhibiting delivery of housing in the kinds of quantities needed to satisfy demand.

Policy Requirements to Ensure an Adequate Long-term Supply of Housing

26. To deliver an adequate long term supply of housing the Government will need a wide range of policy mechanisms and will have to take some very difficult decisions.

27. The ultimate issue it will need to address is that of development viability. Unless a housing development is viable, it cannot be delivered by house builders even if both the local authority and the local community are in favour. Ensuring viability requires and acceptance by policy makers that a development can only support a finite amount of taxation and regulatory burden before it becomes unviable, and the entire public benefit is lost. Many local authorities have recognised this and scaled back section 106 agreements since the onset of the recession in order to maintain the viability of sites and keep essential developments coming forward, but this needs to be accepted at strategic level and policies must be prioritised and coordinated. Ultimately ministers need to make a decision on where the balance between standards and supply lies as all increases in standards have costs, and all costs have implications for delivery.

28. The government will also have to decide policy based on who will pay for new housing. If it is assumed that this must increasingly be the private sector as a result of the state of the public finances, then the issue of finance availability to private sector developers and their clients must be addressed. While planning issues remain a constant factor the lack of access to credit is currently the single most important factor constraining supply. Put simply, the industry is struggling to build homes at a price people can afford because policy makes them more expensive to build but credit availability has been reined in making them affordable to fewer people. To ensure a long term supply of housing based on private finance, availability of private finance and cost of public burdens must be balanced.

29. Decision makers need to abandon the idea that land values can be harvested indefinitely to fund policy initiatives. The reality is that land owners have an expectation of land value and are often prepared to wait for land values to improve before selling as they are not usually under any pressure to sell and can take a long term view as they wish to maximise the realisation of its value. If policy drives the price a developer can offer a land owner below the land owner’s expectations, or the price offered by a firm operating in another industry, the land does not come forward for housing delivery.

30. In relation to the scrapping of RSS the Government must ensure that local authorities undertake any planned reviews within defined time scales, and within a back stop time limit. Delivery requires clarity and certainty so that risks can be assessed and viabilities calculated.

31. The Government must also ensure that any revisions to local authority housing delivery plans are evidence driven based on the satisfaction of need. This should be achieved through robust, independent assessments of housing requirements.

32. Finally the Government must ensure that an effective system for regional and sub regional integrated planning solutions is quickly implemented to replace RSS. Regional Spatial Strategies provided a degree of coordination, particularly for housing supply and infrastructure which is essential for economic growth. Not all decisions are best taken locally and the Government will have to resolve the inherent tension between localism and the wider benefit which often surfaces in planning, particularly when housing and infrastructure are concerned. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w320 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from Worcestershire County Council (ARSS 141) 1. Summary — We must find new ways to match investment certainty with locally-driven strategies. The County Council will support local decision making with our expertise in demographic analysis and forecasting. — It will be essential to get a complete understanding of local perceptions of housing needs. The County Council has particular expertise in opinion polling cross sections of the population and of focus groups which can be used. — The ability of the Homes and Communities Agency to continue to deliver affordable housing funding is critical to meeting local need. — We welcome the proposed New Homes Bonus which will need to be shared between the collecting district councils and the County Council which provides such key infrastructure as roads and schools to support new housing. — Strategic infrastructure will however still be needed in advance of housing development. Through our Local Strategic Partnership and the proposed Local Enterprise Partnership we will gear up to bid for all available sources of funding. — We will take the Government’s new localism agenda as an impetus to strengthen the bottom up review of the Sustainable Community Strategy to provide a framework for local housing initiatives. — We will make arrangements to deliver a “Total Place” approach through the Worcestershire Partnership ensuring that the Local Enterprise Partnership is fully integrated and not operating in parallel. — We are concerned to see that there are collective West Midlands resources to continue preparation of an annual monitoring report to replace that formerly required for the RSS. This provides information on development patterns down to district level and is essential if we are to see if the localism agenda is being delivered.

2. “The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development” Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) targets provided certainty but were not universally welcomed at local level. They did, however provide a level of certainty developers and house builders to invest, assemble land and build. We must now find new ways of matching investment certainty with locally-driven strategies. The proposed Local Enterprise Partnerships may provide a means of doing this. The County Council sees its role as informing a local evidence base that will address both need and opportunity, thus facilitating locally based decision making on housing type, location and quantity. We will do this to support the district councils in their Strategic Housing Land Assessments and by making available our expertise in demographic analysis and forecasting. It will be essential to get a complete understanding of local perceptions of housing needs and the geographic definitions of local communities for the purposes of surveying those perceptions. In rural areas, this work will often be based on parishes, but in towns the perception of “what is my community?” will be more complex. The County Council has particular expertise in opinion polling, for example, via the “Worcestershire Viewpoint” electronic surveying of a representative cross-section of the population, or through electronic voting at focus groups or other local meetings. Now that housing targets are to be determined locally, it is essential that the evidence base for this is as informed, timely and representative as possible. The Government has confirmed that meeting the Nation’s housing needs is a high priority. We look to the forthcoming National Planning Policy Statement to articulate what that need is so that communities can be certain what contribution they are making. There will need to be a clear expectation that local housing provision is balanced by the necessary infrastructure and is associated with local employment opportunities so that growth occurs in a balanced and sustainable way at appropriate locations. There is a particular issue with regard to affordable housing. The former RSS Phase 2 Revision included indicative affordable housing targets for the four strategic housing market areas. This provided a reference point for local authorities in reviewing their own affordable housing needs. These arrangements have been superseded, not only by the RSS abolition, but also by the Homes and Communities Agency’s (HCA) “Single Conversation” direct with local housing authorities. The ability of the HCA to continue to deliver affordable housing funding is critical to meeting local need, particularly during the current recession when delivery through S106 Agreements with commercial house builders is at a very low ebb. “The likely effectiveness of the Government’s plan to incentivise local communities to accept new housing development and the nature and level of the incentives which will need to be put in place to ensure and adequate long-term supply of housing.” The County Council welcomes the proposals to introduce a New Homes Bonus. Receipts will need to be appropriately shared between the districts (who will collect) and the County Council which has key responsibilities for providing roads, supported public transport, schools, social care, libraries and countryside recreation services to support growth. County and district councils will need to put robust monitoring systems cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w321

in place to demonstrate to local communities how that money collected has been spent so they can judge whether value for money has been achieved. Strategic infrastructure will still be needed in advance of development, to address development impact thresholds, including that created by the cumulative impact of a number of smaller, local developments. It is therefore likely that it will have to be funded other than by developers through such mechanisms as the Regional Growth Fund. Medium term certainty about the availability of such funding streams would enable us to commit the substantial resources required to develop, for example, a major road scheme. Strategic infrastructure will also have to include Super Fast Broadband provision. This has become increasingly important and is often essential to enable home based working. We will ensure we are fully geared up through our Local Strategic Partnership and the proposed Local Enterprise Partnership to bid for all available sources of infrastructure funding, including the Regional Growth Fund. We will need to re-visit our Code of Conduct to safeguard the position of members and officers involved in planning decisions for new housing to minimise any public perception of the selling of planning permissions for financial gain regardless of the proper planning merits. Whilst residential development is a matter for district not county councils, many of our councillors serve at county, district and indeed parish levels. The reputation of local government as a whole needs to be protected.

3. “The arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies” Cooperation arrangements in Worcestershire are long standing as is essential in a two tier local government structure. The Worcestershire Partnership is our local strategic partnership at county level and its Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) is an established statement of local community priorities. The existing SCS was refreshed in 2008 using a bottom up approach. We will take the new localism agenda as an opportunity to strengthen the bottom up feed of policy and priorities, including in housing. We will integrate these arrangements with the new Local Enterprise Partnership which we hope and expect will be based on co- terminus Worcestershire boundaries. None of this will prevent us co-operating with neighbouring authorities in Wales and other former regions when this is appropriate. The 33 local authorities of the West Midlands have agreed to continue cooperation through our West Midlands Councils organisation. This gives us the ability to broker cross boundary agreements and to share best practice, particularly in the specialist areas of policy formerly covered by RSS where no one authority has all the necessary expertise.

4. “The adequacy of proposals already put forward by the Government, including a proposed duty to co- operate and the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships may fulfil a planning function” We look for more detail from Government regarding our role in addressing “strategic planning and infrastructure issues.” We have already commenced work on a County wide Infrastructure Delivery Plan in partnership with our district councils. We have commenced work on restructuring the Worcestershire Partnership governance arrangements to ensure we can deliver a “Total Place” approach and we will ensure that the Local Enterprise Partnership is fully integrated not operating in parallel.

5. “How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders' Boards should be made available to local authorities and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries.” We would welcome a commitment from Government to assist West Midlands Councils in maintaining and updating the “legacy” websites where a great deal of information is currently housed. This is particularly important given Government confirmation that the information base on which Regional Spatial Strategy was prepared is still a material planning consideration. We understand that West Midlands Councils have given an undertaking to Government that the RSS evidence base inherited from their predecessor bodies will be maintained via a spreadsheet hosted on their website. Where a resource is of particular sub-regional interest, it will be highlighted. This will be particularly helpful to local authorities in progressing their Local Development Frameworks. A particular current concern is to have the collective resources within the West Midlands (personnel and financial) to continue the former statutory duty of preparing and publishing an Annual RSS Monitoring Report. This provides a detailed time series of development trends down to district council level and is an essential component of the local planning evidence base. In the absence of any regional organisations, this report will also be essential for Ministers to gain an overview of progress on their localism agenda. The local authorities, including Worcestershire, are prepared to continue the collection of data for this report but it will require a collective resource to produce and publish. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w322 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from the Local Government Association (LGA) (ARSS 142) Executive Summary The Local Government Group has long argued that local people, through their directly-elected councils, should have the power to shape their neighbourhoods, guide local development and growth, and have direct access to the benefits that come from new housing and other developments. The Group therefore supported the principles behind “Open Source Planning” and has welcomed the Government’s movements away from regionalised planning targets towards a framework which will allow local people increased say in their local area. However, there are many unanswered questions on the precise details of the planning system that will replace the now-abolished Regional Spatial Strategies, and how the development of new homes will be encouraged. The Local Government Group is keen to work closely with the Government now on a new system that will allow local people to take charge of their areas while ensuring democratic accountability, strategic direction and expertise through local government leadership. The New Homes Bonus concept is attractive, though further information on the practicalities of how this will work is needed. On regional planning, Local Enterprise Partnerships can provide a powerful mechanism for strategic direction across local authority boundaries, but they must have the freedoms and flexibilities to cover the full range of inter-linked issues that underpin local economic performance, including planning.

Regional Spatial Strategies 1. The LGA is a voluntary membership body and our 422 member authorities cover every part of England and Wales. Together they represent over 50 million people and spend around £113 billion a year on local services. They include county councils, metropolitan district councils, English unitary authorities, London boroughs and shire district councils, along with fire authorities, police authorities, national park authorities and integrated transport authorities. 2. The LG Group supported the principles behind the Conservative Party’s “Open Source Planning” document, published in February 2010. The proposals within the document reflect the LGA’s fundamental principles that people should have the power to shape the places in which they live, that councils are uniquely positioned as the accountable public body to plan for their communities, and that unlocking councils’ potential to play a leadership role is critical to the delivery of housing and other development. 3. We are keen to ensure that the Government’s programme for planning reform genuinely works from the bottom up, with local councils and communities collaborating and setting out their vision and plans. 4. It is vitally important that the Government recognises that local authorities have been involved in democratically accountable local decision-making for many years, and have the local knowledge and the expertise to act as local leaders in drawing up plans and taking into account the needs of their entire areas. 5. It is therefore important to for the sector to understand, as soon as possible, what new approaches will be required of them as a result of the Government’s new planning system, over and above existing practice. This will allow councils to avoid creating costly duplication or wasting effort. 6. Strong local plans will set out the needs of communities and local economies, while providing the clarity and clarity that the development industry needs to invest in an area.

The Implications of the Abolition of Regional Housing Targets for Levels of Housing Development 7. The Government has acted quickly on its commitment to reform the planning system to bring decisions on development closer to the communities they affect. Local government has long campaigned for an end to prescriptive central policy on planning which has prevented councils from creating and delivering local visions for how their places should develop. 8. The abolition of regional house building gives new opportunities to plan proactively and make decisions according to communities’ interests and needs.

The New Homes Bonus Proposal 9. The Government has proposed replacing housing targets and the pre-existing Housing and Planning Delivery Grant with the New Homes Bonus, an incentive that would match the increase a council receives in council tax receipts for each additional house built for six years (along with a similar proposal for business rates for non residential development). The incentive would be funded through top-slicing general grant funding to local authorities. 10. Councils support this idea of incentives in principle. Ensuring that the infrastructure, facilities and services will be available to support new housing will help to make new development acceptable to communities. The proposed financial incentives could assist, but it is important that they are sufficient to bring forward the scale of housing development needed in many areas. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w323

11. We have several concerns about how the New Homes Bonus will work in practice: (i) As it is funded from the Revenue Support Grant (RSG), those areas that build less than the national average will see reductions in their grant funding to fund incentive payments for those areas building higher than average numbers of homes. It is vital that the incentives work in all areas of the country, including those areas where poor quality or unwanted housing needs to be replaced to stimulate demand. (ii) For the incentives to be effective, councils will need certainty about how much they can expect to gain, but this will depend on understanding the numbers of homes being built in all areas of the country. (iii) In addition, it is unclear how the incentive will be calculated on an annual basis if it is funded from a four year grant settlement. (iv) The incentives must be put in place quickly and be capable of responding to different housing market conditions if they are to be effective in different local areas. (v) Most importantly, the New Homes Bonus should be implemented as part of a coherent package of incentives incorporating local development tariffs and local government’s proposals for joining up capital and revenue funding through place-based budgets, so that development brings benefits to communities.

Ensuring Appropriate Cooperation Between Local Planning Authorities on Matters Formerly Covered by Regional Spatial Strategies 12. The LG Group supports the principle of responsibility and leadership from the bottom up for “larger than local” planning. Central government, however, will need to ensure councils have all the powers, levers and resources they need to plan strategically and in partnership where appropriate—through Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) or other partnership arrangements 13. It is vital that Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) are flexible enough to suit other self-determined sub regional partnership arrangements. LEPs should be as broad as councils and local businesses want them to be. Many areas want their LEP to cover the full range of inter-linked issues that underpin local economic performance such as local transport provision and infrastructure investment, housing, regeneration, business support and advice (including better regulation), skills and employment, training provision, or support for individual sectors such as tourism. This may be through direct budget-holding and decision-making, or through taking a strategic role and influencing decisions by councils, businesses and other agencies. 14. We are already undertaking work with the Planning Advisory Service and the Planning Officers’ Society on projects to share examples of collective, cross boundary plan-making and to disseminate examples of good local plans.

Further Issues on Waste 15. The Government’s approach to waste planning suggests communities should take responsibility for managing their own waste. 16. Since the 1990s Waste Technical Advisory Bodies (TABs) have supplied waste planning authorities with data on the need for infrastructure facilities, offering an essential strategic overview. 17. However with the end of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS), which TABs used as an integral part of their work, there is now a question as to how planning authorities will have available strategic advice to make informed decisions about the provision of waste facilities, potentially threatening the ability to achieve recycling and landfill targets. Local Enterprise Partnerships could provide this role, but these will not be in place until 2012 and it is for constituent councils to decide their remit. 18. The POS has suggested that the simplest way would be to continue with the TAB system, with reporting lines directed to the constituent planning authorities, working together through LEPs or other joint arrangements where appropriate. This they argue would save money and allow for better interaction with the industry. 19. The Local Government Group believes the POS model should be considered, as must any innovative ways developed by authorities to access information previously held regionally. Planning for waste infrastructure requires both strategic and local insight, and local authorities must be empowered with the ability to offer both.

Data and Research 20. There must be a smooth transition of ownership of valuable regional spatial information. If this process is not managed effectively it could have a knock-on effect on local developments, on community engagement, and infrastructure plans. 21. Councils have already developed innovative ways to access information that was previously held at the regional level. For example, South West Councils has taken steps to ensure that the evidence base behind the draft RSS, for which the Assembly (as Regional Planning Body) and South West Leaders’ Board/SW Councils cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w324 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

was responsible, is preserved. Both the Assembly and South West Councils’ websites have had a snapshot taken of them by the British Library/National Web Archive. This ensures that the pages and their content are preserved for future use. 22. The LG Group could offer to develop its long-term planning performance and support programmes for local government. This offer could include supporting local access to, and selective maintenance of, evidence and research previously held at the regional or national level. September 2010

Written evidence from Thames Water (ARSS 143) Summary — We recognise the Government’s intention to abolish regional spatial strategies as part of a broader policy of decentralisation, and trust that the advantages of the old system for planned infrastructure delivery can be retained under forthcoming arrangements. — Water and sewerage companies require as much certainty as possible about housing growth figures in order to plan ahead and provide adequate water and drainage infrastructure when needed. — We are concerned that the abolition of regional spatial strategies (RSSs) reduces this certainty, which could lead to negative environmental impacts and poor outcomes for customers. — RSSs provided the strategic policy framework on large-scale water and sewerage infrastructure of regional importance. Their abolition makes it unclear who will decide on strategic policy matters in future. — It is vital that strategic water and wastewater matters are considered at the appropriate level. Planning policy must then support delivery of required infrastructure at the right time.

Introduction We welcome the opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee to assist with its inquiry on the abolition of regional spatial strategies. This submission sets out our views on the issue. We trust this submission will help inform the Committee’s analysis and we would, of course, be happy to discuss our views in more detail.

Main submission The implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development 1. Thames Water is the UK’s largest water and wastewater services company. We serve 8.7 million water customers and 13.8 million wastewater customers across the London and Thames Valley area, from Kent and Essex in the east to the edge of Gloucestershire in the west. This area is governed by more than 100 local authorities and falls into four regions: — London (unaffected by the abolition of RSSs) — the South East; — the South West; and — the East of England. 2. Every new commercial or housing development in our area is entitled to connect to our local clean water and drainage networks, so we need a clear view of expected levels of housing growth in order to deliver the infrastructure needed to serve our customers. Regional spatial strategies (RSSs) provided this clarity, because their housing targets told us where growth would happen and how fast it would come. Accordingly, we produced our £4.9 billion investment programme for 2010–15 in line with RSS housing growth figures to minimise the risks of unfunded costs and inadequate infrastructure. Failure to provide appropriate infrastructure can have serious consequences for customers and the environment, including sewer flooding or localised water shortages. A lack of clarity could lead to investment in areas that do not experience growth, which would waste money and resources. 3. Even before the advent of RSSs, there were still regional plans such as Regional Planning Guidance note 9 (RPG9) which provided housing figures. These plans were not part of the statutory development plan and were therefore of a lesser status but still provided us with useful projections on housing levels. At county level, these housing figures were also included in structure plans, which no longer form part of the development plan. The revocation of regional spatial strategies therefore represents a significant departure from previous approaches. 4. Following the revocation of regional spatial strategies in July 2010, we wrote to all local authorities within our area (outside London) to ask whether they would review or retain their RSS targets. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w325

5. Out of 46 local authorities who responded, only 21 had actually taken a decision. It is clear that many authorities’ housing strategies will be delayed, sometimes by around six to seven months. We are concerned that this ongoing uncertainty around future housing levels makes it difficult for us to plan for growth and avoid poor outcomes for customers. 6. Furthermore, we believe that the revocation of RSSs has removed an important strategic level of planning policy. We recognise the Government’s intention to abolish regional spatial strategies as part of a broader policy of decentralisation, and hope that the advantages of the old system can be retained under forthcoming arrangements. Our region requires large-scale investment in infrastructure to address urgent environmental needs, such as river water quality or increasing demand for water. The RSSs contained detailed policies on these issues and were essential guides to local authorities when deciding on planning applications. 7. For example, the South East Plan (May 2009) provides for new water and wastewater infrastructure to address population growth and rising environmental standards177. The Plan identified new water resource schemes in the policy, which required local authorities to work extensively with the water companies and the Environment Agency to deliver these schemes. These schemes were identified on the basis of water companies’ Water Resource Management Plans or through regional modelling of water supply-demand balance while the Plan was being prepared. The Plan also required local authorities to allocate and safeguard sites that could host the necessary infrastructure. Even where schemes were not certain to progress, authorities were told to safeguard the sites nonetheless so as not to limit any options in future. Revoking the RSSs has removed this strategic perspective without identifying any replacement. 8. The absence of the strategic framework that RSSs provided leaves a gap in planning policy between local and national levels. This gap is unlikely to be filled in the short to medium term and could make it harder for us to provide strategic infrastructure when it is most needed. This is particularly important because some local authorities have not covered water and drainage infrastructure in local development frameworks on the grounds that the issues were already covered in the RSS. In other words, the need for strategic investment in water resources is no longer recognised at either regional or local level.

The implications for cooperation and data-sharing between local planning authorities 9. We manage our water resources on the basis of river basins, not administrative boundaries, so strategic resource management is better done at a regional level to reflect the water resource zones that companies use. For example, the South East Plan, which examined the relationship between our plans and regional housing growth projections, recognised that the proposed Upper Thames Reservoir in Oxfordshire would act as a strategic regional resource for customers in the Swindon-Oxfordshire and London water resource zones178. Our preferred long-term option is to build a new reservoir in Oxfordshire by 2026. 10. It is essential to take a strategic approach to planning such a key resource, given the reservoir would be located in one region while providing water to three regions (the South East, London and the South West) and more than 20 different local authorities. 11. It is unclear how this gap in regional planning will be filled and the relevant data captured, in particular on issues that affect many local authorities. There is potentially an increased risk of inconsistency between local authorities that may lead to confusion, shortfalls or unfunded obligations for companies. To avoid this risk, it is critical that water companies and Environment Agency are directly involved in all water and wastewater matters previously covered by the RSS. 12. More generally, mechanisms should be put in place to allow Local Enterprise Partnerships or other strategic bodies to assume a coordination role in regional planning. This could also be achieved through groups of local authorities co-ordinating together. In the absence of a formal regional framework such voluntary groupings, involving authorities with common issues, could provide a route for the sort of co-operative approach that is needed. By jointly considering issues such as housing and infrastructure provision this would help ensure a coherent, co-ordinated approach, promoting sustainable economic development while providing the necessary clarity around the need for new infrastructure. The members of such groupings would need to be able to adopt binding housing targets to ensure a co-operative approach was maintained. 13. While their impact is limited to the water sector only, we believe that Water Cycle Studies (WCSs) could potentially help, if undertaken widely. Many local authorities have undertaken WCSs to determine what sustainable water and wastewater infrastructure is required, and where and when it is needed. A WCS considers environmental capacity and technological constraints, and involves other stakeholders in the process including water companies and the Environment Agency. We believe that WCSs should be carried out by all local authorities and they clearly must reflect the particular environmental and growth circumstances of that area. Where stakeholders raise a strategic issue, local authorities should work together to consider the issues on a catchment-wide basis. Where there are issues of a more strategic, regional nature, there may be a role for county councils and unitary authorities? to work together, drawing upon the WCSs, Water Resource Management Plans and Surface Water Management Plans. Equally, there may be a role for the Environment Agency in coordinating 177 See policies NRM, NRM2 and NRM3 of the South East Plan, May 2009. 178 See policy NRM3 of the South East Plan. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w326 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

the process of determining which infrastructure is required, with input from water companies and local authorities. 14. Ultimately, whether or not WCSs are used as a vehicle, it is vital that strategic water and wastewater matters are considered at the appropriate level. Planning policy must then support delivery of required infrastructure at the right time.

Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards 15. We believe that the evidence base prepared by the Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards is a valuable resource that provides a basis on which individual planning authorities could seek to establish their own housing targets. This data should be made publicly available in the interests of transparency and accountability, possibly through an online database. Once this data is published, local authorities should be held accountable for keeping the information up to date. September 2010

Written evidence from Localise West Midlands (ARSS 144) 1. Introduction 1.1 This report sets out the views of Localise West Midlands, a not for profit organisation which believes that economic development and government are inextricably linked and that decisions in both areas are best taken at as local a level as possible by citizens or by their democratically accountable representatives. For further information about LWM, its objectives and activities see its website at www.localisewestmidlands.org.uk. 1.2 LWM welcomes the Committee’s decision to undertake an Inquiry into the revocation and abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies. It notes the Committee will be focusing on the implications of this decision for house building; what arrangements should be put in place to ensure cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by Regional Spatial Stategies; the adequacy of the Government’s proposals including a duty to cooperate; the suggestion that Local Enterprise Partnerships have a Planning Function and the provision of Regional Data and Research services. 1.3 The response focuses on the West Midlands Region and draws on LWM, s works in the Region. It has also considered the proposals in the context of its approach to making Government work for all local communities in the region and the region as a whole.179, We have also taken into account observations we made on the previous Governments proposals for Sub National Government in England 180 and proposals submitted to the Government about establishing Local Enterprise Partnerships in the West Midlands Region181. 1.4 The Key Points we wish to make are set out in Section 2. Further supporting arguments for our position are set out in Section 3.

2. Key Points 2.1 LWM is concerned that the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies and related regional institutional infrastructure will: — Ignore the long history of Regional Working in the West Midlands Region and disadvantage the region compared to other parts of the UK which benefit from devolved democratically accountable Government. — Result in a policy vacuum to be filled by a return to and increase to ad hoc decisions being taken at Westminster and in Whitehall with inadequate understanding of the issues, and little or no ownership of them in the Regions. The hasty abolition of regional planning could leave a vacuum in terms of the policy resulting in an uncertain environment in which to take the major investment decisions. — Lead to uncoordinated planning and friction especially at boundaries between Local Enterprise Partnerships and individual Local Authorities. — Deny that there is much more to the RSS than housing including Economic Development, Biodiversity, Climate Change, both adaptation and mitigation, resource use and waste, transport, air quality, minerals, general infrastructure, flooding and renewables. — Undermine the joined up coherent approach which is required to promote Sustainable development. Such an approach is impossible at the National level at which policy is driven by the silo cultures of Central Government. 179 Making Government Work for Local Communties: LWM Policy Statement No.1, 2006. 180 LWM Response to the Government’s Consultation About “Prosperous Places: Taking Forward the Review of Sub National Economic Development and Regereration”; June 2008 181 See West Midlands Councils, Web Site at www.wmleadersboard.gov.uk cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w327

— Emphasise the National and Global to the detriment of moves, which have been starting to take place to support a more localised and therefore sustainable approach to economic development. — Mean progress on developing Green Infrastructure could be halted as new relationships and understandings have to be established. In recent years there have been ongoing reviews of the West Midlands RSS where all those involved had to address important strategic decision making and engage in a process where everybody was not going to get everything that they wanted. This was a hard learning process for many BUT mutual respect and relationships were developed along with a wider understanding of what needs to be done. — Exclude from decisions a wide range of views in the region outside the political and business elites. While not as fully democratic and locally accountable as is desirable the RSSs, s processes and supporting institutional infrastructure did engage a range of partners.The consultation and examination process was open transparent and allowed many views to be aired. Although the Regional Assemblies were not fully democratic they did engage a wide range of bodies and views in a way that might not have been to everyone’s liking BUT did at least ensure that there was a much more grounded understanding of the reasons as to why decisions had to be taken. “As not only an organisation which took up a seat on the Assembly BUT one which engaged actively in the RSS process we also tried to enable as many community groups as possible to engage and make their views heard. Indeed as a result of this many local communities did actively engage in the process. By doing so they not only made their views know in consultations but also took up the opportunity to speak at the public examination.” Friends of the Earth, West Midlands Region — Ignore much regional data and evidence-based work generated by the RSS process covering a whole spectrum of local and regional planning policies. There is likely to be a loss of data and information, which could otherwise be shared and coordinated when policy decisions are made. The RSS process and the establishment of various regional bodies enabled the evidence to be collated and shared across the region in a way that made best use of very limited spcialist resources. It also informed policy decisions across the region including those of planning inspectors determining development proposals. 2.2 LWM believes that the Committee needs to recommend to Parliament that: — Regionally based and owned Strategic Planning inform policy making both nationally and Locally. It is vital to have a level of strategic planning between local councils and national government to ensure proper coordination across council and other instiutional boundaries and to create a degree of certainty on which to base investment decisions. — Communities need some level of strategic thinking beyond the local level to deliver many of the things they want, such as hospitals, transport links, waste management and flood protection. The most pressing issues facing the nation, for example, such as the housing crisis, economic recovery, climate change and biodiversity loss, cannot be dealt with solely at the level of local authorities, the proposed LEPs, or nationally. — Housing Polices especially New House Building have to be sustainble which requires they be shaped by the Regional and the Local taking into account a whole range of factors including employment,the character of our town and country, climate change, resource use and waste, transport, general infrastructure, flooding and renewables. — RSSs were useful in that they provided the much-needed direction on how national targets were to be met and a body of knowledge that often underpinned local authority and other decision- making. In putting forward an application for a particular development local authorities and developers could successfully argue that such a scheme is needed if regional targets are to be met. — Strategic Policy making both regionally and Sub Regionally including Local Enterprise and other Partnership approaches must be inclusive, transparent. — Resourced opportunities are required to maximise the participation in Regional, and Sub regional Planning and other policy making of the Voluntary, and Community Sectors as well as Local Government and the Business Communities. — Regional Strategic planning has helped ensure local authorities make consistent decisions on development across their boundaries, including affordable housing, public transport and waste provision. These developments need a high level of cross-authority working and the Government will need to outline a credible alternative to fill this void. — Decisions should be made at the lowest practical level and democratically accountable representatives must hold the responsibility for those decisions and the authority to take them at the same level. — Therefore Local Enterprise Partnerships should not have any Statutory Planning Function. — Local choice and therefore diversity must be recognised as a positive; the system must be simple enough for those engaged in or with it to be able to identify who is responsible for what decision; democratic accountabilities and responsibility need to be maximised so as to be strong enough to resist the return to the slow and hideous growth of centralisation. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w328 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

— The way regional development including it’s economy is managed and governed needs to be tailored to the experience and needs of each region and not dictated by the centre. There needs to be a dramatic curtailing of the role at the regional and local levels of Central Government Departments, their executive agencies and remaining quangos. — The financial independence of the different tiers of government needs to be maximised. The only role for central government should be distributing and equalising resources in relation to need. This must be formula based and accepted that it gives a higher tier of government no right whatsoever to even try and influence how that funding is spent. — If the higher tier of government wishes to see a different provision of services from the choice of the democratically elected lower tier then it must fund, manage it and win a local referendum. — Each tier of democratic accountable government should have a duty to fully consult and involve other stakeholders and the general public. — We need: — A new green approach to the Region’s economy. — A stronger, more inclusive and democratically accountable regional Government. — A stronger more inclusive and independent Regional Stakeholder and Civic Society Organisation. — A really local local government.

3. Other Supporting Arguments Cooperation-Regional Working in the West Midlands 3.1 There has been a long history of Regional Working in the West Midlands going back at least to the 1940,s. Despite challenges driven by successive Governments and at times by individual Local Authorities support for a joint approach to the needs of the region have been sustained. This approach and the benefits it has produced are now at great risk of being lost. 3.2 A coordinated regional approach emerged in the 1950s, in response to the then pressures of economic and population growth. This followed repeated failed attempts by Birmingham City Council to force on the Shire areas new housing and ad hoc decisions taken by successive Government Ministers in London. Eventually all the Local Authorities recognised that they needed to work together across their boundaries to agree how they jointly would manage the needs of the region in a balanced way which was sustainable. 3.3 Regional Working in the West Midlands has in many ways shaped the region of today. It has brought forward and supported the successful New and Expanded Towns, the maintenance of the Green Belts, Urban and Rural regeneration, responded to the major challenges faced by the region’s economy in the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and the impact of the recent credit crisis. 3.4 In the early 1990,s the EU insisted that a prerequisite for accessing EU Regional Development Investment was Regionally produced Regional Strategies and Development Programmes a requirement that was met in the West Midlands by LA led Regional Planning. This initiative was closely related and drew on the Local Authority led Regional Planning Guidance work the forerunner of Regional Spatial Strategies. Previously Central Government had produced in London Regional Development plans and programmes for the English Regions all of which were virtually identical apart from name changes! 3.5 The Local Authorities and other interests have worked to support a strong regional voice, focusing on regional needs, collaboration, local action and mobilising support from within the region, the UK. Government and beyond. Now they have been forced in a matter of months to deny all that has gone before and to compete with each other for patronage from Westminster and Whitehall. 3.6 Regional Stakeholders have been actively engaged in regional policy, strategy, and scrutiny. These stakeholders brought forward alternative, non-parochial and party political views from across the region, challenging the views of Central and local government. Those directly involved in Regional decision-making have invariably seen these contributions as a real strength.182 3.7 Conversely, stakeholders involved in the Regional Assemblies were frustrated by the adoption of local government committee procedures when the regional arena was seen as presenting an opportunity to introduce more efficient and streamlined forms of decision-making.183 There have also been real tensions between Local Government and Stakeholders about the legitimacy of non-elected stakeholder participation in the work of the existing Regional Assemblies. 3.8 Local Government involvement of the local, and other regional stakeholders in regional decision-making has been poor and limited at best. Local Government has done little to involve local people in regional decision- making and the wider devolution agenda. As a consequence there has been very little reporting of these issues by the local press and broadcasters and therefore very limited appreciation of the issues by the public. It is 182 SnapeS and Mawson J (2005) The role of Regional Assembly Members. ERN—Warwick University. 183 Snape and Mawson J (2005) Policy and Decsion Making in Regional Assemblies. ERN—Warwick Univesity. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w329

relevant that none of the bids submitted to Government for LEPs, has been subject to any public and wider stakeholder consultation let alone make reference to how the proposers intend to engage them. 3.9 Despite these problems LWM believes there is a need to build on rather than discard regional working in the West Midlands, and to strengthen civic society involvement in it as an important counterbalance to a single powerful institutional voice. Local Government does not have the monopoly of truth about the region. Indeed it was not designed to operate at the regional level. 3.10 The local government electorate process inevitably leads to a local authority and party political focus often at some distance from the really local. This makes it is difficult for local government leaders to always take a regional view. The experience of the Regional Assembly showed that when this happened regional stakeholders outside local government were able to challenge municipal parochialism and encourage the development of a new vision. 3.11 It needs to be recognised that with the exception of the private sector, most regional stakeholders in the non-local government bloc cannot afford to resource themselves their engagement in regional or sub regional work having relied largely in the past on support from the now abolished Regional Assemblies. 3.12 In contrast arrangements are in place in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Greater London to facilitate the element of stakeholder and civic society participation in the work of the Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament. At present stakeholders and Civic Society in the English regions appear to be very significantly disadvantaged compared to other parts of the Union. 3.13 Decision-making will be seriously flawed without strong engagement of non-local government regional stakeholder. A collective regional stakeholder voice needs to be maintained. Central government needs to provide finance to run a stakeholder office and some technical support to foster a strong an effective stakeholder participation in all aspects of Regional and Sub Regional decision-making and Governance.

Sustainable Development 3.12 Recent events have confirmed our view that a focus on global economic competitiveness and credit- driven economic growth is not sustainable and very high risk in terms of social, economic and territorial cohesion across regions. Of particular concern is the impact of this approach for employment. In 2008 we argued that a global as well as a British downturn appeared likely given the nexus of problems such as the credit crunch, energy and food shortages, hence price rises and the fall in property values and consumer demand. 3.13 The idea that we can out-compete China and India in future high tech markets is a delusion. While they have and will continue to have far cheaper wage rates, they are already developing very large graduate workforces, and are increasingly we are seeing many higher skilled jobs moving to these and other countries with their workers able to effectively deliver many professional and administrative services via the Internet. 3.14 The way out of these problems is to decentralise fiscal and monetary policies so as to connect them more closely to the local and to focus on bringing together the demand and supply of goods and services so as to strengthen social, economic and territorial cohesion. Interest rates need to more accurately reflect local and regional inflationary pressures .New sources of finance such as local and regional bonds need to be promoted to finance local and regional investment, including housing, which could generate a huge number of hi and lower tech jobs, substantial new businesses. Most importantly regional and local action has to tackle climate change by cutting carbon emissions. 3.15 This new “Green Deal” could begin by funding decentralised energy production, storage, distribution and conservation. Such a programme would ensure high standards of insulation, extensive use of combined heat and power programmes. It would encourage the use of renewable to meet a new goal of every building being its own power station.184 3.16 It is this fundamentally different approach to the Region’s economy that needs to underpin how we approach it’s future development .The LEP bids from the West Midlands region touch on the need for Green Initiatives, but they are still rooted in an outdated economic development paradigm which accepts dependence on London patronage and focuses on global competitiveness and Supply side economics. 3.17 The LEP bids by focusing on journey to work/Labour markets take a far too narrow view of what constitutes a regional economic entity. Much more attention needs to be paid to the flows of goods and services between different localities and the potential to increase them as part of a strategy to strengthen localisation and therefore greater self-sufficiency and sustainability. 3.18 Such a radical new approach to the economy needs an equally radical approach to decision making; there needs to be a real transfer from London to the local and the region, of public and private decisions, leadership and resources. September 2010

184 Seeing Off the Credit Crunch with a Green New Deal; Colin Hines, Localise WM: Birmingham Post article Feb 2008. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w330 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (ARSS 145) 1. Introduction 1.1 This short paper sets out CABE’s response to the CLG Select Committee inquiry on the abolition of regional spatial strategies (RSS’s). Before addressing the specific questions asked by the Committee, we have briefly set out CABE’s role and experience in this area. 1.1 The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) is the successor of the Royal Fine Arts Commission and was established in 1999. CABE champions well-designed buildings and public space, providing expert, practical advice. We work directly with planners, designers, clients and architects, offering them guidance on projects that will shape all our lives. CABE is a statutory executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), and funded by DCMS and the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG). 1.2 CABE has worked with all the RDAs and the Regional Centres of Excellence they fund. In particular, to improve the quality of the built environment, providing specific advice and support to enable this in each region, through the use of architecture centres, and working with the network of design review panels. 1.3 CABE recently published online advice on Large Scale Urban Design for local decision makers seeking to address issues which cross governance boundaries. In particular it: — Reinforces the rationale for adopting a new, place-focused approach to cross-boundary planning and delivering the transformation of places in England and to show how it can be done (through literature and case study review). — Defines a methodology for the preparation of large scale spatial frameworks and strategies (through research, work with expert panel and pilot projects) including the publication of a practical guide.

2. Summary 2.1 Strategic planning has an important role in addressing challenges that exist across spatial scales, such as national and regional infrastructure, climate change, housing, waste and minerals. There needs to be an integrated response to these challenges that have a strong spatial expression when dealing with the provisions of economic, social and environmental infrastructure. Regional planning through RSSs was intended to provide this important function. It has been argued however, that it became too focused on housing and job allocations imposed centrally onto local authorities, with very little local input. To the extent that this happened, it has been argued that it was at the expense of delivering quality places. Without this regional strategic planning function well intentioned local plans will find it difficult to address sub-regional, regional and national priorities, and will fail to deliver well-designed places. The opportunity should be taken to retain coordination of planning at a larger-than-local scales that meets shared priorities, but with a focus on high quality and sustainable places and not housing numbers. This should be done on the basis of locally organised groups of local authorities, businesses and communities coming together to deal with the issues that cross boundaries. 2.2 Following the abolition of regional spatial strategies, cross boundary cooperation presents a vital opportunity to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies. For this reason we are encouraged by the creation of Local Enterprise Partnerships but see this as just one way of encouraging cross boundary working. 2.3 CABE’s experience has been that when decisions of larger than local significance on housing, planning, transport and infrastructure, have been taken at a multi authority level this has tended to produce better outcomes. Decisions taken in partnership by authorities can be beneficial to more than one local authority area either economically, socially or environmentally, or directly where sites are on boundaries.

3. Quality as an Incentive for New Development 3.1 Incentives for housing development need to be at such a level that neighbourhoods choose to welcome growth. CABE’s experience shows that a key incentive for the acceptance of new housing development is the quality of the housing and the wider places they create. Previously communities have resisted development as they assumed, in a lot of cases quite rightly, that what would be built would be of low quality and scar their local area.185 3.2 In order to deliver the number of houses that we need, communities need to see new development as an asset to their area. Recent research by Communities and Local Government shows that the design and quality of new development is important to community support for new development, “Just under three out of four (73%) said they would support more homes if they were well designed and in keeping with the local area. “186 This demonstrates that quality and quantity are intrinsically linked. 185 Housing audit: assessing the design quality of new housing in the East Midlands, West Midlands and the South West (CABE, 2007). 186 Public attitudes to housing 2010, (National Housing and Planning Advice Unit, 2010). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w331

3.3 Incentives have to be of real benefit to communities. Local acceptance of housing growth results from being able to see how the wider local community are benefiting from new homes. Well designed new development attracts wider investment to an area bringing new facilities and an increase in local economic activity, an incentive that local communities can see across their local area.

4. Arrangements to Ensure Appropriate Cooperation between Local Planning Authorities on Matters Formerly Covered by Regional Spatial Strategies Importance of planning functions at a larger than local level 4.1 In CABE’s experience, planning functions are needed at the larger than local level because of the need to develop places in a sustainable way and meet not just local, but national and global priorities, such as addressing climate change, promoting economic growth and delivering affordable housing. 4.2 One of the most dramatic changes to affect planning and urban design has been the growth of the area within which people live their lives, or what economists and planners call “functional spatial areas”. People now have communities of work and communities of interest and networks of friends, customers, shops, leisure facilities and suppliers which go well beyond the immediately local. 4.3 These extended areas form the scale at which economic and housing markets now operate, and correspond to the catchment areas of large retail centres, major hospitals, leisure facilities or higher education institutions. Housing and job markets do not observe local authority boundary “red lines” on a map. Nor do people notice red lines when they are crossing them in the car or on the train. 4.4 Planning, for the above issues, therefore needs to operate across boundaries as well. To take advantage of the change from top-down regional strategies, the bigger picture has to be thought about in ways which allow people to work together to find answers to the questions which result from our way of life. 4.5 This means that the way in which we plan and design our towns and cities and rural areas will need to change. A flexible framework is needed to inform decisions on where best to invest limited resources for infrastructure, or where to focus the energies of private developers and public service providers. Those whose lives are directly affected have to be involved in the process. 4.6 CABE recently published online guidance on large scale urban design for local decision makers seeking to address issues which cross governance boundaries.187

Ways to cooperate 4.7 CABE has worked with many of the cross-boundary organisations set up to tackle large scale challenges, whether economic, financial or environmental. Our experience of these sub-regional development bodies, joint planning units and regeneration partnerships suggests that appropriate cooperation is already being achieved in a number of ways: 4.8 By the collaboration of local authorities to write joint plans. This has been done in some areas already through joint core strategies. Local authorities could also collaborate and produce the higher level plan, but still produce their own local plan .A good example of this is the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA).188 4.9 Cross boundary decision making could also be achieved through the aligning of local plans to ensure strategic objectives are met across wider areas and places are not forced into competition, without having to share a specific plan, such as the Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategies. 4.10 However wherever these functions sit there needs to be a consistent approach to ensure no local areas are penalised as a result of inadequate strategic planning. For example in France a new a new generation of sub-regional strategies—SCOTs (Schéma de Cohérence Territoriale) have been developed since 2004. Montpellier SCOT provides a cross-scale and cross-sectoral policy and delivery framework for Montpellier conurbation.189 There also needs to be careful consideration of what means of cooperation will be available where local authorities do not decide to form LEP’s.

5. A Possible Planning Role for Local Enterprise Partnerships 5.1 Local Enterprise Partnerships, as locally owned partnerships between local authorities and business, formed to drive economic growth across an economic area, provide another means for appropriate cooperation across boundaries. They will operate at an appropriate spatial scale, and their role in promoting economic growth is intrinsically linked to the outcomes of spatial planning; housing, transport etc. 5.2 The LEP model provides an excellent means to bring real professional expertise and experience in to realising strategic delivery. However, to be truly representative of communities LEP’s need to directly involve communities in decision making and represent their views, particularly if they are to take on planning functions. 187 Getting the big picture right: large scale urban design, CABE (2010). 188 AGMA, http://www.agma.gov.uk 189 Getting the big picture right: large scale urban design, CABE (2010), Pg.18&19. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w332 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

This could be done through voted community representatives on the LEP board, or through regular and wide spread councillor involvement, for example. 5.3 Of course they are not the only method to deliver cross boundary functions. In Cambridge the Cambridge Futures project looked at ways of relieving development pressure in and around Cambridge. A group of local stakeholders, including public and private sector representatives, initiated and managed the project.190 5.4 Local authorities will continue to deal with spatial planning and development management under the reformed planning system, through joint or aligned plans. This could form a very efficient partnership to bring forward growth and infrastructure where it is needed: local authorities would retain the impartiality they need to develop a balanced and aspirational vision for their place and ensure that developments are of the good quality they demand as the representatives of their communities; LEP’s would ensure that the investment comes forward to deliver that vision and the infrastructure needed to support growth.

6. Support Needed to Ensure Appropriate Cooperation Between Local Planning Authorities 6.1 As outlined above cross boundary decision making can and does already exist between local authorities, with many joint core strategies, several joint planning units, and many aligned core strategies in existence. The legislative framework for joint working is already in place. 6.2 However to ensure cooperation is effective, it could be incentivised through greater freedoms, or through greater opportunities to bid for centrally funded infrastructure provision etc. These incentives would best work where they are linked to joint targets and objectives and shared resources. 6.3 Local authorities need to be properly resourced if this is to work well, particularly if they are to effectively undertake neighbourhood planning and articulate this with the cross-boundary strategy. But reduced budgets may encourage some local authorities to start joint working on a more formal basis in order to cut costs and share resources and expertise. For example, joint CEO’s and directors of regeneration, and directors of health shared by PCT’s and local authorities. September 2010

Written evidence from Dr Alister James Scott (ARSS 147) Introduction Dr Alister Scott is a spatial planner with significant expertise in governance and public involvement particularly relating to the operation and impact of the planning system. He has widely published in academic and policy press and is an active researcher on behalf of Scottish, Welsh and English governments, agencies and local government clients. He has chaired Cardigan Bay Forum and been a board member of Scottish Natural Heritage dealing with planning and landscape concerns. In my submission I am able to draw upon experience in the devolved countries and New Zealand.

Key Points about the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) 1. The abandoning of the RSS with immediate effect represents a fundamental change to the planning system in England and appears to have been done without taking stock of the lessons learnt from their operation. It is important that policy decisions are based on “good” and “sound” evidence. Statements in Open Source planning (2010) Green Paper represent political arguments rather than any substantive analysis of the need to abolish the regional tier of planning. There might be compelling reasons why RSS was not appropriate and there is an urgent need to learn the lessons from that process to inform something different. But surely that involves consultation. Here the planners might have a valuable role to play as trained professionals separate from their political representatives. In my view the planner and the planning profession has become a political football without a full understanding of the role and remit and value of the planning system. Here the RTPI and TCPA have been remarkably silent but, in my view, there is a lot of ignorance about the planning system as an agent of social, economic and environment change; more often than not it is widely perceived and cited incorrectly that planning inhibits development. 2. Regional planning represents one tier of a two way spatial planning system. Spatial planning is more than New Labour rhetoric and represents a professional and strategic approach to land and resource management emanating from the European down to the neighbourhood level and horizontally across the various policy sectors (agriculture, economic development, environment, housing, transport etc). Within the vertical hierarchy are various policy imperatives that cross local scale boundaries. For example climate change (COP 15; Kyoto), water catchment management (water framework directive) and nature conservation (Natura 2000, Marine Framework Directive) and landscape designations (European Landscape Convention) cut across local authority boundaries and require formal structures to co-operate at “regional” level. Indeed, many of the key planning issues raised by the recession demand a regional scale of collaboration but perhaps based on a more flexible approach. I fear that the proverbial planning baby has been thrown out with regional bathwater and that I see 190 Getting the big picture right: large scale urban design, CABE (2010), Pg.20. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w333

the simple deletion of the “region” from current thinking. However much of European funding is based on regional identity and structures and there is a clear risk of disjuncture here which will prevent much needed monies to support regeneration and development activities.

3. One of the key lessons from the RSS episode was the need for staff to prepare adequate and sound SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessments). Many were held up or rejected due to simple procedural failures such as the need to consider alternatives in a preferred option. These requirements are enshrined in European Law and are therefore subject to legal challenge by anyone. The idea that neighbourhood plans can be drawn up and inform development plans is a very useful idea and raises issues of the status of parish plans and community strategies. But it is clear that whether it is a RSS or neighbourhood plan influencing core strategies they will need to follow SEA procedures or be subject to legal challenge resulting in their deferral or rejection. The capacity of neighbourhoods to do all this is questionable as is the logic in the extra burden falling on local authorities with reduced numbers of policy planners.

4. The localism agenda however is an important part of the spatial planning hierarchy and arguably has not been given the attention it needs. However the danger of local politics and the power of influence can easily distort planning in the wider societal interest which is what I understand planning to be about. Therefore we need to have a top down and bottom up approach that meets somewhere and a conversation that produces legitimacy but also excellent planning products. I fear that we have become so wrapped up in the rhetoric of consultation, involvement that we lose sight of the purpose of planning in producing excellent outputs and policies. Such changes as proposed require significant capacity building, which requires investment in staff to bring this about. It is clear that there is no new money and therefore raises key questions of who will do this work. I suspect when it fails planners will again be seen as the fall guys.

5. Support and sound information is a pre-requisite for effective participation. When we are considering future development options communities need to be able to understand the implications of various development options and therefore a whole new set of planning posts need to support this requirement. We would not let communities conduct brain surgery on ministers but equally I think there is a perception that planning is something that the public can easily do. As a university lecturer I spend a lot of my time training planners to be effective and skilled people. This can’t be simply derogated to the community.

6. The local enterprise partnerships are, as yet, unknown beasts. My understanding is that many of them will be incorporated within existing local authority strategic partnerships. My contention is that in order to plan effectively for climate change and for the future we need to adopt more meaningful regional partnerships and boundaries and rather than the current trend to create new structures. The current river basin management groups within water catchments under the Water Framework Directive afford a potential model for wider spatial planning as they represent real and logical natural boundaries which shape many contemporary planning responses. This is a cost efficient way to redraw the map of planning in the UK, facilitating joined up planning to feed from European level to neighbourhood and allowing for horizontal integration across the key sectors of conservation, transport, economic development and housing.

7. It is interesting to me that a lot of the planning debates focus on housing numbers when they only represent one aspect of the jigsaw. Few people embrace the proper spatial planning approach which is about building sustainable communities and allowing a range of developments within areas. It is also important to realise that there is no such thing as community. There are, however, communities and public(s). Consequently you will never get a universal view or consensus. Planning decisions result in winners and losers in many cases but should be located within a process that is fair and equitable and in the societal interest. Recognising this and dealing with multiple public(s) is a key first step but unfortunately the push to localism will only exacerbate these tensions.

8. This leads on to my final point. There is no national spatial plan within which any planning takes place in England. What kind of society do we want and what and where are the key places for our national infrastructure and developments? Rather than a cut and paste of existing policy the Government should portray a spatial picture of England within which strategic planning at the different levels can take place working towards that spatial vision. Otherwise we will see ad hoc planning and powerp lays which pit communities against each other. A lot of my research has shown increasing public disaffection with planning simply because they appear powerless to influence it. The abolition of the regional spatial strategies and a switch to localism will not prevent this happening, particularly in light of reduced professional planning resources to enable it. September 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w334 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from Kent County Council (ARSS 149) Summary 1. Kent County Council (KCC) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry and would like to highlight the following priority areas. We would be very happy to expand on any aspect either in writing or as oral evidence. — Kent County Council strongly welcomes the Coalition’s Government’s decision to abolish the Regional Spatial Strategies and return decision making powers on housing and planning matters to locally elected authorities. The decision provides a significant opportunity for the devolution of funding and function and underpins the delivery of sustainable and prosperous communities. — There is a strong and continuing need for strategic planning below the level of regions. The new planning system needs to put in place a policy solution that addresses those issues that are wider than local but are vital for strong and prosperous communities. In this period of financial austerity, any solution must incorporate the positives and wealth of experience that already exists. It must capitalise on that knowledge and expertise for the wider good, building on the statutory roles of individual local councils. — There needs to be clarity within the planning system that will give confidence for private investment and for the construction sector. It is not a time for a reversion to old style structure plans, but a solution is needed that allows for proper planning and investment decisions on matters that cross local authority boundaries and are wider than neighbourhood level. Many of the key challenges facing the country—housing, economic recovery, protection of the environment and habitats, climate change, energy, mineral supply and waste management cannot be addressed solely at the local level. — County Councils, working together with District and Unitary authorities as the statutory local housing and planning authorities, are well placed with their long established history of delivering and facilitating strategic development to play a key role in future strategic planning. Kent County Council firmly believes that effective strategic planning can be achieved with counties offering a sensible geographic basis for that work, drawing upon the commercial expertise offered by Local Enterprise Partnerships, the local input of the family of local government in their areas and pragmatic dialogue with neighbouring authorities. — As the strategic planning framework seeks to achieve a balance between competing priorities, it is important that it remains under clear democratic control. We therefore believe that while LEPs should be proactively consulted and engaged in the preparation of strategic plans, policy decisions must ultimately rest with democratic representatives. — County-level spatial frameworks or infrastructure plans building upon the District Local Development Frameworks (LDF) are the most appropriate means for co-ordinating planning, infrastructure and economic development and conservation policies. Flexibility is also required locally to allow for and encourage partnerships between neighbouring counties. The A21 Reference Group of MPs, Council Leaders, public agencies and business along the length of the A21 from Sevenoaks to Hastings working together for shared priorities is an excellent example of this approach. — We believe further clarity is required regarding the incentivising of house-building and the effectiveness in delivering objectives, particular in 2-tier authorities.

Introduction and Context 2. Kent County Council is the largest shire County Council and has a proven track record as an innovative provider of public services. As a consistently top-performing authority it has placed service users at the heart of service delivery, empowered communities and improved the efficiency of its services. It strongly supports localism, the empowerment of service users and residents and the devolution of services to the lowest possible level at which a function can be undertaken and at which ‘practical’ decisions can be made. 3. KCC has been at the forefront of strategic delivery for many years. It has extensive experience of leadership and partnership working, particularly on cross boundary issues that are critical to sustainable communities. It has been a key player in partnerships with other local authorities, the voluntary sector and the economic community. 4. As a strategic authority, we continue to plan for the future. In 2009, with partners, we published our Kent Regeneration Framework, recognising that regeneration is not simply economic growth—vital though this is— but about transformation in education and skills, a cultural renaissance in the county and an efficient transport system that supports the economy, residents and business growth. It is also about improved housing conditions, particularly for the most vulnerable, young and old. 5. Our “Twenty-first Century Kent—Unlocking Kent’s Potential” programme will deliver this agenda, including integrated strategies for transport, infrastructure, housing, environment, digital and business. Earlier this year, it was launched with a joint vision produced by international architect and urban designer Sir Terry Farrell and KCC Leader Paul Carter, with a “Twenty-first Century Kent” portrait of success for the county, cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w335

making clear our ambitions to connect the county through high speed rail, road and public transport; to revive our coastal towns and tackle economic disparities; and to realise Kent’s unique geographical advantage to make it the natural home of new industries in a Twenty-first Century Garden of England. 6. Kent County Council is also forging new relationships with its partners. In 2007 it signed the Kent Commitment between the Leaders of KCC and the 12 Districts to kick-start new ways of working together and to save public money. Our Kent Recommitment, to be published later this year, aims to create a “Kent Senate” of democratically-elected leaders to act as a Kent-wide body to co-ordinate and agree shared priorities and progress. 7. We have pushed strongly and consistently for devolution from national and regional government and from Government quangos and agencies as described in “Bold Steps for Radical Reform” published in January 2010. 8. The County Council strongly welcomes the Coalition’s Government’s decision to abolish the Regional Spatial Strategies and return decision making powers on housing and planning matters to locally elected planning authorities. Kent’s Leader has been at the heart of this process, having held or holding amongst other key roles, the chairmanship of South East England Councils and the South East England Regional Assembly.

Appropriate Co-operation on Cross-Boundary Issues Need for Strategic Planning 9. Strategic planning is necessary to set out priorities and provide guidance for those issues that are wider than neighbourhood boundaries. In the absence of better spatial planning mechanisms, the RSS played an important role in strategic planning and planning decisions, providing a bridge between national and local policy considerations. It provided a tool for the resolution of difficult over-arching decisions that are fundamental to societies needs. Strategic Planning is essential to ensure that investment in major infrastructure meets community need and is provided in a cost effective manner. It is also necessary to ensure a consistent approach to environmental protection, climate change and other cross-boundary issues. 10. KCC welcomes the abolition of the housing targets, but the RSS also aimed to provide the strategic policy context for a wide range of development considerations and a foundation for a sustainable and prosperous economy. These included a policy context for greenbelt and countryside protection, biodiversity, built and historic environment, transport/infrastructure, sustainability, climate change, economic development and regeneration, tourism, education and skills, along with considerations for mineral and waste management development. Democratic leadership and guidance on these issues, at an appropriate level, is fundamental to the national economy. 11. A number of these matters are embedded in local development frameworks, but this could be better addressed in the case of the cross boundary issues, particularly the issues of mineral and waste management, use of natural resources and infrastructure provision. Many economic drivers do not conform to administrative boundaries. For example travel to work areas, markets for goods and services and migration all cross local and regional borders. Minerals are not locally sourced and need to be worked where they are found. 12. Inevitably, local plans are often unable to fully address many of the strategic and cross border issues. The loss of wider strategic policies, combined with the potential of conflicting local policies in some adjoining District and Borough Council areas results in confusion and parochialism as far as larger strategic developments are concerned. It also causes general weakening of wider environmental and countryside protection which the regional plans (and before that the county structure plans) provided. Reliance solely upon guidance in PPS documents and streamlined national policy is too broad brush and fails to provide an appropriate level of policy detail for site specific matters.

The Way Forward 13. County Councils have extensive experience of working together with Unitary and District colleagues to deliver and facilitate strategic planning. KCC firmly believes that coordination by historic Counties working closely with District and Unitary Councils should once again become a principal function of strategic planning, mirrored in urban areas by City regions. County-level spatial frameworks or infrastructure plans building upon the District Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) are the most appropriate means for co-ordinating planning, infrastructure and economic development and conservation policies. Importantly, they offer re-alignment with well established and publicly understood localities. Local Districts and Boroughs should rightly retain local direction and control of housing strategy and delivery through their LDFs, but work together and with counties on wider spatial and strategic issues including transport and community infrastructure, national/sub-regional investment projects, growth points, environment and the planning and provision of energy (including renewable), water and other resources. 14. Decentralisation to sub/national city or county areas across the country would provide a clearly recognisable and coherent structure to devolve powers from regional government. Decisions would be taken within the local community wherever possible, rising through to district/borough, county or city or clusters of both, the more strategic or spatial the issue or decision became. This approach would give much greater clarity, connection and engagement between the tiers of local government in a sub-region. City and county regions cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w336 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

with freedoms and responsibilities are well placed to balance spatial efficiency and effectiveness with community identity and democracy. 15. A future strategic planning solution also needs to allow for partnerships between neighbouring Counties or between Districts across and within county boundaries. Such flexibility is needed to ensure that action is well grounded locally. This approach would remove the constraints of artificial boundaries, whilst providing a stable geographical base on which local partners can work together.

Implications for House Building Including Provisions for Incentivisation 16. Whilst there was considerable opposition to regionally imposed targets, it is important not to lose sight of the interrelation with infrastructure and the role housing plays in bolstering local economies in terms of attracting and retaining population, increasing labour supply, supporting local businesses and providing construction jobs. The maintenance of a good supply of housing is essential in order to stop the scarcity of homes, making them artificially expensive and unaffordable to large sections of society. While essentially a local democratic decision, any new solution will need to ensure that the Local Development Plan documents will not be found wanting in relation to PPS3 requirements and housing need and supply. This is the crucial issue for successful working and living communities and requires close co-operation between the tiers of government. 17. It is also worth remembering that the provision of homes is not just reliant on house-building. There is a key role for retrofitting and improving the existing housing stock. 18. Housing growth must be properly planned and geographically targeted, to enable the necessary community infrastructure to be in place. Matching new homes with new jobs is a key strategic function along with the timely delivery of infrastructure to support the development. Any new planning system must address this. The provision of good quality affordable housing remains a key issue for Kent, however centrally prescribed housing numbers are not the best way to secure this objective. Local planning and housing authorities should be able to determine their own housing numbers, based on local need and ambitions for growth. However, in this world of diminishing resources and with the need to ensure that infrastructure is adequately provided, there is merit in considering locally-determined housing growth numbers as a part of a wider housing ambition for the County. Our Kent Housing Strategy, being developed by all Kent Leaders, will begin to match housing growth with infrastructure need. 19. We are seeking further clarity about the proposed New Homes Bonus and potential tariff arrangements which will incentivise local authorities to give planning consent and support the construction of new homes in return for future extra funding to spend on other local priorities. The details about this proposal are currently very unclear. 20. Clarity is also sought about the Community Right to Build. KCC is strongly supportive of local communities being more greatly involved in decision-making, but this should be done within the planning process, rather than separate from it. While accepting the need for democratic flexibility, bypassing the planning system to provide housing in rural areas could be fraught with difficulty, given the many complicated factors such as design quality, landscape protection, heritage and biodiversity concerns and amenity considerations that are normally carefully weighed-up within the planning process. Similarly, promoting housing developments without appropriate legal agreements for infrastructure contributions and tenure stipulations for local needs etc may undermine the equitable approach being adopted for other housing development. 21. The UK planning system seeks to protect the interests of minorities as well as the wider common good and is founded on the principle of impartial judgement. Some concern is therefore raised about determining planning proposals for new housing by ballot which would undermine the established democratic process where planning proposals are assessed on a rational, impartial and accountable basis, with crucial regard to material planning considerations, probity protocols to remove self interest considerations and an appeal/ challenge mechanism to meet European laws and basic human right provisions.

Implications for Planning for Economic Growth 22. It is clearly important that strategic planning supports sustainable economic growth, for example by maintaining an understanding of the opportunities and challenges facing the economy, ensuring an appropriate supply of employment land and planning for the infrastructure needed to support economic development. 23. The creation of new Local Enterprise Partnerships present an opportunity to support this by creating partnerships of businesses and local authorities over viable economic areas to identify and drive forward economic priorities. With partners, Kent County Council is progressing an ambitious Kent and Greater Essex Local Enterprise Partnership, which will seek the ability to galvanise resources in support of the delivery of the Thames Gateway, the counties’ Growth Areas and priority locations for regeneration. 24. We believe that Local Enterprise Partnerships should have a key role in informing the development of infrastructure plans or county spatial strategies by bringing commercial expertise into the heart of the planning framework and by articulating the infrastructure priorities to support economic growth. It is also important that cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w337

neighbouring LEPs and local authorities maintain dialogue, recognising that economic flows and impacts inevitably cross boundaries. 25. However, as the strategic planning framework seeks to achieve a balance between competing priorities, it is important that it remains under clear democratic control. We therefore believe that whilst LEPs should be proactively consulted and engaged in the preparation of strategic plans, policy decisions must ultimately rest with democratic representatives.

Data and Research Implications 26. It is vital that planning decisions are made in the context of up to date and sound evidence. There is also a need for accurate and consistent data to aid monitoring and reporting on a range of issues—ie mineral and waste management, housing and economic development. It is of note that much of the evidence on which the RSS was predicated remains valid and provides a sound basis for future decision making. 27. In the case of mineral and waste management, the Regional Aggregate Parties (RAWPS) which are a partnership of County Council authorities with responsibility for Mineral Planning, as well as representatives from the minerals industry have been very effective and essential in monitoring and reporting work on aggregate matters. They provide a cost effective solution to the issue of apportionment necessary to meet the requirements of Mineral Planning Statement 1 (MPS1). Similarly an effective Regional Technical Advisory Body (RTAB) exists for waste management matters and provides a tool to aid national aspirations for landfill diversion and recycling targets. 28. The new planning framework should ensure that the role of these Technical Working Groups is recognised and their functions are retained. They have a proven track record of partnership working on an important strategic policy area that crosses District and County boundaries. A duty to ensure co-operation with the Groups and to have regard to its work in planning decisions should be a statutory requirement.

Conclusion and Recommendation 29. There is a strong and continuing need for strategic planning below the level of regions. The new planning system needs to effectively put in place a policy solution that address those issues that are wider than local but are vital for strong and prosperous communities. 30. Any solution must incorporate the positives and wealth of experience that already exists in arrangements which bridge national and local policy delivery. It must capitalise on that knowledge and expertise for the wider good. County Councils, working together with District and Unitary authorities, are well placed with their long established history of delivering and facilitating strategic development and infrastructure and their statutory role on a wide range of strategic matters to play a key role in future strategic planning. 31. Kent County Council firmly believes that effective strategic planning can be achieved with counties offering a sensible geographic basis for that work, drawing upon the commercial expertise offered by Local Enterprise Partnerships, the local input of the family of local government in their areas and pragmatic dialogue with neighbouring authorities. September 2010

References 1. Kent Regeneration Framework Shortcut to: https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/community-and-living/ Regeneration/Regeneration%20framework%20November%202009.pdf 2. Twenty-first Century Kent—Unlocking Kent’s Potential Shortcut to: https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/community-and-living/Regeneration/21stcentkentnew-3.pdf 3. Bold Steps for Radical Reform—the Big Opportunity for Local Government and Big Savings for the Public Purse Shortcut to: https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/priorities-policies-plans/bold-steps-for-radical- reform.pdf

Written evidence from the UK Green Building Council (UK-GBC) (ARSS 150) We are writing in response to the decision taken to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and the implications this will have on the wider remit of planning and integrating Sustainable Community Infrastructure (SCI). The UK-GBC recognises the deployment of integrated, cost effective, low carbon infrastructure (such as community scale heating, telecommunications, water and waste management) is increasingly important in meeting the challenges of delivering a sustainable built environment. As highlighted in the coalition agreement, the government has committed to “reform energy markets to deliver security of supply and investment in low carbon energy” and “encourage community-owned renewable energy schemes where local people benefit from the power produced”.191 According to Chris Huhne, in his speech to the Economist UK Energy Summit, “The 191 http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/409088/pfg_coalition.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w338 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

UK faces a massive challenge. No less than £200 billion of investment is needed in our energy infrastructure over the coming decade”.192 Conceiving and delivering infrastructure at a neighbourhood scale as an integrated package193 offers a significant opportunity to deliver environmental, social and economic objectives. The benefits to communities include security of supply, fuel poverty alleviation, carbon abatement in production and/or transmission, place making, potable water saving, local investment opportunities, community engagement, empowerment and education. The introduction of SCI to allow such benefits can only be successful where decisions are taken at a strategic—neighbourhood/community level. The proposals around Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP’s) is therefore very much supported and the expectation is that these will offer the opportunity to enable cross collaboration across council boundaries. This is particularly important where large scale SCI is introduced and inevitably crosses communities. Without cross council communication and collaboration it will not be possible to successfully allow the development of economically, socially and environmentally viable communities. We would be happy to further contribute to the Select Committee review where necessary. September 2010

Written evidence from the North West Regional Leaders and the North West Regional Development Agency (ARSS 152) This is a joint submission from the North West Regional Leaders Board (formerly known as 4NW until the end of September 2010) and the North West Regional Development Agency. From the outset, North West Regional Leaders Board and the North West Regional Development Agency wish to make it clear that they are not advocating the reinvention of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and related processes by the backdoor. However, by focussing this response on the practical steps we are taking already here in the North West, to ensure that the evidence and integrated priorities are not lost to LEPs, as well as considering how we can ensure that a wider perspective is provided on planning proposals with impacts beyond local boundaries, we are able to provide useful information for the Committee to consider within the context of the inquiry parameters.

Housing Essentially there has been no major disagreement in the North West in relation to the housing figures identified in RSS. Following the revocation of RSS, North West Regional Leaders Board published a note outlining what the “option 1” housing figures were for each local authority. This note can be downloaded at http://www.4nw.org.uk/downloads/documents/aug_10/4nw_1281103278_Option_1_housing_figures.pdf. The revocation of RSS has also resulted in some authorities now finding it difficult to continue to pursue the levels previously envisaged, despite continued need to provide affordable housing to support the region’s growing communities and economic ambitions. As a consequence some are now reviewing their figures as part of the Local development Framework process. The Select Committee is reminded that a crucial difference between the North West and the South is that many in the North West want more new houses, provided they support economic and other priorities, so it is more about location than numbers.

Arrangements which should be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities on matters formerly covered by regional spatial strategies The abolition of Regional Strategies has generated a diverse range of reactions of both support and opposition from right across the political, professional, business, social and environmental spectrum, particularly with regard to housing numbers. However Regional Strategies were not just about housing numbers. When the Secretary of State published his “Guidance for Local Planning Authorities following the revocation of Regional Strategies”, he acknowledged a need for cooperation across local authorities on a number of topics. The direct implications for the changes now being made to North West Regional Leaders Board, coupled with the recent announcements about the abolition of Government Offices and Regional Development Agencies has significant implications in terms of loss, or potential loss, of existing expertise and capacity to undertake this work. There is a need for arrangements to be put in place to ensure appropriate cooperation between local planning authorities and emerging LEPs on matters formerly covered by RSS and setting out some suggested ways forward—we don't think there is a need to cover every specific topic individually, however we have identified the key areas below. Linked to this is the need for local authorities to understand what is required of them in terms of the proposed duty to cooperate. The real issue is the need to assemble some sort of credible strategic planning process, to provide private sector confidence, and the key to this is putting flesh on the bones of the duty to cooperate. 192 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/energy_summit/energy_summit.aspx 193 Such a package might include, for example, heating/cooling supply, electricity supply, energy generation, water supply, water disposal, waste disposal, waste re-use and communications infrastructure. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w339

(a) Cooperation to Identify Shared Priorities Here in the North West pioneering work has already being undertaken, which resulted in the publication in August 2010 of “Future North West: Our Shared Priorities”. This non-statutory framework to guide Local Authorities and others in the new LEP-based world on an integrated set of priorities which cross Local Authority boundaries and can only be addressed via collaboration at higher spatial scales (see http:// www.4nw.org.uk/whatwedo/?page_id=759). This builds on a substantial programme of work by private, public and third sector partners from the length and breadth of the North West. This work was originally undertaken to support the development of the North West Regional Strategy (RS2010) but now underpins “Future North West”. It is based on a sound and comprehensive evidence base. In this context, arrangements have been put into place in the North West to make the Regional Strategy evidence base available to local authorities and one of the regional transitional project boards is considering future arrangements to consider how best to review the evidence It has also benefited from a sustainability assessment and an analysis of the North West’s environmental limits as well as extensive stakeholder engagement and public consultation. The challenge now is how private, public and third sector partners can take forward the vision, themes, outcomes and objectives of “Future North West” and in particular the 12 “big ticket” issues to be addressed across the North West. 1. Develop the enterprise capabilities of our people through education and skills. 2. Develop our world-leading advanced manufacturing, biomedical and digital and creative industries. 3. Develop our world-class research, science and innovation capability, particularly at Daresbury. 4. Develop our low carbon energy offer, especially in nuclear and marine renewables, for example through the Energy Coast initiative. 5. Develop Next Generation Access digital connectivity. 6. Improve rail connectivity across the North West and tackle transport pinch points, especially the Northern Hub and securing High Speed Rail access. 7. Improve international connectivity via Manchester Airport and Liverpool Superport. 8. Reduce levels of ill-health, health inequalities, poverty and worklessness. 9. Increase the number, and quality, of private and third sector jobs and social enterprises. 10. Develop our sport, culture and quality of place offer, based on our world-famous places, heritage and environmental assets, particularly Manchester, Liverpool, Chester and the Lake District. 11. Enhance our natural environment and resolve emerging pinch points in our critical (utilities) and green infrastructure. 12. Ensure high-quality, energy efficient and affordable housing in the right locations.

(b) Establishing the need for minerals and aggregates supply Minerals planning authorities will have responsibility for continuing to plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals to support economic growth. They will need to do this within the longstanding arrangements for minerals planning. Currently technical advice is provided by the Regional Aggregate Working Parties (RAWP), including their current ongoing work in sub-apportioning the CLG guidelines for 2005–2020 to planning authority level—North West Regional Leaders Board has been working with the RAWP secretariat (Cheshire West and Chester Council) to deliver this in recent months.

(c) Establishing the need for waste management Planning Authorities will need to continue to press ahead with their waste plans, and provide enough land for waste management facilities to support the sustainable management of waste (including the move away from disposal of waste by landfill). Data and information prepared by partners will continue to assist in this process. For the transitional period this will continue to be the data and information which has been collated by the local authority and industry and other public bodies who currently form the Regional Waste Technical Advisory Body (RTAB). Up until now the secretariat function for the RTAB had been provided by NWRLB and regular monitoring reports have been published (see http://www.4nw.org.uk/downloads/documents/apr_09/ nwra_1238757545_RTAB_Waste_Report_March_2009.pdf). In the longer term it is unclear how the Government intend for this function to be transferred to local authorities, though already Local authorities are cooperating to ensure that the RTAB continues to function.

(d) Regional policies on the natural environment The Government is encouraging local authorities to continue to work together, and with communities, on conservation, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment—including biodiversity, geo-diversity and landscape interests. It expects local authorities to continue to draw on available information, including data from partners, to address cross boundary issues such as the provision of green infrastructure and wildlife corridors. In the North West, a lot of very successful work has taken place on Green Infrastructure including cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w340 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

award winning work by North West Regional Leaders Board and partners on the North West Green Infrastructure Guide (see http://www.4nw.org.uk/documents/?page_id=4&category_id=266).

(e) Regional policies on flooding and coastal change Local authorities will need to continue to work together across administrative boundaries to plan development that addresses flooding and coastal change. For flooding matters local authorities already have a duty to co-operate under the Floods and Water Management Act. The Environment Agency will continue to work with local authorities individually and/or jointly to provide technical support on these matters. The Coalition agreement is clear that we should prevent unnecessary building in areas of high flood risk. In this respect North West Regional Leaders Board has recently undertaken work with the Environment Agency to update the Regional Strategic Flood Risk Appraisal (see http://www.4nw.org.uk/documents/?page_id=4& category_id=320).

(f) Regional policies on renewable and low carbon energy The Government expects that through their Local Development Frameworks, local authorities will contribute to the move to a low carbon economy, cut greenhouse gas emissions, help secure more renewable and low carbon energy to meet national targets, and to adapt to the impacts arising from climate change. In doing so, the Government has indicated that planning authorities may find it useful to draw on data that was collected by the Regional Leaders’ Boards and more recent work, including assessments of the potential for renewable and low carbon energy. In this respect North West Regional Leaders Board has already made all such information it holds available via the website (see http://www.4nw.org.uk/documents/?page_id=4&category_ id=16). In addition further research is currently being undertaken by the Northwest Regional Development Agency on the topic.

(g) Regional policies on transport Local authorities will need to continue to ensure their land use and local transport plans are mutually consistent, and deliver the most effective and sustainable development for their area. The Government expects local authorities to work with each other and with businesses and communities to consider strategic transport priorities and cross boundary issues. Here in the North West we have achieved a lot on delivering transport priorities through the RFA process and providing a non-statutory high level strategic framework via the recently published “Future North West” (see http://www.4nw.org.uk/whatwedo/?page_id=759).

(h) Changes to Green Belt The Government has made clear it is committed to the protection of the Green Belt and it believes the revocation of Regional Strategies will prevent top-down pressure to reduce the Green Belt protection. Local Planning Authorities will continue to apply the national policies as set out in PPG2. As part of their preparation or revision of Local Development Frameworks, the Government recognises that planning authorities will need to consider the desirability of new Green Belt or adjustment of an existing Green Belt boundary, working with other local planning authorities as appropriate. In the past North West Regional Leaders Board’s predecessors, the North West Regional Assembly and 4NW have played a key coordinating role to ensure joint working in sub regions eg the Merseyside Green Belt Study in 2004.

How the data and research collated by the now-abolished Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards should be made available to local authorities, and what arrangements should be put in place to ensure effective updating of that research and collection of further research on matters crossing local authority boundaries? Throughout its existence, North West Regional Leaders Board has always sought to be open and transparent in ensuring that all research and evidence that was collected during the Regional Spatial Strategy/Regional Strategies processes. To this end published evidence has been made available via the North West Regional Leaders Board and Northwest Regional Development Agency websites. This has recently being revamped to reflect the changed circumstances with dedicated pages being established for documents (see http:// www.4nw.org.uk/documents/?page_id=4) and the Regional Strategy evidence base (see http://www.4nw.org.uk/ whatwedo/?page_id=761). Ultimately the content of these web pages will be transferred to a publicly accessible archived website. Once established, the archived website will be transferred to the server of St Helens MBC in order to prevent any ongoing costs associated with hosting and ensure that its long term availability is maintained. Looking towards the future it will be necessary to determine arrangements for how Local Authorities and the emerging LEP’s access the intelligence and research they will need to be able to keep under review the performance of the regional economy and the definition of priorities going forward. There are also likely to be specific requirements for research from time to time. A good example of this is the work on Regional Economic Forecasting (see http://www.nwriu.co.uk/about_ us/working_with/regional_economic_forecasting.aspx). Until now the Northwest Regional Development Agency via the Research & Intelligence Unit has commissioned the Regional Economic forecasting panel to provide a baseline forecast for the region which has provided a direct input to the development of the Regional cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w341

Strategy/Future North West. In the past a number of different forecasts had been used in different regional and sub regional the strategies and this has led to inconsistencies, double counting and a degree of confusion. Without sacrificing any of its independence, the Panel has produced on a regular basis a single set of forecasts to underpin the Regional Strategy and other work in the region. In doing so, it has drawn for the first time on the work of not just one forecasting house, but three, before making its own judgements on the most likely long-term outcome for the region. This base forecast for the North West as a whole is an essential prerequisite to the subsequent discussions on the aspirations of the region and its five sub-regions. However the unresolved question now is how will this activity be funded and who will undertake it?

Work being undertaken in the North West on transitional arrangements To complement the formulation and submission of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) bids from the North West, ongoing collaborative work is being undertaken by Local Authorities, North West Regional Leaders Board, Northwest Regional Development Agency and representatives from Social, Economic and environmental partners to facilitate the development of key principles, capacity and management arrangements for future functional priorities, which are considered crucial to promote the orderly and structured transition to new arrangements, as a consequence of the abolition of both the Northwest Regional Development Agency and GONW. A series of Task and Finish Groups have been set up for specific work areas covering a diverse range of issues including some directly relevant to the terms of this inquiry: — Planning: evaluate what if any role there should be for providing advice up from sub regions/ regions on planning applications referred to the Secretary of State under section 77 of Town & Country Planning Act 1990. [Otherwise we risk these matters being determined centrally without any input on what are seen to be regional or local economic priorities]. The Task & Finish Group is also considering looking at what (if any) role there should be for brokering between national, sub regional and local interests in providing a clear united, rather than fragmented, North West view on a number of national planning and infrastructure initiatives which have a substantial impact across local boundaries. These could include: — nationally significant infrastructure projects dealt with by the PINS major infrastructure unit (which will replace the Infrastructure Planning Commission); — transport infrastructure including high speed rail, airport and port developments; — proposed national planning framework and policy statements; — marine plans and consents to marine activities dealt with by Marine Management Organisation; and — future energy supply generation. — Research and Intelligence: as outlined above, it will be necessary to determine future arrangements to ensure access to up to date intelligence and research is available, providing a robust evidence base which underpins policy development at sub regional and local level, Whilst at the same time ensuring that such work keeps under review the performance of the regional economy and the definition of priorities going forward. October 2010

Written evidence from Beryl Metcalfe (ARSS 153) Incentivizing Councils to Provide Housing Summary 1. The proposed incentive is a one off payment between £6,000 and £10,000 per dwelling 2. Per capital revenue support grant is £1,312 per person for England. The dwelling incentive would cover 4.5 to 7.5 years for a single person or 2.3 to 3.8 years for a couple. So accepting the incentive would not cover future costs arising from it. Local authorities have fixed costs but additional population will have higher than average infrastructure costs. 3. New Dwelling Requirements: Somewhere at the upper end of the range 100,000–270,000 pa. At 252,000 pa (latest OPCS projection), incentive maximizes at 4% of local authority spend for an increased population of 7%. Logically all local authorities should refuse the incentive. ( If they accept it will make council tax soar.) 4. Housing Targets and Planning: House of Commons Paper Local planning systems and incentives in Germany and Switzerland to be copied. But Germany and Switzerland have different history and falling populations whereas we are the population boom country of the EU. 5. Will all these houses be needed? cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w342 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Not if the poor still cannot get the dwellings they need. Five reasons why the household projections might be too high. Abolishing cohabiting rules could save money, keep families together and reduce the number of dwellings needed. (This is counter-intuitive but bears study.) Less likely is that more will be needed. 6. Pricing: contrary to the Barker report pricing is not directly linked to scarcity. For various reasons including the availability of capital and affordability we may not be able to solve lack of housing for the poor by building larger houses for the affluent. 7. The proposed incentive would not cover subsidy costs for affordable housing in the public sector. To provide this would make council tax soar. 8. Population imbalance in the country will put severe pressure on water supplies in the south east. Some form of regionalized planning may be essential medium term, perhaps based on water catchment areas. LEPS are unlikely to be able to establish new settlements which may be the most sustainable solution for a higher population.

Here is something about me Following my MSc in Environmental Planning and Design from Aston University, (1973–75) with special mention), I have given evidence and appeared at four Examinations in Public in the West Midlands, in 1981 and 1991 as the Chairman of the West Midlands Churches Committee (originally the county but later the region), and in 2002 and 2009 as a member of the West Midlands Regional Sustainability Forum but speaking on my own behalf. I have had a long term interest in housing issues. My MSc thesis compared various community responses to the housing problems of Caldmore, an area of Victorian terraced housing in Walsall which was becoming ethnically diverse. As a result I was invited onto the Board of Caldmore Area Housing Association (1975–99) where I served as Company Secretary for about 20 years and in a number of other roles. While there I ran a Special Temporary Employment Project on Asian Housing Finance with a team drawn from the various local communities and also did research into housing for the Walsall Communities Relations Council and Afro- Caribbean Youth Council. In 1994 my husband and I moved to Stafford where I served on the Board of the Bethany Project for homeless people 1999–2004. From 1975–98 I was employed by the Church of England Diocese of Lichfield in the field of urban deprivation and was responsible for drawing up deprivation statistics for their parishes and for a number of other Midlands Dioceses, developing z-score based systems for comparing discrete areas. I was involved with several consultations on the construction of the national index of deprivation. My first degree from Cambridge in Mathematic and Fine Arts with Architecture put me in a position to see serious error in the log transformed chi squared statistics which were being used nationally in 1991ff and which formed the basis of deprivation adjustments to the local government and health service apportionments. This background is also useful in assessing the validity of housing projections. My portfolio career also included 17 years of work for the Open University mostly tutoring courses which included "Man Made Futures". Hence I could claim to be a futurologist. I will separately send my evidence to the House of Commons West Midlands Regional Committee Planning for the Future where my paper appeared in the Second Report of Session 2009–2010, published 8 April 2010 and deals with some related issues.

1. Incentivizing Councils to Provide Housing 1.0 How much is the proposed incentive? The average Band D precept for 2009–10 in England is 1414, the average is 1,175 and highest for Rutland is 1,656. Realistically speaking the subsidy per house will be only a maximum one off grant of about £10,000. Possibly only £6,000 if police and fire precepts are omitted.

2. Per Capita Calculations 2.1 Broadly speaking local authority revenue grants for 2010–11 for England are £68,249 million for a population of 52 million which is about £1,312 per person. The incentive will therefore cover about 4.5 to 7.5 years of spend for a single extra person or 2.3 to 3.8 years for a couple. But these amounts have to be spent into the indefinite future. It therefore follows that if extra housing is provided for extra population, and councils act logically, no councils will be incentivized by this particular proposal although it might sway them if they are already facing a housing and homeless problem. 2.2 In practice local authorities have many fixed costs and marginal costs per person are lower—but the additional population is likely to be children who will need schools and old people who will require personal care and other services—ie the extra people are likely to need more than the per capita amount so the overall guesstimate is probably of the right order. 2.3 The incentive discounts the long term costs of extra population—rather like not fully funding pensions and finding there will be too little in the pot in the future. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w343

3. New Dwelling Requirements 3.1 Looking from another direction: What housing programme is needed to provide an adequacy of housing units and how will that affect the global size of the incentive? 3.2 House completions are running about 100,000 pa meaning a government subsidy to local authorities of £1 billion. Or £2 billion, if the programme picked up to double that at 200,000pa. NHPAU (abolished April) thought we needed about 240,000 pa to match household formation. six years of council tax would then be £2.4 billion. DCLOG and OPCS say there will be 252,000HH pa extra to 2031. The incentive would then maximize at £2.5 billion at about 4% of local authority spend but might well be half that. This is to deal with a projected 7% population increase. Clearly the incentive is insufficient.

4. The House of Commons Paper6 June 2010 Housing Targets and Planning 4.1 This reviewed past history. Housing Green Paper Jy 2007: two million homes by 2016, three million by 2020. Building 250,000 pa. NHPAU Nov 2007: 270,000 per year by 2016. The credit crunch intervened and output plummetted. 4.2 February 2009: Conservative Green Paper proposed replacing regional targets with incentives rising from £250 million in 2010–11 to £1,250 million in 2014–15. This money to be removed from revenue grant support. 4.3 Useful comparisons are made with Germany and Switzerland. It is said that both have larger building programmes than England but retain green land and they achieve this by decentralized planning systems and incentives. They also achieve better space standards in homes. I agree that an incentivized local planning system might work satisfactorily but it important to understand the differences between those countries and ours. 4.4 Germany has always had a larger building programme because they needed much more reconstruction after the 1945 War. It has a larger population than ours at 82 million but this is projected to fall to 70 million by 2060 whereas Britain’s population will rise from 61 million to 77 million. The EU population projection report of 2008 says Britian will have much faster population growth than any other EU country. Switzerland has similar projections to Germany with marked declines expected to 2050 as a result of a very birth rate. 4.5 Both Germany and Switzerland have enjoyed relative wealth in the last 50 years enabling new housing to be larger than our new housing. Both countries also have a more egalitarian income structure. In the UK large sections of the population have low long-term income prospects and have had to accept housing of limited size. Another factor may be that construction costs are lower in both countries because of an abundance of local timber. 4.6 The result of all this is that lower incentives would work in Germany and Switzerland than in the UK and that there is far less environmental pressure arising from increased building and population. One important risk in the UK is the availability of water in the south east where population growth pressures are highest. 4.7 It would appear that the unusual growth spurt in the UK is substantial due to net inward migration and the descendants thereof. Family size is falling in the UK and is below replacement level for the white population (as recently as 2000 the UN thought that the UK population would be falling below its present size by 2050). But the ethnic populations from Asia and the Caribbean have been used to much larger families to compensate for high death rates and even though they are having smaller families, they are still above replacement rates. 4.8 This paper demonstrates that incentives would need to be very much higher to incentivize local authorities to attract population for them to offset increased capital and revenue infrastructure costs.

5. Will all these Dwellings be Needed? 5.1 Here is some of the underlying data from OPCS and DCLOG: DCLOG and OPCS projections to 2031 published March 2009. The number of households in England is projected to grow to 27.8 million in 2031, an increase of 6.3 million (29%) over the 2006 estimate, or 252,000 households per year. Population growth is the main driver of household growth, accounting for nearly three-quarters of the increase in households between 2006 and 2031. One person households are projected to increase by 163,000 per year, equating to two-thirds of the increase in households. By 2031, 32% of households will be headed by those aged 65 or over, up from 26% in 2006. By 2031, 18% of the total population of England is projected to live alone, compared with 13% in 2006. 5.2 At the West Midlands Examination in Public in 2009 I argued that the revised Regional Assembly target of 365,000 by 2026 (well below the increased figures required by Central Government) was about what was cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w344 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

needed but since about 50% of these needed to be social and affordable housing, in practice their original figure of 295,000 was realistic given the likely scale of the social housing programme. The additional people would be absorbed by an increased occupancy of dwellings. 5.3 If one’s objective is to solve the shortage of housing, there is no point in building housing that those in need of housing cannot afford or access. Trickle down does not have much effect on housing availability for the poor. With the credit crunch, even young graduates are finding it very difficult to become first time buyers because of the new need to have a substantial deposit. In effect there is mortgage rationing and even if a lot more young people managed to save the deposit, the banks might not have the liquidity to lend to them. 5.4 On the bright side the 2031 household projections could be too high for several reasons: (a) growing longevity of marriages/partnerships so that more retired people are living as couples as a proportion of all retired people (OPCS have factored for this but not enough). (b) the exclusion of students from the count when universities provide accommodation in-house as opposed to students being housed on the open market when they are counted. Most students are single persons. Universities are increasingly competing with private landlords and developers to provide thus increasing the effective provision outside the housing targets. (c) The possibility that people who are widowed when renting will not be able to find any accommodation they can afford so that more move in with sons and daughters. (Some risks of overcrowding.) (d) The option the government has to remove the cohabiting benefit rules. The issue is that if a person on low income and a person on benefits live together benefits are removed and they have to live on a single income which produces huge extra strains, especially if there are children. There is great financial pressure for low income people to have separate homes. There would be benefits costs if the rule were abolished but they would be offset by not having to provide an additional dwelling. There would also be less occasion for benefit fraud and less accusations of cheating. Social gains might be more families staying together. To expand on this a bit more: a single person on income support and with no savings gets about £57 a week = £3,000 pa plus rent and council tax. Say a single person dwelling costs £80,000 to build. If you have cash in hand, it would take 27 years to be cheaper to provide the house. But you would have foregone rent and in practice the money to build the house is normally borrowed so that payback times are much higher. If the person stays in a separate one person dwelling, you are perhaps paying a further £60pw rent and £20 council tax. So one would save £80 if they move in with someone else. Benefits calculations are very complex but it is highly likely that abolishing the cohabiting rule would save government money as well as helping some of the poorest people and encouraging families to stay together. (e) Potential reductions in immigration as a result of government policy, economic distress in the country, high inflation or less bogus student immigration. 5.4 But equally they could be too low if immigration is not contained and students stay and have families at a fertile period of their lives.

6. Pricing Issues 6.1 The Labour Government was persuaded to address housing shortages by adopting the classical economics of the Barker review ie to increase housing supply in order to bring down prices. The real world behaved differently. Spain has a building programme four times that of Britain for a smaller population, and the highest vacancy rate in Europe but house prices had not fallen by the time of the Barker Report in 2006 and have only dropped 18% from their highest point at the end of 2007. Whereas house prices fell in the UK when there was a squeeze on mortgage finance despite far fewer new dwellings being provided than new households being created. Classical economics says the price should rise if there is scarcity but instead it fell. 6.2 One interesting fact is that statutory homelessness fell in the last ten years despite there being fewer new dwellings than households. This merits research but it suggests that there is a good deal of elasticity in the housing in England. This probably arises from falling occupancy and the fact that many more young adults returned to parental homes to save a deposit when they found a) they could not buy a property and b) the supply of social rented houses for young couples had dwindled. 6.3 The conclusion is that prices are not directly linked to affordability. Someone has to put up the capital to build new homes and to provide mortgages.

7. Building Costs and Public Expenditure 7.1 Local authorities: If one looks at current Homes and Communities Agency grants for new build they run from £30,000 upwards to £168,000 per property (the high figure in Greenwich). This subsidy is needed to produce an affordable rent. 7.2 Refurbishment costs for smallish two bedroom homes to decent homes standards were stacking up about £60,000 per dwelling when I was last on the Board of a Housing Association over ten years ago and will cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w345

undoubtedly be higher now. Subsidy of £50,000 per property or so was needed to achieve affordable rents at that time. 7.3 Clearly an incentive of £10,000 per dwelling is not enough to enable any extra affordable housing to stack up so any additional costs would be an extra charge against new private housing which is already carrying the costs of a proportion of affordable housing, service roads etc on all larger sites. 7.4 In addition there are the on-costs. Cambridgeshire website suggests a figure of £800 per liner meter or £4,000 for a five metre frontage of road. Curtilege roads and utilities may be included in the costs of providing the houses but may not cover feeder roads or road engineering to cope with higher flows. £10,000 will hardly pay for an extra set of traffic lights at the entrance to an estate. 7.5 In practice local authorities also have to provide social infrastructure: education, health facilities, public open space, waste plants in proportion to a growing population. They may choose to build or permit more housing but a one off £10,000 per dwelling would be a very minimal incentive which would build up problems in the future. 7.6 In practice the government is proposing to increase the incentive gradually by reducing local authority revenue support grant correspondingly. As the incentive is not enough to meet the extra infrastructure costs to local government even medium term, it follows that there will be a huge upward pressure on Council Tax. One can only hope that there will be commensurate savings from scrapping unnecessary bureaucracy.

8. Conclusion 8.1 In the past regional strategies put pressure on local authorities jointly to meet higher housing targets. The right level of target is a matter for debate but there was pressure towards the goals of a decent home for everyone. Abolishing regional strategies produces a situation where it is not in anybody’s local interest to increase housing supply even with a 4% short-term uplift in resources. This uplift is illusory anyway since it will come off the revenue support grant. 8.2 It also makes it almost impossible to relieve environmental pressures by the creation of new settlements— although the new town model is one that should be revisited in the interests of sustainability in a low oil world. 8.3 If we persist with this strategy, serious housing shortages may develop across the country. This will only be exacerbated by the crackdown on housing benefit costs which will mean more and more people looking for smaller cheaper lets that may not be available. 8.4 Or rather, those lets will not be available since the shakeout from the whole market of those who cannot buy is expected to find accommodation at rents standing at or below the mid point of their sector—so the whole market of would-be low-income renters will be trying to fit into half the market of rentable properties. This is a recipe for massively increased homelessness amongst the poorest people in our land. Sooner or later, the government will find itself having to provide more social housing by one means or another. 8.5 It is also predictable that some portions of the country will fare far worse than others in this upheaval and that the government will eventually have to try to direct population to less pressured areas by some sort of regional policy. For sustainability, and healthy communities this has to be employment led. Government offices in those far flung places not of interest to industry? It is hard to see how less successful LEP’s could solve their own difficulties. September 2010

Written evidence from Bryan Jezeph Consultancy (ARSS 154) 1.0 The Need for Targets 1.1 I regard targets as absolutely fundamental to the achievement of housing provision. The opposition to housing is so ingrained in the psyche of the local residents that it is essential that they are confronted with the reality of the position. It is also evident that most Councils are dominated by Councillors who are retired or close to retirement. Councillors younger than 50 years of age are relatively rare. As a result, the young and poor are unrepresented. 1.2 Opposition to all forms of development enable opponents to gather huge support while those in need are either unable or unwilling to face the hostility of Nimbys. Opposition to change is universal and logic and common sense is lost under the pressure from “nimbys”. The government’s policies appear to be framed to re- inforce nimbyism rather than the achievement of social justice and cohesion. 1.3 The level of house building prior to the recession was at an all time low since the end of the First World War. The recession has exacerbated the position. However, the government’s policy of localism appears to accelerate the decline in house building. On the other hand, the promotion of house building, in particular, is a sector that could provide wide ranging benefits. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w346 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

Is it a Crisis? 1.4 The predicament for those in need of affordable housing is set out succinctly in the Core Strategy for East Hampshire District which was published in March of this year. It states in paragraph 2.8 that :- We already have a lack of affordable homes in the area. The Council carried out Strategic Housing Market Assessments in 2006 and 2008 which reveal that 670 additional affordable homes need to be built each year to meet housing needs and address the backlog over five years. To put this into perspective, it means that even if all the homes required for the district by the South East Plan were built as affordable homes, it still would not be enough to meet the need.

Affordable Housing 1.5 East Hampshire is not unusual, on the contrary, it is typical and the same desperate situation is manifest across the country. The magnitude of the requirement for affordable housing is well known. The quote from a recent meeting of the West of Waterlooville Forum (Winchester and Havant Districts) sets out the desperate nature of this issue. In 2006 a Housing Market Assessment was commissioned to assess the need for affordable housing in the area. This indicated a backlog of need of around 850 households. The study took no account of newly arising need so given the limited development in the area since it is probable that unmet need has increased, and that it will increase further over the lifetime of the development. It is also worth noting that there are over 10,000 households on the Hampshire Home Choice register, and that as a consequence there were 79 bids for each one bedroom affordable unit on the Taylor Wimpey scheme, and 149 bids for each three bedroom property. The market popularity of the Taylor Wimpey scheme also demonstrates that it is meeting a need for high quality new market housing in the area. Paragraph 1.6; West of Waterlooville Forum: Progress Report dated 7 July 2010

1.6 The area covered by Hampshire Home Choice includes the Districts of East Hampshire, Havant and Winchester. 1.7 Furthermore, it is widely recognised that there is also a serious shortage of funds for new affordable housing projects. House builders are unable to find Housing Associations capable of funding the affordable element of their schemes which typically comprise 30–40% of the units.

Population Projections 1.8 Demographers have consistently claimed that the housing requirement as set out in the South East Plan is too low. The government’s decision to abolish the Regional Spatial Strategies which is the only body that provides the technical support for the figures and to hand the decision making back to the Counties and Districts where these skills are not available. It is a case of shooting the messenger! 1.9 It cannot be so difficult to calculate the need for housing and distribute it on a sustainable basis but this seems to be lost when faced with public opposition and the fact that there is no counter pressure group to coordinate the case for more housing. For some reason, the difficulties of house purchase for young people does not manifest itself in coordinated opposition. As a result, the hypocrisy of nimbyism prevails.

House Production Supports the Economy in Recession 1.10 The slowing of house production would be deplorable in any circumstances but it is incomprehensible given the forthcoming financial restraints. Besides the provision of desperately needed homes, house building provides an exceptionally wide range of employment from plumbers to electricians, to the kitchen and furniture providers. 1.11 A wide range of smaller schemes would also provide a consequent spread of job opportunities revitalising the local construction industry. Urban extensions are clearly the preferred locations for new development as they optimise existing capacity and can make good deficiencies. Besides the fact that development on the edge of settlements involves minimal infrastructure expenditure, it would provide immediate employment for local people with a range of skills in a number of places.

Existing Facilities 1.12 What is the point in proposing new local shopping centres in new settlements and Strategic Development Areas when existing towns and villages are suffering from decline? Many of the local village schools have falling rolls where new housing could utilise existing space or additional classrooms could be provided. Existing facilities could be improved. New housing should be used as a “multiplier” to boost work and jobs. Unbelievably, the exisitng range of facilities including schools is not a consideration in sustainbility matrices. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w347

Nimbyism 1.13 Nimbyism is a corrosive and distorting force. It is corrosive because it prevents engagement with communities. It is a distorting force because if development is directed by nimbys, it will prevent the appropriate assessment of sustainability. The District Councillors responsible for the decisions upon the location of new development will be influenced by political considerations first and foremost and will direct development to areas where the least objection is expected. 1.14 It also leads to ridiculous decisions, for example, the one to provide a “Strategic Gap” near Whiteley. This was rejected by the Inspectors at the EiP who recognised that there was not really a gap at all. 8.12 The Meon Valley Gap clearly serves a strategic purpose in separating the major built up areas in South Hampshire, with Southampton to the west and Fareham and Gosport to the east. But it too is very extensive and takes in some six km of coastline where the risk of coalescence is vrtually nil notwithstanding the other coast and countryside policies of the HCSPR (Structure Plan). Winchester City Council suggest that the gap should be extended northwards (five miles) beyond the railway and reach up to Wickham. This is a case of extending a gap to find a settlement when the motorway, let alone the railway is an appropriate physical barrir to curtail development. 1.15 What happened next? Yes, the one sided gap was extended beyond both the railway and the motorway! 1.16 Nimbyism is not confined to individuals or Councillors. I can provide several examples where the local newspapers have provided a biased report. For example, an article from the Portsmouth Evening News which shows a picture of Butser Hill one of the highest points in this part of Hampshire and a popular area for walkers. The view implies that the proposed new developments at Clanfield and Petersfield can be seen from the local beauty spot known as Butser Hill. These developments are three or four miles from Butser Hill and the proposals also are extensions to existing urban areas and, if they are visible at all, it would be against the backcloth of the existing urban area. 1.17 Even the local newspapers do not let the facts get in the way of a story albeit based simply on the anti- development nimbys. There is no atempt to be objective or to recognise that there is a desperate need for new housing.

The Importance of Providing Homes 1.18 Besides the importance of providing homes for those who need them, the development of housing offers the opportunity to stimulate the local economy and contribute towards the provision or improvement of local facilities. Higher levels of provision would also minimise the rise in house values and, thereby, reducing the risks and problems created by such increases. 1.19 The Government’s decision to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and targets appears to be a recipe for chaos. However imperfect the current system, the method ensures that there is some basic guidance on the distribution of housing and targets across the regions. The previous system of Local Plans was abandoned because they took so long to complete and public involvement was minimal. However, the only way to involve the public is to confront them with the reality. Houses must be provided; each settlement must provide some unless there are such constraints that this is unrealistic. There are not many places where all possibilities are exhausted. 1.20 There is acceptance that there is a desperate need for more housing. Few people question the population figures or the need for affordable housing. The release of a wide range of sites ahead of the managed release proposed in Core Strategies would provide a market led approach which would enable developments to proceed in relation to demand.

Stable House Prices and Markets 1.21 There must also be the benefit that house prices can be maintained at more restricted levels that enable more people to acquire housing without prices running out of control. The restricted market favours existing owners to the detriment new purchasers trying to get on the housing ladder. Stable house prices could also limit the level of re-mortgaging that contributed to the boom and bust that fuelled the recession. 1.22 There is a clear need to incentivise local communities. At present, new developments are foist upon them with no benefits. My approach would also ensure that local communities are provided with enhanced facilities in a period of limited public resources. 1.23 Councils should be examining the best way to stimulate their economies by working with landowners and developers to obtain the greatest benefits. The early release of land already identified for development can ensure a market based demand rather than rising prices through shortages.

The Ageing Population: The Other Crisis 1.24 Figures from the ONS are stratling. From the 1950’s onwards the number of centenarians (people aged 100 years or more) in England and Wales has increased at a faster rate than any other age group. The estimated cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w348 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

number of centenarians for England and Wales for the period 1911 to 2008 shows that the number of centenarians has increased 95-fold from only 100 in 1911 to 9,600 in 2008. 1.25 This increase however, has not been constant across the period. Growth was slowest between 1911 and 1946; over this thirty-five year period the number of centenarians increased by less than 100. In comparison, the centenarian population grew by 2,000 over the thirty-five years from 1946 to 1981. Between 1981 and 2008, the number grew from 2,200 to 9,600, an increase of 7,400 centenarians over this final 27 year period. The major contributor to the rising number of centenarians is increased survival between the age of 80 and 100 due to improved medical treatment, housing and living standards, and nutrition. Since 1911 female centenarians have always outnumbered male centenarians due to the higher life expectancies for women. In 2008 there were approximately seven female centenarians for every male centenarian. In contrast, there were about three women for every centenarian man in 1911. However the ratio of male to female centenarians has fluctuated over time and it has started to fall in recent years due to recent improvements in male mortality. (ONS 2007) 1.26 Future numbers of centenarians will depend on both the numbers of people at younger age groups in the population today and their future survival. Current population projections suggest the number of centenarians in England and Wales will reach almost 64,200 by mid-2033. This is nearly a seven fold increase from the 2008 figure, and an annual average increase of 8 per cent a year.

What are the Alternatives? 1.27 In my opinion, there is a clear need for the “carrot and stick” approach. The “carrot” is finance towards local facilities and in this respect is should go right down to the village or suburb. The “stick” is no money from other sources and only monies for support for development.

How can this be Achieved? 1.28 I believe that a formula especially on greenfield sites can be readily agreed. The difference in the land value of agricultural land versus land with planning permission is so great that developers could easily afford to pay more towards local facilities and infrastructure. Financial contributions must go primarily to the immediate area of the development and not to the District Council. The possibility of developers providing the affordable housing rather than just providing the land should also be investigated.

Land Releases 1.29 All sites in the five year programme and more should be released at the earliest opportunity where they have been identified as suitable for development. This would facilitate the greatest possible spread of sites. This would ensure that there is a diverse range of dwellings so that people seeking housing can live where they choose rather than to where they are directed because of limted choice. All land releases should include both aspiration on the relevant sustainability codes and also seek to maximise community benefits. 1.30 Without targets, there is no incentive for authorities to achieve the required housing provision. The proposed incentives of Council tax benefits are insufficent to persuade authorities to do more than the minimum. In large Districts such as Winchester new housing proposals can be as far as 17 miles from the City and the financial benefits may not go to the locality. 1.31 Targets should be restored as soon as possible. September 2010

Written evidence from Kilbride Four Ashes (ARSS 155) In response to your enquiry into the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS), Kilbride would like to make a number of points that reflect wide spread concerns about the impact on economic development. Kilbride Four Ashes LLP is promoting a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) at Four Ashes in South Staffordshire through the planning system, which will address clear demand established through the West Midlands Regional Freight Study. The development of a large 60 hectare plus intermodal rail freight facility and associated warehousing will have a clear benefit on the local and regional economy and will make a significant impact on removing lorry movements from the roads, by helping retailers and manufacturers to switch more freight onto rail. The benefits of these type of projects to the national economy have been recognised in the Planning Act 2008, which introduced SRFI’s as a category of nationally significant infrastructure in setting up the Infrastructure Planning Commission structure (IPC). The subsequent changes to the IPC have not altered this view of the importance of nationally significant infrastructure, but the removal of RSS processes will remove a method of establishing the location for such large scale developments and will therefore impact adversely on the ability of such projects to be delivered. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w349

By way of example, the West Midlands RSS specifically recognised, through Policy PA9, the need for Regional Logistics Sites. The policy identified potential locations and priorities, and established a set of criteria together with a mechanism for assessing and bringing forward suitable sites. This policy framework has now been lost. By their nature, nationally significant infrastructure projects are large in scale and are therefore rarely supported by the immediate local community or planning authority. In the absence of any regional planning system the Secretary of State is likely to give considerable weight to the Local Planning Authority view of the proposed development, providing opportunities to block development but no process to allow for proper promotion that reflects the regional/sub regional level. The abolition of the RSS will also remove the mechanism for delivering strategic planning policy when neighbouring planning authorities disagree over where regional and sub regional development needs to be located. Such disagreements are not unusual when urban areas lack suitable locations for strategic infrastructure and adjoining rural authorities are reluctant to accommodate sub regional or regional requirements. Yet these types of project are vital to regional economic development. Kilbride propose in the wake of abolition of the RSS structure, that space is still found in the planning system to allow strategic planning processes to be developed, and would recommend that the Local Enterprise Partnerships and Local Authorities have an obligation to take into account clearly identified regional economic development and infrastructure requirements. Where several LEPs are being promoted to cover a large conurbation and its hinterland, as is the case in the West Midlands, then that obligation must extend to all the relevant LEPs and Local Authorities within the catchment of a strategic proposal to ensure identified national and regional infrastructure needs are met. September 2010

Written evidence from Redcliffe Homes (ARSS 156) Summary — The decision to abolish the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) without any transitional arrangements and then to republish PPS3 with references still to RSS was poorly thought through and nothing more than a knee jerk reaction from the new Coalition Government. — Planning needs certainty but the current lack of adopted policy to guide development is leading to confusion by Local Authorities and consequently causing delay in getting consent for housing development. — Without guidance and proper decision making from Local Authorities, developers are having little choice but to take sites to appeal. — The Planning Inspectorate will be unable to cope with the increase in Planning Appeals. The time to receive an appeal date has already increased to six months in some instances. — A number of Local Authorities will find that their enthusiasm to reject housing targets set by RSS returns to haunt them when their Local Plans are rejected and house builders obtain unacceptable planning permissions by default in areas where locals do not want it. Overall levels of housing development are and will continue to decrease in this policy void. Furthermore, the Government’s localism agenda will do nothing to help the situation as it will be difficult to ever incentivise communities into wanting housing development in their back yard. The current proposals of six years equivalent Council Tax financial incentive equates to circa £10,000 per house—but Local Authorities already receive an average of £9,500 in S106 payments (excluding affordable housing provision)—we do not believe this on its own will be sufficient to overcome the natural inclination to oppose local development . Recommendation—That LPA’s be required to formulate their LDF’s using the locally derived RSS Option 1 housing supply figures, with a further obligation for the overall allocation numbers to be fully debated through the LDF process and the Independent Planning Inspectors review of numbers accepted without challenge.

Implications of the abolition of regional house building targets for levels of housing development Almost four months have passed since the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS), and we are still experiencing local authorities in states of uncertainty and chaos given the lack of guidance from government. This has led to confusion and misguidance given to developers which is undoubtedly having a huge negative impact on delivering housing land. Unlike local authorities in the south east which were further forward in their LDFs due to an adopted RSS, many Local authorities in the south west were only on the road to producing Submission Core Strategies. Once the decision to abolish RSS’s was announced, most of the progress towards these documents was put on hold until further clarification from DCLG ministers. Without the RSS to guide and shape their policies, local authority decision making and consequently, housing development has ground to a halt. It is Redcliffes experience that most Local authorities in the south west are using the abolition of RSS to re- examine their housing figures downwards even though many of them agreed to these figures by putting them cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [30-03-2011 09:54] Job: 009535 Unit: PG01

Ev w350 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

forward to the draft RSS. Whilst we are finding a lot of support from Local Authority Planners within Strategic Policy departments not to abandon the hard work that has gone into formulating and submitting these housing figures, their committees are taking an entirely different view. We are being told by many local authorities that Councillors are all too are keen to review and reject housing targets that they previously agreed to in order to please their constituents and ensure re-election at next May’s local elections. Housing development is never seen as popular and if there is an opportunity to reduce or remove it then Councillors will take it. This may well fit in well with the Government’s localism agenda, but unfortunately this approach will inevitably lead to reduced rates of housing development. According to the Chartered Institute of Housing, the population in the south west is set to increase by 24% by 2031. Given the current state of housing supply in many south west Local Authorities, with only a handful having a five year land supply, the region is set for a serious shortfall of housing that is already at its lowest building rate since the 1920s. The question of how housing targets are set has presented itself with problems throughout the years and throughout different Governments who have blown hot and cold on regional planning. Its abolition is of course nothing new. In the early 1990s lots of authorities relied on increasingly dated plans to make planning decisions, and as a consequence appeal rates increased. In 1998, John Prescott announced the abolition of a “top-down” approach to planning, moving away from “predict and provide” to allowing locals a greater say in the amount of housing required in their area. However this proved unsuccessful as local planning authorities were reluctant to set their housing targets too high and so we saw the return of the top-down approach in 2004 with the Planning and Compulsory Act 2004 which gave the Secretary of State the last say in housing figures. This is crucial if housing demand is to be met. Clearly however past lessons have not been learnt and the implications this time around are proving no different. Without proper guidance and adopted policy, we are experiencing Local Authorities that are unsure on what planning decisions to make and so appear more than happy that the decision is being taken out of their hands and made by the Planning Inspectorate. Unfortunately, what they don’t seem to understand is that planning by appeal will only lead to housing development in locations where many locals will not want it. Councillors must be educated to tell their constituents that development should not be seen as something to tolerate and object to, but something which they can have a say in and influence to benefit their community and provide the infrastructure and facilities that they need. The Coalition government plans to incentivise local authorities by allowing them to keep the council tax raised from new properties. The more houses they allow, the more money they will have to pay for increased services. In principle this is all well and good and may be attractive to local authorities but it is doubtful whether it will make any difference to the local communities themselves. It is our view and experience in dealing with the public that local communities already expect their council tax to go towards facilities such as new schools, sports provision etc. Furthermore if there are new houses proposed the expectation is all too often that us as developers will fund these things. It is therefore unlikely that that anything will change and that this approach alone will incentivise local communities to bring housing land forward. Indeed, a number of Local Authorities will surely find that their enthusiasm to reject housing targets set by RSS returns to haunt them when their Local Plans are rejected and housebuilders obtain unacceptable planning permissions by default. According to the “Open Source Planning Green Paper”, each Local Authority will now be required to assess housing need in their own area. No mention is made of how they might resource this assessment, bearing in mind they’ve never had to do it before and they are already under pressure to reduce costs. Guidance and finance will be required at a national level to assist these councils if they are to conduct robust projections of housing need that are unchallengeable. Overall, it is difficult to see how any of this will bring forward housing delivery. In summary, it could be said that the real problem is not necessarily the removal of the RSS, but the complete lack of any strategic-level alternative and the short-sighted view that the major issues of housing shortage and infrastructure delivery can be delivered through a system, which seemingly seeks only to pander to those 'locals' who are able to shout the loudest. Decisions on planning applications must be judged on their own merit, not on the basis of political whims. Such weakness in the planning system will fail to deliver the housing required and will further threaten economic recovery. September 2010

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 03/2011 009535 19585