Planning Practice Guidance

House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee

Written Evidence received up to 23/01/13

Only those submissions written specifically for the Committee and accepted by the Committee as evidence for the Planning Practice Guidance inquiry are included.

List of written evidence

Page British Property Federation (PTG 13) ...... 42 Building Research Establishment (PTG 02) ...... 6 Campaign for Better Transport (PTG 04) ...... 13 Campaign to Protect Rural England (PTG 26) ...... 85 Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (PTG 16) ...... 52 Country Land Association (PTG 06) ...... 18 Design Council (PTG 17) ...... 57 Engligh Heritage (PTG 11) ...... 36 Heritage Alliance (PTG 07) ...... 22 Historic Houses Association (PTG 18) ...... 59 Home Builders Federation (PTG 03) ...... 10 Institute for Archaeologists (PTG 01) ...... 3 Institute of Historic Building Conservation (PTG 24) ...... 76 Law Society of England and Wales (PTG 05) ...... 15 Living Streets (PTG 14) ...... 46 Local Government Association (PTG 25) ...... 78 Planning Officers Society (PTG 12) ...... 39 Renewable UK (PTG 21) ...... 69 Residential Landlords Association (PTG 08) ...... 24 Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (PTG 22) ...... 71 Royal Town Planning Institute (PTG 10) ...... 32 Spatial Planning and Health Group (PTG 15) ...... 48 SSE (PTG 23) ...... 73 Theatres Trust (PTG 20) ...... 64 Town and Country Planning Association (PTG 09) ...... 28 UK Green Building Council (PTG 19) ...... 62

Written evidence submitted by the Institute for Archaeologists (PTG 01)

1. Summary

1.1. IfA agrees with the Review Group that there is not presently ‘an effective suite of planning practice guidance to support plan making and development management by the sector as a whole, nor is it in a form which can be effectively managed and kept up-to-date’.

1.2. With regard to the historic environment, IfA also agrees that PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Practice Guide (2010) (Review Report, Annex C, document 31) should be replaced by revised guidance and accepts that this may involve a substantial reduction in the length of that guidance.

1.3. Such high-level guidance should nonetheless address the following (amongst other things) in relation to archaeology • clarification of the concept of ‘archaeological interest’ • recognition of the importance of undesignated heritage assets in the planning system • the advantages of development-related, archaeological work being carried out by competent, accredited practitioners working in accordance with professional standards.

1.4. Furthermore, policy and guidance ‘does not necessarily achieve clarity by virtue of its brevity1’. Although IfA supports the National Planning Policy Framework in its current form, it does require detailed elaboration in guidance. Much of the detail in PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Practice Guide (2010) and the draft Historic Environment Forum (HEF) guidance (which improves upon the earlier document) should be viewed as necessary guidance on what is required in considering applications relating to the historic environment (‘minimum compliance’) rather than discretionary good practice. If all of this cannot be included in high-level, Government-endorsed guidance, then it should at least be signposted in that guidance and produced by the sector with the support of Government.

1.5. In addition to guidance on the minimum requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (such as the HEF draft and IfA Standards and guidance), the Review Group notes the value of good practice guidance (such as the ‘clients’ guide to archaeology’ presently under development by IfA). IfA remains committed to the continuing development of good practice guidance for the historic environment.

2. Introduction

2.1. The Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) is the professional body for archaeologists and related professions concerned with the study and care of the historic environment. It promotes best practice in archaeology and provides a self-regulatory quality assurance framework for the sector and those it serves.

1 CLG Committee Report: The National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1526, page 3 3

2.2. The IfA has over 3,200 members and more than 70 registered practices across the United Kingdom and abroad. Its members work in all branches of the discipline: heritage management, planning advice, excavation, finds and environmental study, buildings recording, underwater and aerial archaeology, museums, conservation, survey, research and development, teaching and liaison with the community, industry and the commercial and financial sectors.

2.3. IfA has responsibility for setting practice standards for its members in the public interest.

3. Response to Specific Questions

(1) Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changes need to be made?

3.1 Yes. If anything it has gone too far. In an ideal world, it is true that regulations, SIs and policy ‘should be written clearly in the first place’ (Review Group Report, page 6)2 but in reality detailed guidance is required, particularly when the emphasis in policy is upon brevity. (As this Committee noted in considering the National Planning Policy Framework last year3, brevity is not necessarily synonymous with clarity.)

3.2 That is not to say that IfA takes issue with Lord Taylor’s basic premise that there is currently too much planning guidance, much of which is outdated, obscure and inaccessible. We are simply, respectfully saying that ‘you should not throw out the baby with the bath water’.

(2) Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

3.3 IfA wishes to see the revision of PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Practice Guide (2010) included as an urgent priority to ensure the continued protection of the historic environment. We commend the HEF draft for its clear explanation of the responsibilities under the National Planning Policy Framework of applicants and planning authorities, but there is also an urgent need for good practice guidance.

(3) Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

3.4 See above.

(4) Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

3.5 The timetable is challenging, but might be achieved (at least with regard to the historic environment) if the historic environment sector is fully and promptly engaged in the process.

2 Even when policy is clearly written there can still be problems. For instance, the need for a historic environment record (HER) made clear in the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 127) has been misinterpreted by some local authorities who seek to refute the need for a HER. The answer to this problem would be a statutory duty on local authorities to have access to a properly maintained HER. 3 CLG Committee Report: The National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1526, page 3 4

(5) Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

3.6 This should be the primary responsibility of DCLG, but (in respect of the historic environment) full engagement with professional institutes, English Heritage and the wider sector would ameliorate the resourcing implications for the Department.

(6) Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as the Environment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this be carried out?

3.7 Ideally, yes. With regard to the historic environment, this would best be achieved by the active involvement of DCMS, professional institutes, English Heritage and the wider historic environment sector, led by DCLG.

(7) How will a ‘rolling suite of guidance as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as the site will be ‘live’ with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it was used?

3.8 IfA supports the concept of a ‘rolling suite of guidance’ but recognises the practical difficulties in delivering such a mechanism. In practical terms clarity might be achieved by avoiding ad hoc revision of guidance and instead revising only at predetermined times (for instance, the first of every month).

4. Recommendations

4.1 PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Practice Guide (2010) should as a priority be replaced by revised guidance which should address the following (amongst other things) in relation to archaeology

• clarification of the concept of ‘archaeological interest’ • recognition of the importance of undesignated heritage assets in the planning system • the advantages of development-related, archaeological work being carried out by competent, accredited practitioners working in accordance with professional standards.

4.2 Further guidance on minimum compliance and good practice in relation to the historic environment should be signposted in any high-level guidance.

17 January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Building Research Establishment (PTG 02)

Executive summary

1. The recommendation that the Government should provide planning practice guidance that is clear, up-to-date, coherent and easily accessible is welcome and supported in principle.

2. There should be a consistent approach as to whether guidance from Government agencies should be incorporated within the content of the proposed new website.

3. The planning guidance on the proposed new website should be aligned with other relevant Government policy and guidance e.g. National Adaptation Programme, Natural Environment White Paper.

4. Proposed new guidance (e.g. on viability) should reflect this, and ensure that economic, social and environmental gains are sought jointly and simultaneously.

5. Adequate resources in terms of both quantity and expertise should be provided to set up and maintain the proposed new website. A seamless transition to the new system will be critical to its credibility.

6. There should be a second formal consultation on the proposals as recommended by Lord Taylor.

7. The Government should clarify its intentions in relation to good practice guidance provided by other bodies.

Person submitting evidence

8. Chris Cousins is local government liaison manager for BRE (formerly the Building Research Establishment). A significant part of his job involves working with local planning authorities which wish to encourage higher standards of sustainability in the built environment.

9. He previously worked as chief planning officer and head of sustainable development for Oxfordshire County Council.

Reducing and consolidating guidance

10. The review’s recommendation that the Government should provide planning guidance which is clear, up-to-date, coherent and easily accessible is welcome and supported in principle.

11. Many of the detailed proposals as to which guidance should be cancelled, etc. are unexceptionable. However, there are a few areas where the review’s thinking is not entirely clear.

12. For example, the review suggests (at paragraph 7) that Planning Inspectorate (PINS) guidance “is incorporated into the new single coherent guidance resource”, apparently on the basis that “PINS is a Government body”. However, elsewhere (Annex A, Document 48) the joint DCLG/Environment Agency guidance on the permeable surfacing of front gardens is recommended for cancellation as “not appropriate for Govt planning guidance”. This is despite the fact that the Environment Agency is also a Government body, and that this guidance appears directly relevant to the Government’s own climate change risk assessment (DEFRA, 2012) and national adaptation programme. It is also not clear on what basis the review team conclude that the “Private sector can provide advice” on this issue, or indeed why the private sector would wish to.

13. There should be a consistent approach as to whether guidance from Government agencies should be incorporated within the content of the proposed new website.

Aligning planning practice guidance with other Government policy and guidance

14. The review’s recommendations refer (at paragraph 8) to “Cross-Government guidance”, and suggest that other material should only constitute “formal Government Planning Practice Guidance once it is admitted to this website” (i.e. the one proposed by the review). While this seems a sensible approach, it needs to be combined with ensuring that the planning practice guidance takes account of and is aligned with other relevant Government policy and guidance.

15. For example, local planning authorities have statutory duties in relation to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development (S39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004), mitigation of and adaptation to climate change (S19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, as amended by S182 of the Planning Act 2008), and promoting good design (ibid.). It will therefore be important to ensure that planning practice guidance properly reflects such duties and aligns closely with such things as the National Adaptation Programme and the Natural Environment White Paper.

Proposed new guidance

16. This has a bearing on some of the areas where new guidance is proposed. For example, guidance on viability should ensure that the approach reflects the National Planning Policy Framework’s aim (NPPF paragraph 8) that “economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system”. Thus a proposed development which was not resilient to climate change over the next 50 to 100 years, or which resulted in unmet requirements for necessary social infrastructure should not be considered viable, even if it resulted in “competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer” (NPPF paragraph 173).

Process

17. The process of transition to the proposed new regime will be critical to its success. A key issue will be to ensure a seamless transition from the old system to the new, to ensure that problems are not caused either by important guidance being cancelled before there is something to take its place or by new contradictions or confusion being introduced. Unless this transition is carefully handled it could lead to problems at examinations and inquiries, not to mention scope for legal debate.

18. The transition to the proposed new system will require considerable resources in terms of quantity and expertise both to implement and, equally importantly, to keep up to date. (In passing, it appears that letters from DCLG to local authority chief planning officers are continuing to be sent out, so that the volume of guidance is still growing.)

19. Given the resources available within DCLG the timetable proposed by the review appears optimistic.

20. The review’s proposals for keeping the website up to date, which cite legal websites as an example that would be appropriate to follow, appear sensible. However, the resources and discipline required to achieve this should not be underestimated.

21. The Government does not appear to have responded to the review’s recommendation that there should be a second formal consultation. Given the scale of the change proposed such a consultation should be included as an essential part of the process.

Best practice guidance provided by other bodies

22. The review suggests that the new Government website for planning practice guidance should provide a signpost to, but should not endorse, guidance produced by others. This begs several questions, including:

a. What status and weight should be given to such guidance?

b. Producing best practice guidance, particularly if it comes from a range of different organisations, takes considerable time and effort. What incentive will there be for organisations to produce such guidance?

c. What happens if different groups produce conflicting guidance?

23. In its consultation on the draft NPPF, the Government asked for views on the statement that “Any guidance needed to support the new Framework should be light-touch and could be provided by organisations outside Government”. The Government took a similar line in its March 2012 response to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee Report on the NPPF.

24. Largely in response to this background a number of cross-sector examples of good practice guidance have been published. The subjects covered include: planning for climate change; biodiversity and green infrastructure; sustainable design and construction. Dozens of private, public and voluntary organisations have been involved in producing this guidance. The willingness of such organisations to be similarly involved in future is likely to depend in part on the importance attached to such guidance in the planning system, and the Government should clarify its position on this.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Home Builders Federation (PTG 03)

Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changes need to be made?

The Review Team were comprehensive in their examination of existing guidance and concluded that even where extant guidance was necessary and up to date there was considerable scope for consolidation and greater brevity. We believe the Review team have got the balance right in proposing an appropriate, manageable and concise body of guidance for the future.

It is a matter for Part 2 of the Review to produce the new guidance required – this was not in the scope of the Review Team given the very tight timescale to which they were working. The identification of the various topics for which guidance is necessary and the relationship with the NPPF is both applauded and welcome.

Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

The Review team have been quite clear that in some cases, although the extant guidance is neither up to date nor totally fit for purpose its removal would give the wrong signals to practitioners. Thus, in paragraph 18 of the report they have recommended those areas of guidance that should be a priority for updating and revision. These include SHMAA and SHLAA, the duty to co-operate and various environmental issues such as climate change, EIA and sustainability appraisal. We agree with this list.

The cancellation and consolidation of other guidance should take place as soon as possible, and not later than July 2013. However, the areas of priority are just that – their updating, consolidation or, in some case, production, should be undertaken as a matter of priority, long before July 2013.

We have some concerns about a number of the recommendations, but we will look to see these are addressed in the production of the new guidance.

While we agree that viability assessment is a key planning issue we doubt that any government guidance will provide a more comprehensive basis for this than the recent work undertaken by the HBF and LGA which was led by Sir John Harman. We would therefore wish to see DCLG use Sir John Harman’s report as the basis for any new guidance on viability assessment issues.

The report also doesn’t make it clear that the recommended guidance on environmental quality refers to a number of the subjects previously covered by the more technical PPSs such as PPS24 on noise and PPS23 on pollution control. While this is also part of the current standards review the proposed planning guidance could, as recommended by the Review, set appropriate standards for planning for these issues.

Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

The Review was comprehensive in covering all of the guidance issued by DCLG or jointly badged by DCLG with other government departments. However, there are other departments whose guidance or policy requirements are delivered through the planning system. Such guidance was excluded from the remit of the Review team and we would like to see a similar review process undertaken in all government departments whose guidance is delivered through planning.

Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

It is critical that the review of guidance does not stop with the publication of the Review team recommendations. The implementation of the NPPF is dependent upon its policy being supported by concise and necessary planning guidance as recommended by the Review Team. Much of the extant guidance (as identified by the team) is out of date and much of it relates to policy as set out in now withdrawn PPSs and PPGs. The new suite of guidance should be specifically related to, and clearly identifiable with, the policy requirements of the NPPF.

The timetable of having the new suite in place by July 2013 is challenging and will require a prioritising of resources within DCLG. However, it is realistic and will only fail if the department fails to give the task the appropriate priority or resource.

Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

It will be possible for much of this work to be undertaken in-house by DCLG officials. The recommendation of the Review Team is that the new guidance should be “living” documents, open to continual comment and discussion amongst practitioners. Thus any mistakes that are made in the production of the new guidance can be easily corrected through the new structure proposed by the Review Team.

The proposals rely on a clear, easy to use, web-based structure for the new guidance and the establishment of this key piece of infrastructure should be a departmental priority. Population of the web-based resource will be an ongoing, constantly reviewed task. However, it is vital that the web resource is designed correctly in the first place in order that this can happen efficiently and effectively.

Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as the Environment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this be carried out?

Given the limited remit of the Taylor Review solely to DCLG guidance it would seem reasonable and sensible for similar reviews to be undertaken of all government departments’ guidance on development and the development process. This will ensure that government policy is delivered in an integrated and complementary manner.

The model recommended by the Review Team could be utilised for other government departments with a clear policy document supplemented by concise and relevant guidance easily accessible and understandable through an interactive web-based tool.

How will a “rolling suite of guidance” as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as the site will be ‘live’ with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it was used?

It is essential for the suite of guidance to be printable (for use outside the electronic environment). With that comes the need to ensure that every page is date stamped as to its relevant publication date. That is not the date on which it was printed but the last date on which it was updated. This is not considered to be technologically difficult, but it is an essential element of such an interactive, web based tool.

We also recognise the need to be able to archive previous iterations of the guidance in order that it is possible to look back over guidance to know what was extant at what period of time. This would, perhaps, be best done through a comprehensive “timeline” held as part of the website with the previous iterations of the guidance document held within an archive.

These are both important technical issues which must be solved if the benefits of an up to date guidance suite is to be maintained and we do not merely spend the next 10 years recreating the unmanageable mass of guidance that the Review Team clearly found in their herculean task of review.

17 January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Campaign for Better Transport (PTG 04)

Summary

• Revising planning practice guidance is an opportunity to improve the integration of land-use and transport planning • Where guidance is still needed, it is important to prepare and adopt new or revised guidance before the old guidance is cancelled • It is not sufficient to assert that Guidance is redundant because the principles are well understood. Often they evidently are not • Guidance is often needed because local planning authorities do not have specialised expertise • Sustainable transport should be one of the priority areas identified by the Review Group for new and updated guidance • The principles of PPG13: Good Practice Guide should be included in guidance on sustainable transport • The timetable for cancelling out-of-date guidance and producing new guidance is unrealistically short • The DfT must have a major role in the preparation of new guidance.

Introduction

1. In the limited time available, Campaign for Better Transport is pleased to provide the following brief comments for the Committee Inquiry on the External Review of Government Planning Guidance.

2. We agree with the recommendations of the External Review that planning practice guidance be simplified, reduced, consolidated and made available on a single accessible website.

3. The future management of planning guidance is an important opportunity to ensure necessary integration of transport policy and provision with planning policy and practice. There have been times when the relationship between the two areas and between DfT and DCLG has not been as close as sustainable transport planning requires. This is an opportunity to address that weakness.

4. In this evidence we will not attempt to provide views on all the matters which the Committee expects to put to the Minister.

Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changes need to be made?

5. Yes, the Review Group has gone far enough and in some cases has gone too far by suggesting that essential guidance be cancelled before replacement guidance has been adopted. It is important not to create a vacuum in a key policy area (as the Review Group said in relation to Document 54, Annex C).

6. We are concerned that the Review Group often asserted that issues are ‘well-understood’ when, in practice, it is often clear, in transport matters at any rate, that this is not the case. See for example the Review Group’s comments on documents 22 and 24 in Appendix B. If the principles of urban design are so well understood why are they not more evident?

7. It is essential that the full scope and depth of guidance be maintained to replace skills and expertise that may no longer be available in local planning authorities and to enable local authorities to mediate with consultants when their expertise has had to be brought in.

8. It would be helpful if guidance could be grouped by subject and if the relevance of guidance documents to particular policy areas could be clearly indicated on the website.

9. In general we are concerned that the Review does not make clear the importance of the relationship of planning with specific policy areas .

Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

10. In paragraph 18 of its recommendations the Review Group identified clear priorities for new and updated guidance. It named nine areas that it considered particularly vital for the delivery of good plan-making and decision taking and therefore needed immediate attention. Sustainable transport is a striking omission from this list and should be added. Arguably it is of equal or greater importance than some areas on the list and a major and essential element of several more. It should be a major factor in deciding the form and location of development and is a significant component of local plans.

11. Guidance should be prepared for priority areas before previous guidance is replaced and guidance for lower priority areas is addressed.

Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

12. Much of ‘PPG 13: A Guide to Better Practice’ has not been adequately replaced by the NPPF. Guidance is still required on the form and location of development to minimise transport requirements, reduce the need to travel and maximise sustainable transport. These could be included in the guidance on sustainable transport which we have already suggested should be produced as a priority.

Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

13. The Review Group proposes that the website, the immediate cancellations and the most urgent updating of guidance be complete by 28th March and that majority of the remaining work and cancelling of existing guidance be complete by July. We do not think this timetable is realistic or see the need to proceed at such speed. We doubt that Government departments will have the capacity to update guidance material to a consultation stage so quickly or that it will be possible for other organisations to give enough attention to their consultation responses. It is important to avoid creating gaps in guidance for important policy areas.

Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

14. Bearing in mind recent cuts in DCLG, we doubt that it will have the capacity to produce the quantity of new or revised guidance that will be needed. On the other hand, partly in order to ensure that planning policy objectives are consistent with those of other policy areas, there must be a major role for other government departments including DfT in deciding when to cancel or revise existing guidance and in preparing new guidance. This will help to ensure the integration of planning with transport and other areas.

January 2013 14

Written evidence submitted by the Law Society of England and Wales (PTG 05)

1. The Law Society of England and Wales is the independent professional body, established for solicitors in 1825, that works globally to support and represent its 166,000 members, promoting the highest professional standards and the rule of law.

2. This written evidence submission has been prepared by members of the Law Society's Planning and Environmental Law Committee. The Committee is comprised of expert practitioners from a cross section of the profession, both public and private sectors, and from across the UK nations.

3. The Society welcomes Lord Taylor’s review of planning practice guidance as a necessary and essential complement to the bonfire of planning policy guidance following the adoption of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). While the concentration of planning policy guidance in a single document was to be welcomed, it did leave gaps which practitioners quickly identified as needing to be addressed urgently.

4. The Review Group has insisted that in future planning practice guidance must be related to and support the NPPF. The Society supports that recommendation. The Review Group is to be congratulated for sifting 50 years of Government planning practice guidance to identify those items that can be cancelled, those that can be incorporated into revised guidance and that which needs to be retained until replaced by revised guidance.

Question 1: Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changes need to be made?

5. In the view of the Law Society the scale of reduction and consolidation recommended is roughly correct. It continues the process of making planning guidance more focussed and readily available.

Question 2: Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

6. The Review Group’s priorities for new guidance are in line with the views of planning practitioners generally. The Society had itself identified as priorities:

6.1. the new duty for neighbouring local authorities to cooperate on local plan production;

6.2. the assessment of the financial viability of planning obligations entered into in different economic conditions and which are now threatening to halt a project from being implemented; and

6.3. the assessment of housing market and housing land availability.

Question 3: Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

7. The short time between the issue of the invitation to submit views to the Select Committee and the deadline has not allowed us to examine the Review Group’s recommendation in respect of each item of planning practice guidance.

Question 4: Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

8. The recommended timetable is tight but could be achieved given commitment by the Government. Cancellation of documents which no longer have any value to coincide with the first annual review of the NPPF in March 2013 is certainly achievable. The Society’s second priority would be the production of the new planning practice guidance to fill the gaps which have been identified. That exercise should also facilitate the incorporation of that guidance which the review group has recommended for retention until included in new revised guidance and the subsequent cancellation of documents which are thus rendered superfluous at an early date.

Question 5: Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

9. The Law Society strongly believes that this is a task for the Government as that will ensure that any revised, consolidated or new planning practice guidance is authoritative. That will inevitably have implications for resources at DCLG. The view of the Society is that this function must be given a higher priority within DCLG even if at the cost of slackening the pace of reform to the town and country planning system.

10. If the Government is not willing to take the lead, then it should consider subcontracting the production of guidance on certain topics to appropriately qualified bodies. For example, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors has produced a professional guidance note, Financial Viability in Planning, which involved cross professional input and which is well respected in the industry. It could be ‘endorsed’ by the Government if it is unable to produce its own guidance quickly.

Question 6: Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as the Environment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this be carried out?

11. The Law Society considers that it is essential that planning guidance produced by bodies other than DCLG, primarily the Environment Agency and the Planning Inspectorate, ought to be incorporated into the corpus of planning practice guidance. A single source for all guidance is highly desirable, especially if the electronic platform recommended by the Review Group can be achieved. As part of that process of integration existing guidance ought to be revised and consolidated.

12. The Society has been concerned for some time that these quasi governmental bodies have been issuing authoritative guidance which can carry weight in the determination of appeals, often without the benefit of consultation. The Society has had to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate and DCLG that the legal guidance contained in Good Practice Advice Note 16/2010 Submitting Planning Obligations is incorrect as a result of no consultations on the text prior to issue to inspectors. Another example of different bodies producing guidance on the same issue is the suite of guidance on the NPPF issued by the Environment Agency last year which refers the reader to the Planning Advisory Service website for more information.

Question 7: How will a ‘rolling suite of guidance as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as the site will be ‘live’ with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it was used?

13. The Law Society would envisage that in future the planning practice guidance will be available online. That would enable the guidance to be kept regularly up to date. If online, the guidance

could be annotated where it has been revised or updated just as the UK Public Acts and UK Statutory Instruments are kept up to date showing which provisions have been brought into force or amended and when on the legislation.gov.uk website.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Country Land and Business Association (PTG 06)

The Country Land & Business Association (CLA) represents 34,000 members in England and Wales. Our members both live and work within rural areas; they operate a wide range of businesses, at the last count the CLA represents some 250 different types of rural businesses. Most objectives for the countryside - economic, social and environmental - rely on landowners and managers for their success, and frequently bring them into contact with the planning system, giving the CLA a unique standing.

We welcome the recommendations of the Review Group. Their practical effect should be to streamline national planning policy to provide coherent guidance which should provide a more transparent, efficient and effective planning system.

As an important point of detail, the CLA urges the Committee to ask CLG to overhaul the entire format and structure of information contained on its website at the same time so that it is logically presented and easily accessible. Since moving the CLG website onto the GOV.UK site, it has become almost impossible to find anything, and the CLG website is unwieldy and difficult to navigate. An overhauled website will assist practitioners and lay people to be able to access the relevant information.

(a) Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance?

In general, yes.

If not what changes need to be made?

See (b) below.

(b) Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance?

Yes, in general. But we set out below some additional comments on the new guidance proposed in Annex C and D of the Review Report:

1. Local Green Space Designation (LGSD) – the NPPF sets out clear criteria for LGSD, so we are unclear as to why new guidance is thought to be required.

2. Environmental Quality – it is unclear why “new” guidance is required on noise, given DEFRA’s Noise Policy Statement for England (2010). Would this not lead to duplication of guidance or would the DEFRA noise statement become part of the NPPF guidance?

3. Water supply – it is important that the guidance on Water supply would include guidance for farmers who want to construct winter water storage reservoirs for on- farm irrigation purposes.

4. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAA’s) – We trust that guidance on SHLAA’s will include a requirement for local planning authorities to reassess the viability of historic brownfield allocations.

5. Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMA’s) – We trust that guidance on SHMA’s will specifically exclude the Local Authority Statutory Housing Waiting List as a data source for housing needs. This is because s146 of the 2011 Localism Act added a new power for Local Housing Authorities to prescribe, the applicants entitled 18

to be allocated social housing. There is now significant variation between access to Local Housing Authority waiting lists, with some authorities operating wholly open schemes. The unintended consequence of this action is to produce inflated housing need figures in some Local Authority areas that in turn, have the ability to skew s106 negotiations and produce incorrect housing need figures in SHMA’s.

Linked to the Duty to the Co-operate, it would be useful to charge LEPS with undertaking SHMA’s alongside Employment Land Reviews, as economic activity functions. The LEPS have a statutory basis and may be less likely to review housing targets downwards.

What priority and timescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

Given that we need to deliver economic growth urgently, the suggested timescales are correct in the circumstances.

Yes, there are some important omissions:

(i) Government messages since publication of the NPPF have been that the document must be read as a whole, in practice it appears that a substantial number of planning authorities are “cherry picking” the policies they like, and ignoring the rest. In particular, although the CLA has been told by senior officials that all twelve core planning principles carry equal weight, the NPPF (probably unintentionally) doesn’t explicitly say this. It is vital that this is made in explicit terms.

(ii) The guidance must explain some of the terms used in the NPPF, and areas which are unclear without further explanation. We note that the Review suggests that the term ‘Viability’ requires guidance to “ensure….a good mutual understanding of what this test requires”. This is often not within the skill set of planners. For example determining what is the ‘essential need for a rural workers dwelling’ (para 55 bullet one) is often the subject of a financial assessment on the viability of an agricultural, forestry or rural holding, and misunderstandings on the viability test are often used as grounds to turn down these applications.

(iii) There are many further terms used in the NPPF which need definition, including ‘public benefit’, ‘substantial harm’, ‘optimal viable use’, ‘deliberate harm’, and ‘valued landscapes’. None are defined, they are not self-explanatory, and they require definition or guidance to provide a mutual understanding at national level. It may be reasonable not to have explained them at length in the NPPF, but if they are not explained somewhere this creates a high degree of uncertainty for all users of the system, much scope for time-wasting argument, and for unnecessarily-detailed applications and unjustified refusals.

(iv) The Review suggests best-practice documents signposted from the new web- based guidance, and published by professional bodies or stakeholder groups. Some guidance is needed on this to ensure that this is evidence-based and endorsed by a all relevant stakeholders. 19

(d) Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

The proposed 28 March 2013 deadline to cancel out of date guidance is an ambitious target, but some of the guidance ought to be removed soon. Given that the government’s deadline for the associated consultation is 15 February 2013, it is doubtful that this target will actually be met.

(e) Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, produce new guidance and designing a web-based resource?

Probably an ad hoc combination of CLG and external stakeholders. There are two main ways of creating new or revised guidance:

(i) Guidance being drawn up by stakeholder groups and endorsed by Government

We think this is generally a better solution, provided it is circumscribed, and carefully managed by CLG. However, our experience in working with stakeholder groups on NPPF guidance is that it can be difficult to be concise, because each stakeholder feels that its own points must be seen to be included in detail, even if already well-covered in the NPPF and/or lower-level guidance.

We think however that this would work well if there were a direct instruction from Government (a) that this guidance should be no longer than a specific number of pages, which would concentrate stakeholders’ minds on brevity, and (b) that it needs endorsement from all relevant categories of stakeholders.

(ii) Guidance being drawn up by CLG

We do not think that CLG should draw up and publish guidance without any consultation, partly because that would cause resentment, and more importantly because CLG without help from stakeholders is unlikely to be able to draft optimal guidance.

If Government were to adopt this approach, however, we think there should be a simple three-stage process:

1. CLG drafts guidance in conjunction with a Sounding Board of key stakeholders. This should be small and made up mainly of representatives of those directly involved in the plan-making and/or development management process. (For rural dwellings subject to occupancy conditions, for example, the Rural Coalition stakeholders would be an ideal grouping).

2. There is a public consultation on this draft. There should not be much controversy.

3. The draft is reviewed and amended if necessary, with the Sounding Board, and a final version published. It is important again that this is seen to have widespread stakeholder support from all different categories of stakeholder.

What are the implications for resourcing within CLG?

Even if CLG is not actually writing the guidance, it is important that CLG staff levels are sufficient to maintain the new system of guidance to support and underpin the NPPF.

(f) Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than CLG and bodies such as the Environment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated?

Yes, in a consistent way.

How should this be carried out?

Roughly as in (e) above.

(g) How will a ‘rolling suite’ of guidance as envisaged by the Group Report operate? For example, as the site will be ‘live’ with continuous amendment how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it was used?

By the date stamp on the particular document used by a practitioner/layman. If a document is under review a “health warning” should be posted on the particular document to alert the reader that they may need to revisit the updated document. A document under review should have printed on it a date by when the review and re-publication will be completed.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Heritage Alliance (PTG 07)

About the Alliance

The Heritage Alliance promotes the interests of the independent heritage movement. It brings together some 90 heritage bodies ranging from specialist advisers, practitioners and managers, volunteers and owners to national funders and organisations leading regeneration and access projects. They are supported in turn by thousands of local groups and over five million members with a huge volunteer input at all levels. Together these members own, manage and care for the vast majority of England’s heritage. Their specialist knowledge and expertise is a valuable national resource, much of which is contributed on a voluntary basis for public benefit.

The Alliance broadly welcomes the recommendations of the Taylor Review. We have long supported the Government’s campaign to make the planning system easier for local authorities, professionals, owners and community groups to use. Conserving our heritage in order to maximise the economic, environmental and social returns is part of a forward- looking planning system. A plethora of confusing and contradictory measures is unnecessary and unhelpful and their selective cancellation or reform should be supported.

In particular, Lord Taylor’s recommendation that specific heritage protection guidelines be drafted by the Historic Environment Forum is very welcome; this is an excellent chance to have guidelines put in place by those who daily engage with the challenges that face the historic environment. However, concerns have been raised about equal engagement and coordination of other planning guidance in different sectors. Though the Alliance is pleased that the heritage sector was singled out for particular mention, many other specialised policy areas require complex and considered guidance – for example, waste management and energy. Will they receive similar expert attention? Do they have similar bodies to the Historic Environment Forum to develop their guidance? What steps will be taken to ensure consistency in the drafting of sectoral guidance?

In terms of cancellation and replacement, there are crucial points which require clarification. We would like to see confirmation of the Notification to National Amenity Societies Direction 2005 (see Annex C Document 71) as soon as possible.

The second concerns the Protection and Management of World Heritage Sites in England: English Heritage Guidance Note to Circular for England on the Protection of World Heritage Sites (2009) – recommended for cancellation (see Annex A Document 39 and Annex C Document 41). The Review advises that the circular 07/2009 act as interim guidance until an updated version is put in place, but recognises that the lack of a definite timescale on this could lead to outdated guidance being used for longer than necessary and prompt concern from UNESCO. The Alliance agrees with this assessment of the situation and urges the Government to act promptly to publish replacement guidance.

This particular case indicates a broader issue with the reforms. Though target dates for reforms are in place for changes within DCLG – and encourage commendably swift action – there is not a similar timescale in place for the drafting of sector-specific guidance. Though naturally the impulse will be to resolve this as soon as possible, a lack of definite timetable could lead to other issues being prioritised and the process dragging on unnecessarily. 22

In setting up this two-tier framework, consideration should be given to who precisely the revised guidance is aimed at and at what level it becomes detailed, sector-led ‘best practice’ rather than Government-endorsed guidance on the single-site resource. Guidance to replace PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Practice Guide) can be assumed to be Government-mandated and included on the single-site resource, but would this require subsidiary best practice guidance from Historic Environment Forum? Moreover, in terms of court and tribunal appearances would sector-drafted best practice guidance be accorded less weight than Government guidance on the single-site resource?

Consideration should also be given to the “house style” of the resource, given the input from different Government departments and external bodies. Language must be drafted in such a manner as to be accessible to those in community groups, independent bodies and citizens as well as those within local government. Ease of use is particularly important considering the rapidly declining number of historic environment specialists in Local Authorities with the consequent loss of their experience to guide others through the process.

Finally, a crucial issue is the management of the single-site resource. This review exercise has demonstrated the importance of continually checking and updating guidance, giving citizens and those in local government the most up-to-date information possible. This will require dedicated, active data management on the part of DCLG and a clear signposting of any changes made. Given the drive to reduce expenditure in Government departments (particularly in relation to staffing), will adequate manpower and financial support be available to resource the site properly?

The Alliance welcomes the Review Group’s recommendations that information be readily printable and date-stamped and that other departments (such as DCMS) have the opportunity to contribute guidance to the site. However, the Committee is right to raise the issue of the “rolling suite of guidance”. What provisions will be put in place to update Government-level guidance on-site? Will the updating of sector-specific, best practice guidance be left to the discretion of the relevant sectors? Will reviews take place after set periods or only after changes to relevant areas of law?

As a long-standing member of the Historic Environment Forum, the Alliance looks forward to working closely with CLG and other relevant bodies to draft authoritative and accessible guidance for the protection of our valuable historic environment.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Residential Landlords Association (PTG 08)

About the Residential Landlords Association (RLA)

1. The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) is a national landlords association operating in England and Wales. We have over 16,000 members. Our members own or control over 150000 units of accommodation. Primarily our members are landlords in their own right but a number are managing and letting agents, some of whom are also landlords. Our members operate in all sub-sectors of the Private Rented Sector (PRS). Properties are rented out to families, working people, young professionals, the elderly, students and benefit customers. Introduction

2. This submission is confined to the operation of planning law and guidance in respect of one aspect only namely houses in multiple occupation (shared houses and bedsits), including the operation of Article 4 Directions restricting permitted development rights. 3. During 2010 significant changes were made to the Use Classes Order and permitted development rights in relation to houses in multiple occupation with the introduction of a new Use Class (Class C4) for smaller shared houses (with usually up to six residents). 4. As a representative trade body for landlords who control and manage HMOs we have two prime areas of concern. Firstly, the necessity for clear guidance regarding what is a complex area of planning law which is developing quickly but where there is currently limited knowledge, especially as many questions remain unanswered. This is because they await decision by the Planning Inspectorate or even potentially the Courts. 5. Secondly, our other area of concern is to ensure that as part of the process for the preparation of development plans there are robust assessments of the need/demand for HMO accommodation alongside other types of accommodation. 6. Of particular importance is the fact that HMO accommodation provides cheaper accommodation and provides accommodation especially for the young, including young sharers. Occupants include students, young professionals, working people and benefit claimants. Furthermore, as a result of changes to the single accommodation rate rules for local housing allowance a single claimant to age 35 is now only entitled to the lower single accommodation rate. The age of 35 has been introduced in place of age 25. It is therefore anticipated that there is a greater demand for this kind of accommodation on the part of benefit claimants 24

under the age of 35 who no longer qualify for higher rates of allowance for their accommodation. Questions and issues

7. The Association would wish to see two issues put to the Minister: (1) Does the Minister agree with the Taylor recommendation that high priority should be given to updating the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Guidance in order to effectively underpin the implementation of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)? Further, does the Minister accept that this new Guidance should stress the requirement to assess the need/demand for housing for all sections of the population, including houses in multiple occupation, such as shared houses and bedsit type accommodation? (2) Would the Minister accept that, notwithstanding the Taylor recommendation, specific planning guidance should be retained in relation to houses in multiple occupation because significant changes have only recently been introduced and their full impact has not yet worked through, as well as the fact that existing statutory requirements are to be found from a number of differing sources. Further, Article 4 Directions play a significant part in determining what is the applicable planning law on an area by area basiss and therefore does the Minister agree that because different requirements apply in different areas guidance is also important to help everyone concerned to understand the relevant legislation? Background

8. During the course of 2010 significant changes were mad relating to small HMOs (normally up to six occupants in number) and because of the change in Government the relevant legislation was changed twice in a short space of time. Use Class C3 (single dwellings) used to include private rented sector shared houses occupied by up to six as a single household. These have now been transferred to a new Use Class (Use Class C4) which incorporates small shared houses and bedsits (up to six in number). Larger HMOs remain a sui generis class as before. There are permitted development rights for material changes of use between Classes C3 and C4. However, local planning authorities can disapply permitted development rights and over 30 have now done so in respect

of changes of use from single/family houses to use as a small HMO (shared house or bedsit) within Use Class C4. These changes have been controversial and there is a large degree of hostility on the part of local residents to shared houses in their areas, especially those occupied by students, but also those occupied by migrant workers and unemployed people. This has led to the introduction of these various Article 4 Directions. These are viewed by landlords as a serious threat to the right of choice for tenants as to where they can live as well as interfering in the effective operation of local housing markets.

Views on matters to be put to the Minister

9. Question 1 – Generally we feel that the review has a good grasp of the issues it faced. It is, however, very difficult to comment on which current guidance should be discarded without a detailed review. We have, however, highlighted above one area where we think the review has gone too far in relation to a specific topic which greatly concerns many of our own members, namely HMOs We do not believe that the review could have gone any further without necessarily removing useful guidance. We have concerns about some aspects of the Taylor approach: (1) Whilst this may be no bad thing it needs to be recognised that inevitably we will end up with a series akin to the old Planning Policy Statements (now superseded by NPPF) which will set under NPPF and supplement it dealing with various topics. (2) Rightly the Review identifies the complexity of the legal drafting as a problem (3) There may be nothing wrong in a culture of waiting to see what Government spells out in guidance. Otherwise you have all the individual local planning authorities doing their own thing involving a lot of duplicated and wasted resources. (4) Guidance is always useful as it gives an overview and can add in detail to the regulation especially as so much of planning is centred around policy. (5) Guidance helps with a more uniform approach (6) The inability of the Government to update statutory instruments on a continuous basis is a real problem as so much of planning law is incorporated in secondary legislation. (7) We endorse the need to keep the new guidance up to date.

Question 2 – We agree the priorities listed in paragraph 18 of the Review’s Report. In particular, as indicated above, we highlight the need for proper guidance in relation to SHMAs and SHLAAs and believe that this should take priority over the cleansing process for existing guidance because this work is vital for the effective implementation of NPPF. We feel that a timescale of 9 to 12 months would be appropriate. After that attention needs to be turned to cancellation and consolidation.

Question 3 – as indicated in our proposed question to the Minister we believe that specific guidance in relation to HMOs should be retained. This is a complex area which has recently undergone major change. We disagree with the Taylor view that it is now consolidated as part of the existing legislation. This is certainly not the case. There are many unresolved issues. It is also a topic which many people will not encounter very often.

Question 4 – whilst we agree that the work need to be carried out speedily we feel that the proposed timescale as recommended by the review are not realistically achievable.

Question 5 – This concerns us. Resources at CLG have been cut back significantly. We doubt that there is the capacity for the foot and hand reform suggested.

Question 6 – the guidance from the Environment Agency and PINs needs to be updated as well alongside updating planning guidance.

Question 7 – An updated website opening on an updated basis is feasible. Each document should state when it was last updated. This will make it clear that it is current when consulted. The difficulty comes in tracking back to previous versions as this may be required. It would therefore be useful to include an ongoing brief summary of changes and ensure access to archived material was available.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Town and Country Planning Association (PTG 09)

1. About the TCPA

Founded in 1899, the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) is the UK’s oldest independent charity focused on planning and sustainable development. Through our work over the last century we have improved both the art and science of planning in the UK and abroad. The TCPA puts social justice and the environment at the heart of policy debate and seeks to inspire Government, industry and campaigners to take a fresh perspective on major issues, including planning policy, housing, regeneration and climate change. Our objectives are to:

• Secure a decent, well designed home for everyone, in a human-scale environment combining the best features of town and country • Empower people and communities to influence decisions that affect them • Improve the planning system in accordance with the principles of sustainable development

2. Summary of TCPA response

The TCPA welcomes the review of planning guidance as a valuable contribution to identifying an effective and transparent policy and practice framework for spatial planning. The TCPA strongly supports reform measures which increase the efficiency and fairness of the process and which help shape outcomes that deliver long term sustainable development for our nation. The Association does have some specific concerns about the role of cross- sector planning guidance and the future of important policy on equalities, disability and community empowerment.

3. The TCPA response to the consultation

The Association has engaged closely in the planning reform process and has been a lead partner in the preparation of cross sector guidance on health, green infrastructure and climate change. This experience provides a key insight into the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches in the context of a reduction in the role of central government in policy formulation. Our experience of training both planners and councillors has taught us the value of clear and precise guidance which is relevant to real decision making. There is a particular need for such guidance in areas such as equalities and climate change, where new skills and concepts are now needed amongst practitioners.

The TCPA supports the Taylor Review’s recommendations for an effective guidance document and the removal of out of date or unnecessary policy and practice material. The Review’s commitment to the ‘active management’ of resources is very welcome and will ensure there is the opportunity for regular review of the relevance of technical guidance.

We strongly support the move to a single web based consolidated resource which can demonstrate a coherent narrative of guidance documents. We particularly welcome the recommendation that guidance can be communicated in shorter and simpler ways while retaining key messages. We look forward to closely cooperating with Government on preparation and dissemination of these new resources.

While supporting the overall objectives of the Review the TCPA does have reservations about some aspects of the analysis and the possible outcomes. For example, the review suggests that Government should, as a matter of policy, have a lesser role in the production of planning guidance. We do not believe that there should be a presumption for government to produce more or less guidance but the test should be pragmatic and that Government should set policy wherever it is necessary to the efficient and fair operation of planning. In many cases guidance on key aspects of the planning process is much more cost effectively dealt with by Government. This is because such guidance is a single authoritative source of advice. It has a clear status in case law and therefore cuts through a great deal of potential duplication and argument on the ground.

The review places significant emphasis on cross-sector guidance filling the gap left by Government and in Annex A (Document 48) states that even the private sector could play a role in offering guidance. The TCPA’s experience of the development of cross-sector guidance shows that while it has key strengths in terms of consensus building and collaboration; it also has key weaknesses, not least its cost and its uncertain legal and policy status. While the Planning for Climate Change guide involved more than 50 cross-sector organisations and was widely welcomed as supporting the Government agenda it received no form of Government endorsement. As a result while it is material to planning decisions and useful to practitioners, it has no particular weight in planning law above any other material consideration. It is useful in background policy formulation but its weight in decisions on plans and applications will have to be worked out on a case by case basis. Documents produced by the private sector would be subject to even more intense dispute particularly if they offered approaches or products which supported their commercial interest.

Looking ahead this ‘informal’ guidance sector is already becoming crowded with, in some cases, competing resources. Multiple guidance on viability testing is one example of this problem. In the medium term this informal sector is likely to lead to a much greater volume of material than currently produced by Government. The crucial point is that only some form of official endorsement of guidance documents can resolve this issue. PINs have suggested informally that they will use a test to judge the weight to be given such guidance which includes the breath and number of endorsements. This is complex in itself and open to challenge since popularity may not equal accuracy or effectiveness.

An awards system suggested by the Review is unlikely to resolve this but the LGA could help by coordinating guidance, although this would be resource intensive. Government could filter guidance in a number of ways by linking or not linking documents to its own consolidated web page or by giving PAS a greater role. However, to deal with the issue of legal status and to keep the idea of capturing cross-sector expertise, the Government needs to develop an effective partnership agreement in which it defines the need for guidance, works collaboratively to produce it and badges it as Government endorsed. This would also 29 ensure that the wider public, rather than just professional organisations, had an opportunity to comment.

It is also important to note to some extent the very different role and function of the differing guidance documents. The assessments of the value of circulars, for example, needs to be very different to that of best practice guides. The direct interpretation of law in circulars is in one sense repetitious because the primary statute exists for reference. However, a great deal more delay will be introduced to planning if practitioners are asked to make their own assessments of primary legislation and the case law which surrounds it. There is a strong case for the clear distinction of the function of planning guidance under a clear typology that distinguishes legal interpretation from, for example, departmental policy.

We also have concerns that the Review recommends the removal of important guidance without a clear route map for incorporating these principles in new resources. This is a key concern in the balance of material between the 4 annexes which form the bulk of output of the Review. In particular, the balance between Annex B where material is recommended for cancellation but relevant material should be incorporated elsewhere, and Annex C where material may be in need of update but will be kept until replaced. The balance between these two annexes appears, in some cases, is not always clear. There is a strong and unwelcome emphasis in Annex B on documents which related to community participation, design, equalities and disability4. It is unclear from the review what the precise policy vehicle would be used to take forward these policies. For example, none feature in Para 18 of the Review report in terms of priorities for updating guidance and none feature in Annex D on new guidance.

In the meantime the Review recommends a ‘Cancel for Now’ approach while flagging advice in other future guidance. The Association believes there needs to be a more fulsome approach for such sensitive and important issues. It risks the perception that they are regarded as of lesser significance than documents listed in Annex C. In many cases the Review briefly concludes that the principles contained in this guidance have been ‘mainstreamed’ in planning. The TCPA does not believe that this is the case in relation to equalities, diversity and disability in the same way that planning service continues to lack skills in financial appraisal or energy planning.

Annex C is overwhelmingly and understandably dominated by process guidance on issues which make the system work. As a result there is real risk that the review removes or creates uncertainty about important issues relating to planning outcomes like diversity, while reinforcing the nuts and bolts of planning practice. This may simply reinforce the impression of planning as structure without a purpose. There is strong case for moving some key material from Annex B to Annex C, and a greater need for clarity on where this issue will be located in a new consolidated planning guidance. 4. Conclusion

The TCPA welcomes the overall objectives of the Taylor Review but is concerned principally about the mechanics of how informal cross-sector guidance will work and about the future of

4 See Annex b documents 17,19,21,22. 30 a number of key policy areas which should not be removed until clear and concise replacements are adopted.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Royal Town Planning Institute (PTG 10)

Introduction

The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) has over 23,000 members who work in the public, private, voluntary and education sectors. It is a charity whose purpose is to develop the art and science of town planning for the benefit of the public. The RTPI develops and shapes policy affecting the built environment, works to raise professional standards and supports members through continuous education, practice advice, training and development.

We run Planning Aid England (PAE) which supports communities and individuals through a locally based network of over 1,100 volunteers. PAE offers free, independent and professional advice on planning issues (primarily though its Advice Line), and empowers local communities to engage with the planning process and influence decisions that affect their local area.

Summary

We welcome the Taylor Review report and suggest that the Minister is asked two key questions at this stage.

Questions to be put to the Minister

We would suggest that the following questions are put to the Minister:

1. Does the Minister agree that there is a role for Government in endorsing a (limited) amount of planning guidance ? 2. What progress has been made in identifying the resources needed to undertake such of the Taylor review recommendations as might be agreed by Government ?

CLG Committee Questions and Answers

1. Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changes need to be made?

Yes. We wholeheartedly support the decision to undertake a holistic review of planning guidance, where all existing guidance is considered as a body of work, rather than the ad hoc approach that review of individual pieces of guidance allows. As a profession whose role it is to digest a wide variety of expert opinion but also do so in a timely and efficient

manner we are especially concerned to see rationalisation of planning guidance. We agree with Taylor that is necessary to make a clear distinction between government endorsed planning “guidance” (which should be followed) on the one hand, and what is “good practice” on the other. Topics covered by “guidance” should be strictly limited but should include all areas where clear methodologies need to be established from the outset to reduce time spent in future debates on process.

2. Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

We agree largely with the priorities set. The Review has taken on board the list of essential guidance needed to establish clear methodologies that RTPI along with five other leading planning stakeholders identified in a letter to Greg Clark in May 2012. The Review has agreed with our initial recommendations and given priority to Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) flooding and viability. The RTPI has been made aware through our members that the implementation of the Duty to Co-operate that is central to the NPPF requires additional guidance to be effective. The lack of guidance on the Duty, coupled with out of date SHMA guidance, threatens housing delivery, including in major growth areas. Therefore we argue that new guidance should take priority over cancellation and consolidation.

3. Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

The Review has been extremely thorough in the scope it has taken. However we argue that new light touch guidance is required on employment land requirements as the existing guidance is too complex and doesn’t take account of long term shifts in market requirements. Clarity is also needed on the methodology used for retail impact assessment in order to avoid confusion and delay, especially in view of the rapid changes in the retail sector. Continued guidance is also required on enforcement, and on minerals planning that takes into account the impact of the Duty to Cooperate. New guidance is also required on how Inspectors will test for soundness of local plans, and a step by step guide for participants on the way examinations are conducted would be valuable.

4. Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

The timetable recommended by the Review Group is certainly challenging. However, the NPPF will have been in place for nearly a year by the time the DCLG consultation on the Taylor Report closes and further delay should be avoided if at all possible, especially on matters impinging on housing delivery. Either additional resources will be required by DCLG to meet the deadline or the Department will need to prioritise the review work.

5. Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG? 33

We welcome the Taylor Review’s view that there are a (limited) number of topics where Government involvement is essential if we are to avoid competing methodologies being developed, and to avoid time being wasted on evaluating their relative merits in each local plan examination and planning application determination.

It is widely recognised both that DCLG does not have the staff resources to undertake this review work alone, and also that working collaboratively with the wider planning community will enable DCLG to draw on a wider range of expertise. Following a meeting with 18 planning organisations on the future of planning guidance the RTPI wrote to Greg Clark in December 2011 offering work with DCLG on producing guidance, and these offers of assistance should be accepted. However, DCLG will need to be aware that some less well resourced planning stakeholders are stretched in terms of resources and commitments, but still have a vital role in informing the review and a clear, timed programme of work will need to be developed.

6. Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as the Environment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this be carried out?

Yes. There is a great deal of guidance from other Government departments and agencies that has a significant role in the operation of the planning system and this should also be revised and consolidated. We would also like to seek clarity on matters which are true “guidance” requiring Government involvement and what are matters of good practice. Ideally we would like to ultimately see relevant guidance from other Government departments and bodies included in the planning practice ‘gateway’ website to avoid any confusion as to the status it holds. However, the same rules that have been applied to the review of DCLG guidance should be used to ensure that guidance from Departments like Defra and DfT does not contradict planning guidance or place unnecessary extra burdens on the system.

It should also be borne in mind that a some guidance e.g. on the environment has European Directives as its source. Consideration will need to be given matters concerning devolved nations. For example the Environment Agency covers England and Wales.

The Review recommends that PINS guidance is incorporated into the new single guidance resource, and the RTPI supports this recommendation.

7. How will a ‘rolling suite of guidance as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as the site will be ‘live’ with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it was used?

Clear referencing of the title, version number and date of issue should be clearly displayed on each piece of guidance. Then when a particular version of a piece of guidance needs to be referred to it can be done so quickly and clearly, without the need 34

to quote long passages of text. A systematic process for archiving out of date guidance (with a cancellation date) should be established so that in the limited number of cases where the information is required for a legal challenge the information is easily available. Archive material should always clearly be identified as such and be stored separately, but freely accessible online.

Consideration should be given to the issue of publicising draft Government guidance on priority topics. Consideration should also be given to identifying what weight should be given to draft guidance. (We do not consider this will be too extensive an operation since the number of topics on the government guidance website should be strictly limited.)

We do not support the Taylor recommendation that the website should “signpost” organisations providing best practice outside the purview of government planning guidance. This would require DCLG to devote considerable resources to adjudging which organisations and practice advice merited signposting. This is not a good use of resources. Furthermore the inclusion of signposts risks being seen as a kind of low level Government endorsement.

Jan 2012

Written evidence submitted by English Heritage (PTG 11)

1 Summary

1.1 English Heritage welcomes the Review of Planning Practice Guidance in simplifying and clarifying the guidance available for all who engage with the planning system and its commitment to concise, up-to-date, proportionate, accessible and clear guidance, available from national government and local government and from the historic environment sector, where appropriate. English Heritage (EH) has been working with the Historic Environment Forum (HEF), which includes bodies from the historic environment sector at its widest including development interests, in the development of guidance to support the heritage section of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) by replacing the Historic Environment Practice Guide to the previous PPS 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment). The HEF and EH have therefore discussed the material for targeted guidance, the levels at which such guidance should sit and the relationship between Government guidance, sector guidance and technical guidance.

1.2 The Review Group also recommends the revision of the World Heritage Site circular (Circular 07/2009) and consolidation of the process material which is currently contained in Circulars 08/2009, 09/2005 and 01/2001; both pieces of work should enable much more concise statements to be issued. EH is currently also carrying out a thorough review of its own guidance to ensure that it too is necessary, concise, up-to-date, proportionate and clear.

2 Background

2.1 The Historic Environment Forum, assisted by English Heritage, has been considering guidance to support the heritage chapter of the NPPF since it was first published in draft, which could replace the PPS 5 Practice Guide. It is well able to do this as it is the high level cross-sectoral committee which brings together chief executives and policy officers from public and non- government heritage bodies to strengthen advocacy work and to co-ordinate initiatives of this kind. The drafting group takes in professional bodies, such as the Institute for Archaeology and the Institute of Historic Building Conservation and related bodies such as the Joint Committee of Amenity Societies, the Council for British Archaeology and the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers; owners’ and development groups, including the British Property Federation, the Country Land and Business Association and the Historic Houses Association; and other groups including the National Trust, the Historic Towns Forum and Civic Voice.

2.2 In the absence of a clear steer from Government as to the form which guidance should take, it has not been possible to finalise the drafting group’s suggested guidance but EH is very glad to see that the suggested approach of sector-wide development of guidance has been endorsed by the Review Group in considering the proposed replacement of the Historic Environment Practice Guide to the previous PPS 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment) (Annex C: document 31).

2.3 Any guidance issued by the HEF needs to take account of guidance in the Government’s on- line Planning Practice Guidance suite, and would itself act as headlines to a small number of technical guidance notes, developed by English Heritage, professional or other sector bodies, and agreed by the HEF. The guidance would thus form a compact set of guidance notes, agreed sector-wide, at three levels: government planning practice guidance on a small number of vital issues; a concise sectoral

36 planning practice guide which expands on those and other matters; and practical guidance, including case studies.

2.4 As the Review Group suggests, there is useful material in the World Heritage Site circular (Circular 07/2009) and the accompanying EH guidance and we would strongly support the retention of a statement on the relationship between the planning system and World Heritage Sites. Likewise, Circulars 01/2001, 09/2005 and 08/2009 also contain important material, particularly in terms of the directions for consultation by local planning authorities of applications for planning permission and listed building consent affecting the historic environment. As in the case of the World Heritage Sites Circular, consolidation should enable much more concise statements to be issued.

3 Questions and Issues

3.1 How will the various levels of guidance work together?

3.1.1 The Report seems to suggest three levels of guidance:

• the Government’s on-line Planning Practice Guidance suite; • sectoral guidance to replace the PPS 5 Practice Guide; and • technical guidance, which may include case studies.

3.1.2 English Heritage supports this general approach. Given the lack of detail on levels of guidance, it is difficult to comment further at this stage. Furthermore, due to the uncertainties pending the publication of the review, the constituent bodies of the HEF have not decided what their conclusions on the detail of the guidance would be. Having said that, historic environment guidance would be needed on both the content of local plans and on development management.

3.2 How will the Government’s on-line Planning Practice Guidance suite be generated?

3.2.2 It is important, given the role of the Historic Environment Forum and English Heritage in developing new historic environment guidance, that the HEF and EH should provide the raw material to government, to be checked for conformity with the NPPF by DCLG and then worked up for publication on-line. EH will shortly be providing DCLG with a list of core topics which need to be covered in the Government’s guidance resource. This would ensure that there is read-across between the two, so that contradictions can be discounted.

4 Committee questions

4.1 Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changes need to be made?

4.1.1 English Heritage agrees with the general line taken by the Review Group, though care will be needed to ensure that useful material is not lost during the development of new and replacement guidance. We would also support the Review Group’s suggestion of a second formal consultation at the point that the new web-based guidance resource goes live, and also of the new sector-derived practice guidance. All new or significantly revised guidance should be subject to consultation to allow consensus to be built.

4.2 Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

4.2.1 Alongside the revision of the PPS 5 Practice Guide, the proposed new guidance (given in Annex D of the Review Report) covers the main areas necessary.

4.3 Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

4.3.1 English Heritage assumes that consideration will be given to new guidance on development management as it is affected by legal changes following change in statute. The current Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill is, for instance, proposing changes to the law surrounding listed buildings and conservation areas and it will be useful to give guidance on these changes. These will be covered in the list of core topics for the Government’s guidance resource which EH is developing for DCLG.

4.4 Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

4.4.1 The timetable is tight and will depend on the resource available for its execution but a more measured discussion to build greater consensus would be useful.

4.5 Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

4.5.1 This is a matter for government, though both EH and, we assume, the HEF, would recommend that the sector assists with the development of relevant new guidance, as the Review Group suggests.

4.6 Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as the Environment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this be carried out?

4.6.1 Where appropriate, other departments can and should contribute (for instance, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has responsibility for listing and scheduling and the consent regime for scheduled ancient monuments). It is, however, most important that all planning guidance should be clearly linked to and aligned with the NPPF and its subsidiary guidance. Planning Inspectorate guidance should therefore be restricted, as it is currently, to guidance about the process of appealing and inquiries rather than offering a separate commentary on the NPPF.

4.7 How will a ‘rolling suite of guidance as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as the site will be ‘live’ with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it was used?

4.7.1 Version control to on-line documents can be a problem, if changes are too frequent; there would be problems at a public inquiry, for instance, if the parties were using different versions of the guidance. It might therefore be better to carry out changes to the guidance cyclically, with urgent changes, such as those caused by legal rulings, restricted as far as possible and flagged appropriately. It is most important that the status of on-line guidance is clear.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Planning Officers Society (PTG 12)

POS welcomes the overall conclusions and recommendations made by Lord Taylor in the Review of Planning Practice Guidance. We strongly believe that a central DCLG endorsed on-line repository for all planning guidance is critical and that it must be easily and freely accessible, succinct and kept up-to-date. We believe that giving the responsibility for maintaining and managing to the DCLG Chief Planner is correct but we are concerned that the task or reviewing and consolidating existing guidance may not be practicable within DCLG’s current resources. We therefore urge that appropriate public and private sector practitioner representatives be invited to assist DCLG and confirm that POS is ready and keen to participate.

Our responses to the seven matters raised by the Committee are as follows:

A) Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changes need to be made?

The Review Group has identified and listed the bewildering range and complexity of existing Planning guidance and has correctly concluded that the current system is unmanageable and unfit for purpose. We consider that the Group’s proposals for reducing and consolidating guidance strike an appropriate balance between the need for guidance that is necessary to support effective planning and for the suite of documents that contain that guidance to be accessible, succinct and capable of being managed to keep them up-to-date.

B) Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

We agree with the areas identified as priorities for new guidance in paragraph 18 of the Review Group’s report but we suggest that the following should be added:

• An agreed methodology for calculating a 5 year housing land supply; • A methodology for calculating employment land requirements; • More guidance on enforcement to supplement the single paragraph in the NPPF; • Updated guidance on the tests of soundness for local plans; • A methodology for retail impact assessment taking account of the economic downturn and the Portas Review recommendations; • Further guidance on CIL to deal with issues raised by the DCLG CIL Working Group.

The production of new guidance for the priority areas should take priority over the consolidation of existing guidance but this need not delay the deletion of guidance recommended for cancellation in Annex A of the Review Group’s report.

C) Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

See our response to question B above. We also consider that there is relevant and necessary guidance (for example on Green Belts) in some of the PPGs and PPSs that were cancelled when the NPPF was published. We will identify the relevant material in our detailed response to the DCLG consultation. This guidance should be “saved” in the way suggested in our answer to question D below for the guidance in Annex B of the Review Group’s report and eventually be incorporated into revised guidance.

We support the suggestion made by the Local Government Association that the Government should create a development management policy framework, which could bring together policy on development management in one place and remove the need for policy in separate guidance notes.

D) Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

We would be delighted if the Review Group’s recommendation that a comprehensive and up-to-date web-based guidance resource should be in place by July 2013 could be achieved. However, we doubt that this will be possible, given DCLG’s reduced in- house capability. Unless more capacity can be provided, we believe that there should be a more realistic, phased timetable and that DCLG should involve public and private sector representatives in the process of consolidation and drafting of guidance for a web-based resource.

We do however believe that it is essential that the new web-based resource is in place as soon as possible and that its establishment need not wait for the completion of the process of consolidation. The website could and should be established by July 2013, initially containing the new priority guidance referred to in the response to question B above. Other guidance could be added as the process of consolidation and revision proceeds, once each document has been signed-off by the DCLG Chief Planner.

We also believe that existing guidance that contains “relevant material”, as listed in Annex B of the Review Group’s report, should not be deleted until that relevant material has been abstracted and that the material should be “saved” and placed on the website until it is superseded by revised guidance. This highlights the need for a clear process for reviewing and revising the existing guidance expeditiously and with public and private sector practitioner participation. POS is both willing and keen to contribute to the process of review and consolidation.

E) Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

See response to question D above. We consider that it is essential that the consolidation and production of new guidance involves relevant representatives from public and private sector practitioners. This will not only supplement the limited in- house resources available to DCLG but will ensure that practical experience from users of the planning system is brought to bear. This should result in the new guidance being relevant and necessary to support effective planning.

Designing the web-based resource is likely to be a task best suited to a professional web-design company, to a brief produced by DCLG with public and private sector practitioner input.

F) Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as the Environment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this be carried out?

We agree with the Review Group’s recommendation that planning-related guidance produced by other Government departments should only constitute formal Planning guidance once it is admitted to the proposed website. It follows that such guidance should follow the same consolidation and review process as DCLG’s own guidance. Again, we suggest that this should be carried out to a phased, prioritised timetable and with the involvement of relevant public and private sector representatives.

G) How will a ‘rolling suite of guidance as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as the site will be ‘live’ with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it was used?

When each document is signed-off by the DCLG Chief Planner and added to the website, it should have a date of issue. When amendments to the document have been signed-off by the Chief Planner, they should be added to the website, with a revision number, date and brief reasons for the revisions (e.g. new primary legislation or a revision to the NPPF). A further refinement would be for each page of the document to include both the date of original issue and the date and revision number of any amendments affecting the content of that page. This procedure is broadly comparable to that used for revisions to several other sources of Planning information, notably the Encyclopedia of Planning Law and Practice and Development Control Practice. Both these documents are regularly updated and although they were first published in hard copy, loose-leaf format, both are now available electronically.

The new web-based resource will be the only definitive source of official Government planning guidance. It is therefore essential that access to the site is freely available. Placing the information behind a pay wall would unfairly discriminate against voluntary groups and individuals with limited budgets.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by the British Property Federation (PTG 13)

Introduction

1. The British Property Federation (BPF) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee on the Government’s Review of Planning Practice Guidance. 2. The 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, the financial institutions and pension funds, corporate landlords, local private landlords – as well as all those professions that support the industry. 3. We are very supportive of the review led by Lord Taylor, and have sought to engage constructively in the review process, particularly through a roundtable with the review team held during the course of the review. We fully support the recommendations made by the review. 4. We are, however, a little concerned at the demands that the recommendations will place on officials at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), as the time scales are rather short. In an ideal world, we would like to see the timescales suggested in the review adhered to in order to expedite the process. In reality, however, it probably makes sense to spend slightly longer on the creation of the portal in order to get its content and its ‘mechanics’ right first time.

Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changes need to be made?

5. We agree that the Review Group has gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance. We feel it is crucial that the ‘golden nuggets’ of guidance that are considered particularly important by the everyday users of the planning system are maintained and that no gaps are left in the system. 6. The Review recommends that regulations and Statutory Instruments should be written clearly so as to minimise the need for explanatory guidance, unless there are particularly complex requirements. We agree with this, but there will sometimes be a need for additional clarification. For instance, Annex C, no.51 states that new advice is needed to accompany the 2012 Fee Regulations. These Regulations are very recent, and are not particularly easy to understand. This is a clear example of a situation in which Circulars are useful. 7. We entirely agree with the recommendations that guides must be ‘much shorter’ than formerly. It is important that this must not be the sole objective. For guidance to remain as useful as it is now, retaining the clarity of its content must be the most important criterion.

8. We agree with the recommendations in Annex A – that Chief Planner letters are to be cancelled. We do not consider that in future, such letters should be used as they are not the most transparent way of conveying policy/legislative change to all users of the planning system.

Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance?

9. We agree with the priorities identified by the Review Group.

What priority and timescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

10. We agree with the Review Group in that the greatest priority is the creation of the new website and a single coherent suite of guidance. At the same time, the guidance for the areas listed in the Review should be worked on so that they can be implemented as swiftly as possible.

Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

11. We have concerns that a number of key pieces of guidance have been left off the list for a variety of different reasons. When PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Development was adopted at the end of 2009, it replaced a number of other PPGs and PPSs including PPG5: Simplified Planning Zones. In deleting the PPG on Simplified Planning Zones, it was stated that the guidance in it would be replaced by Good Practice Guidance. This never happened as the work of DCLG turned towards the wholesale replacement of PPGs and PPSs with the National Planning Policy Framework. 12. We would suggest that an updated Good Practice Guide on the creation and renewal of existing SPZs would be one such piece of guidance that should be included in the revised guidance set, as SPZs remain part of the principal Act and in our view are a useful planning tool that can deliver economic growth and job creation. 13. We strongly disagree that the recommendation that the 2006 ‘Good Practice Guide on Planning and Tourism’ (Annex A, no.56) is cancelled. It is a very useful document that advises sensibly on tourism developments and many practitioners constantly refer to it. It is especially useful in situations where Las do not acknowledge the value and importance of enhancing and supporting tourism development – nor the value of the visitor economy to their local (and wider) economies – when formulating local plan policies and making decisions on applications. 14. We also disagree that ‘Making the planning system accessible to everyone: good practice guidance on access to and charging for planning information’ (Annex A, no. 70) should be cancelled. Many BPF members frequently refer to this document when faced with Las that overcharge for providing copies of

material such as decision notices. We also feel that some of the updated guidance covering the same material should be retained – perhaps on the Planning Portal, alongside planning application notes and other related documents. 15. Compulsory purchase order (CPO) legislation is complex, and few developers, local authorities or land owners, have experience of it on a regular basis. It would seem sensible if some of the updates of the CPO circulars, and the other CPO booklets that also provide wider guidance (as referred to in Annex C, nos. 32, and 77 to 80) are maintained and consolidated. 16. Annex C, no.97 is confusing as it refers to retaining and reviewing DoE Circular 10/95. But following a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, paragraphs 2 (1)(a) to (d) of the Town and Country Planning (Demolition – Description of Buildings) Direction 1995, contained in the Circular, have already been quashed. We suggest that it would be safer to cancel it now and refer to the Planning Portal where the information on demolition is already up to date. 17. We are keen that the suggested guidance on viability enshrines the recommendation of the Montague Review that Government provide advice to local authorities on how to deal with build-to-let developments. 18. We are glad to see that the Review Group recommends updating the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) guidance. We would urge the inclusion of a wider scope in order to address all types of need/demand including HMO accommodation. 19. Finally, in Annex C, items no. 10 and 11, the ‘Greater Flexibility’ guidance should be brought up to date and retained. This explains useful but relatively complex procedures that are vital in the current economy for developers and applicants.

Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

20. In an ideal world, we would like to see the timescales suggested in the review adhered to in order to expedite the process. In reality, however, it probably makes sense to spend slightly longer on the creation of the portal in order to get its content and its ‘mechanics’ right first time.

Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

21. If existing guidance that is to be retained is to be comprehensively redrafted (rather than amended), this will make for a particularly labour intensive project. We have concerns over the resourcing of this work, particularly labour intensive project. We have concerns over the resourcing of this work,

particularly with a deadline of July this year. We would urge DCLG to make good use of the many organisations with whom they already have good relations to assist in the creation/signing-off of such guidance.

22. Guidance from other departments and bodies should be consolidated and made current as soon as possible, in line with the Review’s recommendation for DCLG’s timetable.

How will a ‘rolling suite of guidance as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as the site will be ‘live’ with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it was used?

23. As suggested in the review, the guidance site should include a function whereby the guidance can be printed with a date stamp to make clear what guidance applies/ is being used. There will be an inevitable period during which all within, and those using the planning sector will have to get used to the new system; however, it is already a system that is used with some success in other areas.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by Living Streets (PTG 14)

1) About Living Streets We are the national charity that stands up for pedestrians. With our supporters we work to create safe, attractive and enjoyable streets, where people want to walk. We work with professionals and politicians to make sure every community can enjoy vibrant streets and public spaces. We started life in 1929 as the Pedestrians Association and have been the national voice for pedestrians throughout our history. In the early years, our campaigning led to the introduction of the driving test, pedestrian crossings and 30mph speed limits. Since then our ambition has grown. Today we influence decision makers nationally and locally, run successful projects to encourage people to walk and provide specialist consultancy services to help reduce congestion and carbon emissions, improve public health, and make sure every community can enjoy vibrant streets and public spaces.

2) Key Messages: • We agree with the Taylor Review’s recommendation regarding the need for concise up to date guidance • Practitioners should be responsible for giving advice and providing up to date resources, however, we question whether the potential users of such resources (the public, planners, the third sector) would use them if they had to pay for their use; • We support the idea of Government sponsorship for best practice awards – for example to support active travel modes such as walking • The timescale proposed for revising planning guidance is unfeasible if the revised guidance is to achieve the aims of the Taylor Review.

3) Living Streets agree with the Taylor Review’s recommendation regarding the need for clear, up-to-date, coherent and easily accessible planning practice guidance which is a web-based, live resource, hosted on a single site as a coherent up-to-date guidance suite (Recommendations 1 & 2). This is in addition to the guidance signposting best practice guidance (Recommendation 8).

4) We note and agree with the comment by the Taylor Review that given many organisations provide this kind of best practice case study advice it is not obvious why the Government should retain or in future produce this material, and that this should instead be sector led. However, there is a key role for Government to support the development of such best practice guidance in terms of the value given to such best practice guidance by users and its utilisation by the public, planners and the third sector.

5) Furthermore, we question whether the users of best practice resources (the public, planners, third sector) would use such resources if they had to pay for their use. For example, Manual for Streets is freely available on the Department for Transport website for free whilst Manual for Streets 2 is available from the Charted Institute of Highways and Transportation website for a charge. 46

6) We support the Taylor Review’s proposal of DCLG encouraging or sponsoring best practice awards. This should be expanded beyond DCLG to include other government departments such as the Department for Transport – for example to support active travel modes such as walking. This would support recommendation 8 - that there should be a cross-Government approach to the development of guidance.

7) The timescale proposed in recommendation 10 regarding guidance documents is extremely challenging set against the context of significant cuts in resource at DCLG and stakeholders such as local authorities and third sector organisations. It is important that the timescale is sufficiently challenging but lengthy enough to ensure meaningful consultation can take place regarding existing guidance. This is in addition to giving sufficient time for partnerships between government departments and third sector organisations to review existing best practice guidance to ensure they achieve the high standards called for by the Taylor Review.

8) We welcome the recommendation that Manual for Streets (Annex C -63) is retained for the time being but reviewed. However, we believe that this guidance needs to be linked with Manual for Streets 2 which is not covered by the Taylor Review in order to create one new set of best practice guidance. Furthermore, we are concerned by the comment asking what within the document is planning advice and what can be provided elsewhere. Manual for Streets is key to designing better streets which meets the needs of users, are well connected and help to strengthen communities they serve. In particular it highlights the importance of a transport hierarchy which prioritises pedestrians. Manual for Streets concerns planning and wider approaches to sustainable transport and was developed by a wide group of stakeholders including Department for Transport, other government departments, third sector organisations such as Living Streets and local authorities. Therefore, highlighting our concerns regarding the timescales recommended in paragraph 10 of the Taylor Review.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Spatial Planning and Health Group

1. The Spatial Planning and Health Group (SPAHG www.spahg.org.uk) is a group of planning and health experts: academics, practitioners and community representatives, seeking to improve public health through the positive use of spatial planning. The group aims to study, promote and disseminate knowledge on the relationship between spatial planning and health, and to promote policies and action based upon evidence.

2. Members of SPAHG first convened as part of NICE’s Spatial Planning and Health Programme Development Group. At the conclusion of that research in November 2010, SPAHG was formed to take forward the work of developing and implementing key themes and actions.

3. SPAHG published ‘Steps to Healthy Planning: Proposals for Action‘ in June 2011, which is available to download - www.spahg.org.uk/?page_id=194

4. SPAHQ has responded to question 3 and question 6.

3. Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

5. There are two essential topics missing from the list under recommendation 18 and Annex D. These are:

• The role of planning in supporting and promoting health and wellbeing • The application of the concept of sustainable development in plan-making and development management

A. The role of planning in supporting and promoting health and wellbeing

6. The aim of creating "healthy places to grow up and grow old in" was set out in the Government’s public health white paper, 'Healthy People, Healthy Lives' (November 2010) and was echoed in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF included a number of new references in relation to planning and health that would benefit from further guidance:

• The definition of sustainable development contains an explicit reference to "supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities" and to "health, social and cultural wellbeing" as part of the social role of planning (para 7). • The final Core Planning Principle (para 17) refers to planning taking account of "local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all" • There is an explicit reference to working with public health leads and health organisations and taking account of the health status and needs of the local population and the barriers to improving health and wellbeing (para 171). • Underpinning the chapter on "Promoting healthy communities" (paras 69-78, pages 17-19) is the role of the planning system in promoting healthy lifestyles. As the public health white paper, 'Healthy People, Healthy Lives' (November 2010) puts it "Create an environment that supports people in making healthy choices, and that makes these choices easier" (para 3.62) and "Active travel (walking and cycling) and physical activity need to become the norm in communities" (para 3.32).

7. NPPF was published before the Health and Social Care bill became an act. Therefore it could not refer specifically to Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies, Health and Wellbeing Boards, Clinical Commissioning Groups, NHS Commissioning Board, Health Watch, Public Health England and the transfer of public health responsibilities to the local government and appointment of joint Directors of Public Health. This can be rectified in new planning guidance

8. The scope of new guidance on planning and health should include:

a. The relationship between the Local and neighbourhood plans and the joint health and wellbeing strategy and how to take account of "local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all” b. Who the “public health leads and health organisations” are and their interest and relationship with the planning system, in both single and two-tier areas. c. Who is the statutory consultee on health following the demise of primary care trusts and the Healthy Protection Agency? Guidance is needed on whether the consultee is to be Public Health England; the Health and Wellbeing Boards; Clinical Commissiong Groups: or the Director of Public Health. It is also needed on their obligation as a consultee to respond to local planning authoriites and private sector planners. d. The relationship with the pollution control and health protection regimes e. How to treat health and wellbeing within both Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)/Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and environmental impact assessment (EIA) particularly once the EIA directive is revised and guidance on the use of health impact assessments when an EIA is not required. f. Consideration of health and wellbeing in Design and Access Statements and by Design Review (para 62 of NPPF) g. The use of Section 105 and Community Infrastrucutre Levy to deliver local health service facilities and public health interventions at neighbourhood, ward or parish level that have been identified through the joint health and wellbeing strategy process. The barriers to improving health and wellbeing that can be addressed through the planning system h. Planning for health facilities, such as hospitals, health centres and GP surgeries and how they can support local town centre and wider planning and regeneration policies i. How to put the aim of creating healthy places to grow up and grow old in and environments that support people in making healthy choices, and that makes these choices easier into practice in local plans, neighbourhood plans and development management. j. Taking forward relevant recommendations in the Department of Health’s Call for Action on Obesity (October 2011), “Fair Society, Healthy Lives” (The Marmot Review February 2010) and NICE public health guidance5.

B. The practical application of Sustainable Development in planning decisions

5 PH41 (Walking and cycling: local measures to promote walking and cycling as forms of travel or recreation - November 2012); PH25 (Prevention of cardiovascular disease at population level (June 2010); PH17 (Promoting physical activity, active play and sport for pre-school and school-age children and young people in family, pre-school, school and community settings - January 2009); and PH8 (Promoting and creating built or natural environments that encourage and support physical activity - January 2008) 49

9. The concept of sustainable development is in urgent need of practical guidance given that it is central to the NPPF and is open to differing interpretation by planners, inspectors, developers and local communities.

10. The NPPF provides a definition of sustainable development and refers to the five guiding principles of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy “Securing the Future”, one of which is ‘ensuring a strong, healthy and just society’.

11. What is now needed is practical guidance on how this is put into practice when dealing with a planning application or producing a local or neighbourhood plan. For a presumption in favour of sustainable development must also mean a presumption against unsustainable development.

12. A starting point could to give advice on the four aspects to any development and how they each impact on the three pillars of economic development, social development and environmental protection:

• The location of a proposed development (eg in relation to other uses and the sustainable transport network, floor risk) • The physical form of the development overall (eg site aspect, layout, density, public realm, access) • The building itself (eg design, materials and construction) • The use of the development (including who will use it and what was the previous use, it is mixed use or single use)

13. The guidance needs to make it clear that for a development to be sustainable it must be sustainable on all three pillars, not that one (eg economic development) can trump the others.

14. For example, a building may have an excellent BREEAM rating and be zero carbon, but if its location means the only realistic way of getting to it is by car then it is not sustainable. Similarly, a development may be in a city centre next to a train station but if it is uses rainforest hardwoods, has air conditioning, no green roof and the only way upstairs is by electric lift then it is not sustainable. Neither is a gated luxury residential development that turns its back on the communities it is located in.

C. Other points

15. The proposed revisons of the Guide to the Strategic Environmental Asessment directive (Annex C, item 70) and of Circular 02/99 on Environmental Impact Assement (Annex c, item 89) should set out clearly how health and wellbeing will be treated within them.

16. The timetable is ambitious. It is important that speed of implementation is not at the expense of quality of the guidance. It is difficult to see that new guidance can be produced, including a consultation draft stage, by the end of March 2013.

17. It is essential that the Planning Guidance website provides Planning Guidance on behalf of the Government as a whole, not just of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

18. Planning guidance is provided by many government departments and agencies and it is vital that this guidance, as appropriate, is also included on the Government Planning Guidance website. It is unfortunate that the Review did not look at the non-DCLG guidance.

19. Department of Health, Department for Transport, Department of Energy and Climate Change, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport all provide guidance relevant to planners. Some examples are:

• Department for Transport provides useful planning guidance such as: LTN 1/11 hared Space; LTN 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design; and LTN 1/04 Policy, Planning and Design for Walking and Cycling.

• Guidance on energy infrastructure, such as closeness of overhead powerlines to different kinds of development, covered in the six energy National Policy Statements (July 2011): EN-1 Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1)

EN-2 Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure (EN-2)

EN-3 Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-4 Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines

EN-5 Electricity Networks Infrastructure (EN-5)

EN-6 Nuclear Power generation

20. Similarly there are a number of government agencies (such as Environment Agency, English Heritage, Natural England, National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), Sport England and Play England) that provide planning advice and guidance that can be perceived as government planning guidance and should be reviewed and incorporated on the website as appropriate, such as:

• Advice on protecting agricultural land from inappropriate development – “Natural England Technical Information Note TIN049 Agricultural Land Classification: protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land” (January 2009)

21. Before it became part of the Design Council, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) produced a lot of useful advice and guidance that should be reviewed and incorporated on the website as appropriate, such as:

• “Design and Access Statements” (2006), • “Design Review: principles and practice” (2009) • “Future Health: sustainable places for healthy and wellbeing” (2009).

22. Non-DCLG guidance needs to be reviewed before the website can go live.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) (PTG 16)

CIHT is a membership organisation representing over 12,000 people who work in the highways and transportation sector. CIHT members plan, design, build, operate and maintain best-in-class transport systems and infrastructure, whilst respecting the imperatives of improving safety, ensuring economic competitiveness and minimising environmental impact.

CIHT welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Department for Communities & Local Government (DCLG) Committee on the recently released report by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor into the revision of Government Planning Practice Guidance.

CIHT supports the Taylor Review objectives to simplify planning policy and process, and many of the aspects included. However, we believe that transport should be integral to planning policy and development management decision making, not viewed as a separate issue as would appear to be the case. Transport is pivotal to successful sustainable spatial planning, infrastructure growth, social inclusion, environmental targets, and economic growth.

CIHT supports efficient, co-ordinated cross-departmental working but perceive from the text a lack of understanding of the need for an integrated approach to planning, transport and other areas. For example, transport, flooding and climate change are cross-departmental issues, and should be treated as such. There appears to be a narrowing of the guidance supporting planning process activity when it should be more inclusive. CIHT support in principle the idea of the Chief Planner taking a lead in the process, but this must be in conjunction with other relevant colleagues in other Departments with an explicit objective to reach agreement on what is required.

CIHT agrees with the objectives as set out at the beginning of the report, regarding the need for review and production of a shorter, simpler more clearly defined suite of guidance. It is vital therefore that what remains is sufficient to meet the needs of supporting the National Planning Policy Framework, delivering sustainable development and growth as desired by the government. It is important that is fully reflects the importance of cross cutting issues e.g. climate change, implementation and equalities, and does not assume a level of understanding in the sector which is not evidenced.

There is a need for all best practice guidance to be saved on the proposed web site, in a separate section, until replaced by updated guidance so that those elements that are still relevant remain in the interim.

Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry into Taylor review

References to the documents in line for review are referred to with the following Document (x) followed by the number in brackets.

1 Question 1 - Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changes need to be made?

1.1 CIHT believes that the review group have gone far enough in reducing and consolidating the guidance. However, please see comments on detailed proposals

below and as explained above we have some concerns about the understanding of inter-relations of planning to some other areas and level of quality in the field. We do not accept the cancellation of the following before they are effectively replaced.

1.2 Documents under Annex A:

1.2.1 Document (18) Pre-Application consultation with communities: a basic guide (2011) – Outdated, no longer necessary, can be cancelled. Not all relevant parties understand this process so it needs to be replaced with succinct guidance. 1.2.2 Document (50) DfT Circular 02/2007- Planning and the Strategic Road Network – Can be cancelled as planning guidance as out of date. This has been recently referred to in the new Highways Agency Document Supporting Development and Facilitating Growth published in December 2012. Is it already superseded? If so by what? 1.2.3 Document (87) PPG13: A guide to Better Practice – out of date replaced by NPPF – There is a need to ensure that key elements of PPG13 best practice go into the newly updated guidance on sustainable transport.

1.3 Documents under Annex B:

1.3.1 CIHT are concerned about the timescale set out between now and the production of new documents to replace existing documents (July 2013 proposed). We agree that production of new documents should be carried out as quickly as possible, however, why is there a necessity to delete these before they are replaced as many aspects of them remain relevant and useful to planners? A list of those that should be retained until superseded is below. 1.3.2 Various documents in Annex B are attributed with the comment “and these aspects are now considered to be understood and mainstreamed in planning work”. It is not clear what the evidence is for this and often in our view this is not the case. e.g. Document (22) town centre design & Document (24) Urban design 1.3.3 Document (2) Good Practice Guidelines: Delivering Travel Plans through the Planning Process (2009) Guidance needed on this issue but should be streamlined. Cancel existing advice and prepare new guidance. Document (3) 2009 Good Practice Guidelines: Delivering Travel Plans through the Planning Process - Summary Document (2009) Guidance needed on this issue but should be streamlined. Cancel existing advice and prepare new guidance. CIHT acknowledge that these documents need to be re-written and we are pleased there is recognition that guidance is required on travel planning. Demand management and reducing the need to travel also need to feature within any re-write. However, these two pieces of guidance need to be placed in Annex C, to be replaced before being cancelled so as not to create a vacuum. They should be treated in the same way as Document (54) in Annex C - 2007 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments Practice Guidance (2007) Out-of-date, but removal now would create a vacuum on a key policy area. Important to set out a standardised central methodology. Priority to be updated. These documents represent a process that is continually relevant within the planning system and is not covered elsewhere so remains critical to sustainable development. 53

1.3.4 Document (7) Implementing Planning Performance Agreements (2008) – This document should be replaced but needs to appear in Annex C – any update needs to include a clear reference to transport. Document (9) Guidance on Transport Assessment (2007) – Agree that this document should be replaced but needs to appear in Annex C – This guidance could be linked to the re-write of Document (2) Good Practice Guidelines: Delivering Travel Plans through the Planning Process (2009). The depositing of all the above items in Annex B appears to demonstrate that there is a failure to recognise and understand the importance and links between transport and planning. A different approach has been taken by the review towards other subjects such as heritage, flooding, housing etc. Transport and Planning has to be integrated; effective, sustainable transport is critical and fundamental to the delivery of short and long-term viable economic growth of the country. (Please find attached CIHT key principles of effectively integrating planning and transport within the NPPF)

1.4 Documents under Annex C:

1.4.1 Document (26) CIL Statutory Guidance: Charge setting and charging schedule procedures (2010). Revised and updated guidance published in December 2012. This former guidance retained as part of transitional measures, but now superseded by revised guidance. If this superseded why is it being retained? 1.4.2 Document (63) Manual for Streets (2007): Some good advice, but not needed in this format. Keep for now, but review what is planning advice, and what is outside planning and can be provided elsewhere. CIHT are pleased that MfS is to be kept until it can be replaced. However, we are concerned by the statement ‘what is planning advice, and what is outside planning and can be provided elsewhere’. The report appears to fail to recognise the essential part that well designed streets play in delivering good places that meet the criteria set out in the NPPF. The positive function of MfS is that it addresses this subject for both planners and engineers. There is a concern that this could be lost in any redraft. It is also of concern that no reference is made of the follow-on document MfS 2 which supersedes and updates some of MfS 1. It will be essential that any review builds on this work notwithstanding that it was not a Government document.

1.5 Documents under Annex D:

1.5.1 CIHT agree with the need for the proposed areas of new guidance but would request that in the context of 3, 4 and 8 the issue of transport should be included. We also suggest that guidance is required on CIL and Infrastructure Delivery Plans both of which should relate to sustainable transport and active travel.

2 Question 2: Has the Review Group indentified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescales should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

2.1 Overall yes but see detailed comments in Question 1

3 Question 3: Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

3.1 Supporting Development and Facilitating Growth http://assets.highways.gov.uk/our-road- network/planning/Complete%20doc.pdf [see 1.2.2 above].

4 Question 4: Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

4.1 The timetable suggested is desirable but not realistic (July 2013). To be able to rewrite quality effective guidance that reflects current best practice and is supported by the industry will take time. Where will resources come from, who will produce the documentation? There is a lack of capacity and some expertise in the department and part of the private sector to deliver something of this scale in such a short time. 4.2 CIHT agree that production of new documents should be carried out as quickly as possible, however, why is there a necessity to cancel, e.g. Good Practice Guidelines: Delivering Travel Plans through the Planning Process (2009) before they are replaced if aspects of them remain relevant and useful to planners? The Guidance on Transport Assessment 2007 from the DfT should be revised together with this good practice document. Both are critical to effective planning but neither should be dropped until replaced. 4.3 It took many years to get the current guidelines produced and although we agree they can be streamlined, leaving the profession with nothing to base Transport Assessments and Travel Plans on is unhelpful and would do nothing to prevent poor quality reports and unsustainable transport outcomes from being produced. Travel Plans are particularly complex instruments and are commonly secured through Section 106 Agreements following and as part of transport assessments.

5 Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within DCLG?

5.1 CIHT believe that Government will struggle to produce best practice guidance that is continually up to date. But could other bodies undertake this in terms of resource? If the Government wants the sector to pick up the consolidation and production of new guidance, will they advocate the professional institutions playing a role and would they support/fund the necessary work? Keeping case studies up to date takes time, effort and some expense. CIHT as a hub for cross sector disciplines would be willing to coordinate a group to look at the feasibility of such a project. 5.2 The introduction of a web-based resource is important step forward that the CIHT supports in principle. It would bring together the most useful advice for planning and planners, and associated disciplines e.g. transport planners. Production and continued maintenance of a web-based facility would have considerable ongoing resourcing implications for the DCLG, whether in-house or based with a professional institution. Having all guidance in one place will be useful, however, there will be a need to ensure effective ownership of the guidance by other departments/organisations. They need to be an integral part of the process not just a consultee.

6 Question 6 - Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other that DCLG and bodies such as the Environment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this be carried out?

6.1 Having a suite of up to date, consolidated guidance across all departments is essential. If a review into other departments and agencies guidance highlights a need for revision then it should be carried out. The process that DCLG has carried out has been a useful one, however lessons can be taken from the Taylor Review; wider more realistic timeframes and increased consultation with professional bodies would improve the process. It will be essential that DCLG captures the wider inter- relationships with other departments e.g. DfT, DECC, etc and there is ownership across departments of the approach and outcomes.

7 Question 7 How will a ‘rolling suite of guidance as envisaged in the Group report operate? For example, as the site will be ‘live’ with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it was used?

7.1 Good questions with which we agree. The practical delivery of this should be solved through using a suitable on-line document alert system that highlight when and where documents have been amended, updated, superseded with version control. All documents will need clearly dating. However, it will be important not to lose earlier documents but retain an effective archive. 7.2 Alternatively instead of a continuous amendment system, a set timetable of when revisions/updates are going to be made will give the user guidance on potential changes to the guidance documents.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Design Council (PTG 17)

Background

1. The Design Council is an enterprising charity that enables people to use design to stimulate innovation in business, tackle complex social issues, drive public service efficiency and improve the built environment. Over the last eleven years the Cabe team has strengthened capacity and offered expert advice on national planning policy to ensure that good quality, well-designed places are secured through the planning system.

2. The breadth of our knowledge and experience is reflected in our diverse and rich portfolio of work, which over the last two years has included the London 2012 Olympic Games, Crossrail and neighbourhood planning support. Our expertise is also recognised internationally, and over the last year we have supported Albania, Australia, Brazil, France, Japan, Malta, South Korea amongst others. The Design Council is supported by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Communities and Local Government and generates income through programmes, services and private funding partnerships.

Introduction

3. Good planning is fundamental to the production and maintenance of well-designed good quality places. Good design goes beyond the visual or aesthetic quality of a building, it creates conditions for a well-planned built environment that contributes to a strong, competitive economy, creates vibrant healthy communities and protects and enhances the natural, built and historic environment.

4. The Design Council welcomes the opportunity to inform the review of planning practice guidance. We believe this provides an opportunity to set out a clear, consistent framework that will assist communities; local authorities and developers deliver well-designed, good quality places through the planning system.

5. The Review is also an opportunity to create guidance that helps meet policy objectives set out in the National Planning Policy Framework in practice to deliver good design and quality places. This is also the moment to pick up the challenge laid down by the former planning minister Greg Clark that “Our standards of design can be so much higher. We are a nation renowned worldwide for creative excellence, yet, at home, confidence in development itself has been eroded by the too frequent experience of mediocrity. As part of this we believe we can provide an appropriate source of independent advice to support the delivery of this agenda.

We have identified three key areas where we think the review could be strengthened to ensure the new planning practice guidance system supports the delivery of good quality places:

Strategic planning and place-making

6. The creation of guidance that promotes the delivery of good quality places should be a key consideration. Whilst the NPPF goes a long way to support the delivery of good quality places in policy it is essential that these ambitions are met in delivery through guidance. The Design Council recommends that key guidance is put in place on plan 57

making that sets out a framework to deliver better places and gives confidence to decision-makers.

7. Credible plans are key. Clear, coherent and comprehensive plans should set the agenda for an area, express aspirations, be proactive and be positive about the future of a place, clearly stating how this will be achieved. It is therefore essential that Government produces plan making guidance at all levels.

8. Whilst the Review rightly recommends that Government produces guidance on Neighbourhood Planning it should also produce guidance for local authorities on how to create a credible Local Plan. The Design Council therefore recommends core guidance relating to Local and Neighbourhood Plans is put in place.

9. In addition, given the increased planning powers and importance placed on Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), appropriate guidance should also be put in place to support cross-boundary place-making.

Design Guidance

10. The NPPF recognises the role of design in planning to achieve sustainable development and better places for all. Whilst the NPPF goes a long way to encourage the principles of good design it is essential that practical guidance is produced to deliver this on the ground.

11. To ensure that design has appropriate consideration we believe it is necessary for there to be Government Planning Practice Guidance on design. A useful starting point for this new guidance would be our Design Wayfinder that sets out high level design principles and sign-posts key industry-led guidance.

12. We agree that industry is best placed to produce and update best practice guidance. The Design Council will support the creation and of this guidance and appropriate updates.

The Review - approach and priorities

13. We welcome the continued democratisation of the planning system through the creation of a centralised portal accessible to all. To provide clarity to all users and parties involved in the review we recommend that there is a clear transition period with a detailed timetable set out.

14. Annex’s A, B and C set out proposals for guidance: to be cancelled; recommended for cancellation (with any relevant material should incorporated into revised guidance) and to be retained until replaced by revised guidance. Further clarification around these comments is necessary to ensure an informed response on the recommendations. Indeed, we would recommend that no guidance should be cancelled without due consideration following further information being provided.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Historic Houses Association (PTG 18)

1. The Historic Houses Association represents Britain’s historic houses, castles and gardens in private ownership. There are 1,500 HHA properties throughout the UK of which about a third are open to the public. The HHA estimates that approximately two-thirds of the built heritage is privately owned and maintained. Between them HHA members represent, collectively, one of the greatest ‘ownerships’ of listed buildings in Britain: both I and II* properties as well as of Grade II properties, many being ancillary buildings. The HHA welcomes 13 million visitors each year and one in five of all HHA properties offers educational visits - there are more than 300,000 such visits annually.

2. The beneficial effect that public visiting to these places has on the wider economy is estimated at an additional £1.6 billion, from inbound tourists alone. Over 30,000 people are directly employed by HHA members or are employed in businesses in their grounds.

3. The costs of maintaining Britain’s private houses, castles and gardens are significant and expenditure by private owners in looking after England’s historic environment is substantial. HHA owners spend £140 million per year (HHA Survey, 2009), but the backlog of urgent repairs at HHA member houses totals over £390 million, an increase of £130 million on the figure six years earlier. Only a small fraction of the costs of major repairs to privately owned historic houses is funded by public grant. Therefore, ensuring the economic viability of historic houses is of great importance.

4. Britain’s historic houses are an important resource, benefiting the entire nation. 80% of international visitors say that their principal reason for visiting Britain is connected to heritage and culture. Historic houses provide character, distinctiveness and a sense of place and help create pride in where people live. 87% of British people think that the historic environment plays an important part in the cultural life of the country.

5. In its response to the National Planning Policy Framework consultation, the HHA made it clear that a Practice Guide, drawn up by English Heritage in consultation with the Historic Environment Forum, will be of particular importance, because it will offer more detailed guidance to local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate on the historic environment, where the NPPF is too broad or too vague. Such a Practice Guide must therefore be given a prominence, status and authority appropriate to its importance.

6. Responses to the Committee’s questions:

i. Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changes need to be made?

Since the National Planning Policy Framework has been reduced from more than 1,000 pages to around 50 there has inevitably been a significant reduction in the level of detail. The historic environment section has been reduced from the substantial guidance document PPS5 to little over three pages. The HHA believes it is essential that the owners of listed buildings have sufficient guidance available to them, in order to make informed decisions about their properties, to ensure their economic viability and thereby their conservation. The conservation of listed buildings is a specialist field and will not necessarily benefit from additional consolidation, nor should guidance be further reduced. While the Taylor Review states that ‘guidance should be cut to that which is essential’, it does not identify how decisions about what is ‘essential’ are to be taken.

59 ii. Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescale should be given over to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

The Taylor Review correctly identifies the lack of coherence and clarity in much of the current guidance, but improvement cannot be achieved solely by a radical reduction in the amount of guidance. Given the lack of detail in the NPPF itself, the practice guide for the historic environment, for example, needs to be even more clear and definitive. The suggestion that guidance should not be ‘lengthy texts but prompts, essential information required or recommended processes’, leaves the possibility that there may ultimately be insufficient information for owners or planners to make informed decisions. The proposal to withdraw the PPS5 Practice Guide in July 2013 should only be implemented if an adequate replacement, supported by English Heritage and the Historic Environment Forum, has been produced. iii. Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

None, as far as we are aware. iv. Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

The timetable in respect of planning guidance on the historic environment will be realistic if the practice guide produced by English Heritage and the Historic Environment Forum is accepted and published in time to replace the current PPS5 practice guide. The owners of historic properties and those making decisions about them require clear and authoritative guidance. v. Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

While DCLG will presumably be responsible for drawing together the various strands of guidance, English Heritage should be the principal source of specialist advice on planning and the historic environment. vi. Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as the Environment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this be carried out?

It makes sense to have a coherent and consistent body of practice guidance, published and managed centrally by DCLG. However, specialist bodies, such as English Heritage in the case of the historic environment, must be responsible for revisions to practice guidance. vii. How will a rolling suite of guidance as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as the site will be live with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it was used?

It is very important that it is entirely clear which guidance is current, for those who use the site. The idea of a ‘rolling suite of guidance’ implies continuous, or at least regular change, whereas changes should rather be occasional, or even exceptional. It should be mandatory for any amendments to the guidance to be clearly identified

and dated. Amendments to areas of specialist guidance should only be made at the express wish of a specialist agency, which in the case of the historic environment would be English Heritage.

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the UK Green Building Council (PTG 19)

Executive Summary

1. UK-GBC supports the Government’s aim to streamline planning guidance and we broadly welcome the recommendations outlined in Lord Taylor’s report.

2. We welcome proposals to create a new online portal for planning guidance. We believe that adequate resources should be provided to set up and maintain the proposed new website, and ensure a smooth transition from current arrangements.

3. We agree with the list of new/updated guidance to be produced as a priority. We would reiterate that the guidance produced must reflect the principles in the NPPF regarding sustainable development and be subject to further consultation.

4. The Taylor Review suggests that the new Government website for planning practice guidance should provide a signpost to, but should not endorse guidance produced by others. If Government follows this recommendation it should clarify what status and weight should be given to third party guidance.

Introduction to UK-GBC

5. The UK Green Building Council (UK-GBC) is a membership organisation campaigning for a sustainable built environment – one that minimises negative environmental impacts while maximising benefits for people everywhere. Our mission is to radically improve the sustainability of the built environment, by transforming the way it is planned, designed, constructed, maintained and operated.

Key issues

6. UK-GBC supports the Government’s aim to streamline planning guidance and we broadly welcome the recommendations outlined in Lord Taylor’s report.

7. We welcome proposals to create a new online portal for planning guidance. We believe that adequate resources should be provided to set up and maintain the proposed new website. A seamless transition to the new system will be critical to its credibility.

8. UK-GBC is carrying out a similar programme of work building an online platform - Pinpoint6 - signposting industry to the best possible resources and education courses on sustainability in the built environment across the building lifecycle and we would be pleased to share our knowledge with those developing this resource. Pinpoint is UK-GBC’s answer to the sheer volume of information on sustainable building in the same way this online resource seeks to streamline planning guidance; it will provide a sustainability search function and allow users to apply further filters based on the part of the building lifecycle they are working on, the type

6 www.ukgbc.org/pinpoint 62

of resources they are looking for and more. Pinpoint will also encourage users to review resources and education courses themselves, helping others to see what tools, guidance and case studies would be most relevant for them. We note that the new guidance website will signpost to best practice and case studies and would suggest that Pinpoint is used as one of those sources users are directed to.

9. UK-GBC has some concerns about the amount of work scheduled to take place before July 2013 and believe that the process must be adequately resourced in order to ensure that robust outputs are produced.

10. We agree with the list of new/updated Government guidance to be produced as a priority, particularly relating to biodiversity, climate change and renewable energy, flooding, environmental impact assessments, sustainability appraisals and viability. We would reiterate that the guidance produced must reflect all of the principles in the NPPF regarding sustainable development namely ‘living within the planet’s environment limits; ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; achieving a sustainable economy; promoting good governance; and using sound science responsibly.’ We also believe this guidance should be subject to further consultation.

11. The Taylor Review suggests that the new Government website for planning practice guidance should provide a signpost to, but should not endorse, guidance produced by others. If Government follows this recommendation it should clarify what status and weight should be given to such guidance in the planning process, and also what will happen if different groups produce conflicting guidance.

12. A number of cross-sector examples of good practice guidance have already been published. The subjects covered include: planning for climate change; biodiversity and green infrastructure; sustainable design and construction, and these should be used a starting point for the production of guidance in the priority areas outlined in the Taylor Review.

Suggested Questions for the Minister

1. How will the new online system relate to the Planning Portal? How will the transition between systems be managed? 2. Does the Minister intend to follow the advice of the Taylor Review and produce new/updated guidance on key areas such as climate change? If so how will this be created – will this be open to consultation? 3. How and by whom will best practice be moderated? How will different sectors be encouraged to provide this and what will the process be? What happens if different groups produce conflicting guidance? 4. Will officials at CLG have the necessary capacity and resource to carry out the initial revised guidance work before July 2013 as recommended by the Taylor Review?

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Theatres Trust (PTG 20)

Response from The Theatres Trust: Executive summary

• The Theatres Trust generally supports the conclusions and recommendations of the Review. However, we are disappointed that has been no consultation with the cultural or arts sectors. • Given that culture is a new core planning principle, why was the cultural sector not represented or its views sought as part of the Review? • Given that culture is a new core planning principle, does the Minister not see it as a clear priority for new and updated guidance? • The Theatres Trust does believe that there are items that should be included. We believe that culture and cultural wellbeing should be a separate Policy area which requires guidance. • Guidance is needed as culture and cultural wellbeing is new core planning principle within the NPPF and it would support effective preparation of local plans and delivery of policy within the NPPF. • One of the 12 Core Planning Principles in the NPPF is to ‘take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.’ However, there is currently no good practice guidance on planning for culture and cultural well-being. • There is also no existing guidance on shared facilities and guarding against loss (such as asset transfer). Similarly, there is no guidance on the provision of community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities. • Our major concern is that at a national and local level, planners may overlook the need to consider the contribution culture and cultural wellbeing makes to the vibrancy of regional communities and local centres within their respective local plans. • There is no guidance on how to establish what cultural infrastructure should be considered, given catchments and population size and duty to co-operate. • The Theatres Trust would like to assist in producing new guidance. We are clear that new guidance in the area of cultural planning is essential and adds real value in terms of planning practice. • We lead the Culture in Planning Alliance (CiPA), a group of cultural and arts organisations who work in cultural planning, and could bring this group together to assit with this work. • Arrangements for Handling Heritage Applications – Notification and Directions by the Secretary of State: Currently our statutory powers do not extend to listed theatres and therefore are not able to totally fulfil our role as set up by Act of Parliament in 1976. The Trust was to be included as a statutory consultee on all matters relating to theatres across the proposed Heritage Protection Bill. This was in accordance with The Theatres Trust’s role as a statutory consultee and the ambition of the Bill to align heritage protection to the planning system. It is therefore vital for us to be included within the guidance for this Document. • We support the view that the five existing CIL supplementary documents can be brought together in a single piece of advice. The Trust would wish to comment on revised guidance as theatres are sui-generis.

Introduction

1. Please see the Trust’s covering letter which sets out our specific area of expertise and statutory remit within the planning system.

Comments

2. The Theatres Trust generally supports the conclusions and recommendations of the Review. However, we are disappointed that has been no consultation with the cultural or arts sectors either as part of the Independent Practitioner’s Group or organisations, practitioners and Government Partners who met during the course of the Review.

Questions and issues to put to the Minster

3. Given that culture is a new core planning principle, why was the cultural sector not represented or its views sought as part of the Review?

4. Given that culture is a new core planning principle, does the Minister not see it as a clear priority for new and updated guidance?

Specific views on questions the Committee expects to put to the Minster

Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

5. The Theatres Trust does believe that there are items that should be included. We believe that culture and cultural wellbeing should be a separate Policy area which requires guidance and should be included and recommended as an area (Annex D) for the preparation of new guidance. For example, The Theatres Trust is a Statutory Consultee on ‘development involving any land on which there is a theatre’ but many local authorities are clearly not informed sufficiently of our status and our role in cultural planning and overlook their obligation to consult us, and therefore are not taking full advantage of the advice and expertise we are able to offer.

6. Guidance is needed as culture and cultural wellbeing is new core planning principle within the NPPF and it would support effective preparation of local plans and delivery of policy within the NPPF. The Committee made the following recommendation in its report on the NPPF in December 2011 ‘We further recommend that the Government clarify the policy position on town centres with respect to arts, culture and tourism uses’ (157).

7. In particular, the NPPF recognises (Section 7, page 2) that there are three dimensions to support economic development, one being a social role to support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being. Section 8 (page 3) states that ‘to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.’

8. One of the 12 Core Planning Principles in the NPPF (Section 17, page 6) is to ‘take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.’ However, there is currently no good practice guidance on planning for culture and cultural well-being.

9. Section 70 in the NPPF (page 17) states that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services that the community needs, planning policies and decisions should plan for the use of shared space and guard against unnecessary loss of valued facilities. Also to ensure that established facilities and services are retained and able to develop for the benefit of the community. Local planning authorities are advised at (Section 156, page 37) that their local plans should set out strategic priorities to deliver the provision of health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities. However, there is no existing guidance on shared facilities and guarding against loss (such as asset transfer). Similarly, there is no guidance on the provision of community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities.

10. Our major concern, therefore, is that at a national and local level, planners may overlook the need to consider the contribution culture and cultural wellbeing makes to the vibrancy of regional communities and local centres within their respective local plans. The Trust is currently witnessing performing arts facilities (for example, one supporting young people in productive cultural activities that deters them from crime) which do not fall easily into existing use classes and theatres which are not statutory listed, being demolished to make way for shops, offices and housing, leisure or sports facilities, without the need for any Need or Impact Assessments. Campaigners and users are currently trying to argue the case for individual theatre building’s to be added to lists as ‘assets of community value’ but, even so, without guidance on proper assessment there is no protection for such facilities.

11. As stated in the Arts Council England’s 2011 paper on ‘Supporting growth in the arts economy’, ‘…our best arts and cultural infrastructure (the most open theatres, connected media centres and interdisciplinary art spaces) have become the ‘spikes’ and ‘intersections’ for creative exchange, operating at once as places (and digital spaces) of creative business transaction, inspirational cultural experience, education, and cross-sector innovation’. Yet there is no guidance on how to establish what cultural infrastructure should be considered, given catchments and population size and duty to co-operate.

12. Therefore we believe culture and cultural wellbeing should be a separate Policy area and should be included and recommended as an area for the preparation of new guidance.

Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

13. The Theatres Trust would like to assist in producing new guidance. We are clear that new guidance in the area of cultural planning is essential and adds real value in terms of planning practice. We would be happy to assist in finding solutions to contested areas such as viability, town centre first sequential tests and Needs and Impact Assessment. We support the view (page 6) that guidance should clarify ‘ground rules’ for process, so there is clarity about approach.

14. We lead the Culture in Planning Alliance (CiPA) a group of cultural and arts organisations who work in cultural planning. We promote culture and arts in planning policy, provide expert advice in our specialist areas and are a culturally informed voice which promotes and protects arts and cultural uses, activities and interests in the planning system in England.

15. CiPA includes members from Ixia, the public art think tank; the Society of London Theatre (SOLT), the organisation that represents London’s theatre producers, theatre owners and managers; the Theatrical Management Association (TMA), the industry body and main support network for theatre managers in the UK; Voluntary Arts, the organisation that works with policy makers, funders and politicians to improve the environment for everyone participating in the arts; the Visual Arts and Galleries Association (VAGA); Audiences UK; the National Federation of Artists Studio Providers (NFASP); the Little Theatre Guild and Arts Development UK. We can facilitate the co-ordination of this group meets to produce new guidance in consultation with DCLG. This group will also be producing best practice guides and we would be happy to work with DCLG in the future to ensure that this can be found readily and in a usable format.

Further comments on Annexes

16. Annex A, Document 56: A Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism (2006): The Trust agrees that this document is out-of-date and does not add any critical advice. However, most local authorities have tourist assets and do not often plan for them accordingly. New guidance on planning culture could incorporate critical advice.

17. Annex B, Document 6: Planning for Climate Change: Practice Guidance: The Trust has experience through its Ecovenue project in promoting the sustainability of cultural buildings and the reduction of carbon emissions through the provision of theatre-specific, environmental advice. We would like to assist in updating guidance.

18. Annex C, Documents 12, 13, 26, 27 and 28 CIL: We support the view that the five existing CIL supplementary documents can be brought together in a single piece of advice. The Trust would wish to comment on revised guidance as theatres are sui-generis. This is due to the unique nature of their use, access requirements, and construction. Theatres make a positive contribution to the provision of cultural infrastructure in an area and their development makes a positive net contribution to an area’s infrastructure. In the context of the NPPF, theatres make a positive contribution towards improving health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and make a specific contribution towards delivering sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs. Theatre uses are generally unable to bear the cost of CIL for viability reasons. The Theatres Trust we would recommend either the setting of a nil rate, the application of charitable or discretionary reliefs, applying D1/D2 rates where differential rates are proposed, or recycling the charge to the theatre development where a single rate is proposed. Clear advice is needed in this area where it relates to cultural buildings.

19. Annex C, Document 38: Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach (2009): The Theatres Trust agrees that guidance is needed on this technical area, but the most useful information is contained in the appendices to the current document. The Theatres Trust fed into this document where it related to cultural need and impact. Some of this could be included in a guide for culture but the town centre element and sequential approach should remain. Again, the Trust would wish to contribute.

20. Annex C, Documents 40, 71 and 85: Arrangements for Handling Heritage Applications – Notification and Directions by the Secretary of State: The Trust agrees that these circulars contain directions which remains extant, but not in a helpful format for it and that the three 67

circulars should be replaced by new up-to-date advice and consolidated direction. Currently our statutory powers do not extend to listed theatres which means that we are not automatically notified on applications for listed building consent and therefore are not able to totally fulfil our role as set up by Act of Parliament in 1976. However recognition of our expertise in this area by local authorities means we are considered an important consultee.

21. The Trust was to be included as a statutory consultee on all matters relating to theatres across the proposed Heritage Protection Bill. This was in accordance with The Theatres Trust’s role as a statutory consultee and the ambition of the Bill to align heritage protection to the planning system. The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee at the time stated ‘Recommendation Four: [The Select Committee] recommend[s] that the Government ensures that the role of statutory consultees such as the Theatres Trust is properly incorporated into the heritage protection reforms in addition to their existing role in the planning system.’ The DCMS released its response to recommendations from the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on the Draft Heritage Protection Bill on 20 October 2008. The Trust was referenced in on page 11, stating ‘31. The Government has welcomed comments received from organisations that have put forward a case for their greater involvement in the heritage protection system. In the case of The Theatres Trust, DCMS has been constructively engaged with them and we agree that there is scope for amendments to the Bill to enable The Theatres Trust to participate more fully in the heritage protection system. For example, a number of provisions will be redrafted to ensure that The Theatres Trust is capable of being included as a statutory consultee, in relation to processes and decisions affecting theatre buildings.’ It is therefore vital for us to be included within the guidance for this Document.

22. Annex D, Ref no 3: Neighbourhood Planning: In England, we are a consultee for Neighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right to Build Orders, and encourage local authorities, parish councils and local groups to consult the Trust on Local and Neighbourhood Development Plans where they involve a theatre. We would expect to be involved with any new guidance.

23. Annex D, Ref no 8: Viability: We have no doubt that this is an area that urgently needs appropriate guidance and the test for Viability. The Theatres Trust would like to comment on any consultation.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by Renewable UK (PTG 21)

RenewableUK is the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries. Formed in 1978, and with over 670 corporate members, RenewableUK is the leading renewable energy trade association in the UK. Wind has been the world's fastest growing renewable energy source for the last seven years, and this trend is expected to continue with falling costs of wind energy and the urgent international need to tackle CO2 emissions to prevent climate change.

1. In general terms RenewableUK strongly welcomes the idea of reforming our approach to guidance and moving to a streamlined, easily navigable system whereby developers, private individuals and communities are able to fully engage with planning in their in area. We particularly welcome the move to limit opportunities to add to formal guidance by means of letters, circulars and so on, which is difficult to keep up with and made knowledge of the system the reserve of experienced practitioners. Similarly, the requirement to ‘live manage’ the suite of guidance documents, with clear processes for introducing amendments, would stop the system returning to its current confused state whilst enabling Government to tackle pressing issues as they emerge.

2. We also welcome the removal of best practice, case studies and so on from planning guidance and rely on professional bodies for such information. We agree that the latter are better placed to manage and keep up to date such information. We feel that in order to avoid dispute, there may be a role for Government in endorsing- i.e. stronger than merely signposting- resources it feels are valuable in this respect. We would gladly engage with Government and other stakeholders to examine the issue as it applies to onshore and offshore wind, wave and tidal technologies and associated infrastructure. Areas that are not specific to an industry- such as community engagement- may benefit from a diversity of approaches across different sectors, so may be best handled by industry-neutral bodies, such as the RTPI or TCPA.

3. We strongly support the decision to retain and update PPS 22 Companion Guide to renewable energy, which contains much useful guidance. In terms of updating the guidance, we feel that this is necessary to reflect improvements to the relevant technologies since 2004, as well the fact that onshore wind, and increasingly other technologies, are no longer fringe technologies, but key players in the energy market, with an enhanced role expected in the future to meet energy security needs and carbon reduction targets. With this in mind, we feel that the relevant sections of the Planning and Climate Change Practice Guidance 2008 note, which is recommended for urgent cancellation, should be incorporated into an updated Companion Guide.

4. The energy sector’s role in meeting decarbonisation objectives, as outlined in the Climate Change Act 2008, should be given eminence in planning decisions, and planning should be considered in part as a vehicle for these aspirations, rather than a barrier. An updated

guidance document could be used to spell out these matters clearly and help ensure that there is synergy between planning and energy and climate change policies.

5. In terms of formalities, clearly the updated guidance cannot be a companion guide as the PPS it complemented has been revoked. We recommend that the updated guidance is considered formal standalone guidance in line with the new system proposed by the review. We also feel that whilst Government adoption of the guidance will ultimately be necessary, the update should be led by specialist third party stakeholders and industry and cover pressing issues not currently accounted for elsewhere. Chief among these are:

• Proposals to introduce arbitrary separation distances between onshore turbines and dwellings on spurious grounds. This runs counter to the very principles of planning and environmental impact assessment in the UK, and will stifle development for political reasons. The planning system should not be able to be misused in this manner and it therefore something we feel should receive urgent attention and clear steer from Government in guidance.

• Unofficial maximums to turbine heights. These are similarly reducing the amount of power that can be generated from onshore wind and are driven by principled and political objections on arbitrary landscape and visual grounds, rather than planning judgements on scheme specific impacts.

• Calculation of planning fees. Onshore wind is somewhat peculiar in this respect, with red line boundaries far exceeding the actual land take associated with development. There are numerous example of LPAs charging developers excessive planning fees for the whole red line area, notwithstanding incomplete guidance to the contrary in Paragraph 40 of Circular 04/2008. An updated guidance note could be used to put the matter to bed.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) (PTG 22)

RICS is the leading organisation of its kind in the world for professionals in property, construction, land and related environmental issues. As an independent and chartered organisation, RICS regulates and maintains the professional standards of over 91,000 qualified members (FRICS, MRICS and AssocRICS) and over 50,000 trainee and student members. It regulates and promotes the work of these property professionals throughout 146 countries and is governed by a Royal Charter approved by Parliament which requires it to act in the public interest.

RICS Comment

RICS supports the principles of the Taylor Review. The NPPF was a welcome move to reduce the complexity of the planning system, one of the major barriers to economic growth, and Government is right to now turn its attention to the perhaps more challenging task of reducing the thousands of pages of guidance. Whilst much guidance is woefully out of date and unnecessary, carefully targeted professional guidance will be central in ensuring the delivery of a workable planning system that operates in the public interest and this is a job for the sector.

Government guidance must be pro-actively managed to be legible, efficient and effective. Without this proactive management, historic documents are left active building an unnecessary and outdated library of guidance which confuses decision making and slowing development. Lord Taylor’s Review is a welcome step to address this problem. As well as continually assessing which documents should and should not be retained, there must be a core process to maintain overall performance, regularly reviewing appropriateness of retained guidance and anticipating reviews and requirements for new advice, so that it remains a contemporary compendium of policies.

Government should take this opportunity to define what is and is not policy, this will give clarity as to what ‘weight’ should be ascribed to them. For example, the NPPF is clearly ‘policy’ but is it of equal weight to a Chief Planners letter or other advice from a Government department? Signposting to non-governmental organisations that provide best practice examples will be helpful but it must be made clear that this best practice is not ‘policy’ and therefore does not attract the same weight. This should be a role for the body who takes on the pro-active management of guidance.

RICS offers responses as follows:

1. Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changes need to be made?

RICS believes that continuing with the current arrangements is not an option if the required levels of development are to be delivered in the timescales required. RICS is of the view that it has gone just far enough, to go any further runs the risk of cutting essential guidance.

2. Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

What constitutes ‘correct priorities’ will change according to political, economic and social circumstances. What is vital is that Government responds quickly rather than undertakes a lengthy consultation process.

Government should use this opportunity to consider reform of the Compulsory Purchase and Compensation process. The Law Commission has previously recommended reform but no consultation or Review has yet been bought forward. This is a key part of delivering development but the current 71

process is complex, lengthy and a real barrier to delivering development. RICS would welcome the Ministers view on reform.

3. Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

A general review of planning obligations may provide clarity as would a clear definition of the intended division between CIL and S106

4. Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

The timetable envisaged by the review is challenging but achievable if Government allocates appropriate resource and utilises industry expertise. Care must be taken to ensure that no gaps are left in the haste to complete the review on time, this will only lead to further confusion and challenge. Government must put in place a clear timetable and adhere to it to give clarity to industry.

5. Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

This should be led by the Government, primarily DCLG. Competent bodies may have a role to play in partnership in their particular area of expertise. For example, RICS may have a role in advising on viability guidance.

This is a necessary piece of work and RICS would welcome the Ministers comments about how this cross- departmental co-ordination would be achieved.

This is a good suggestion as long as clear time stamps or version numbers for each piece of guidance are used.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by SSE (PTG 23)

SSE (formerly Scottish and Southern Energy) welcomes the opportunity to provide written evidence to the Communities and Local Government Committee on the Government’s Review of Planning Practice Guidance and the Government’s consultation proposals.

Significance of planning reform to the energy industry

As a member of EnergyUK, SSE has long worked in support of planning reform, which will assist with delivering the £200 billion investment required by 2020. To deliver this level of infrastructure investment industry requires a long-term stable policy framework, and planning policy is critical to this.

About SSE

SSE is one of the UK’s leading energy companies, and is currently investing over £4million a day in the generation, storage, transmission, distribution and supply of gas and electricity.

Of relevance to this inquiry, SSE is the UK’s second largest electricity generator of electricity and is the leading generator of renewable electricity with over 3200MW of installed capacity. SSE also owns and operates the electricity transmission network in the north of Scotland and the electricity distribution networks in the north of Scotland and south central England.

General comments on planning reform

Stable Policy Framework - Developers of energy infrastructure need a clear and stable long-term policy framework and a planning regime that is effective, fair, and gives a reasonable degree of certainty to them, affected communities and their representatives. Streamlining of Planning Policy / Guidance - Whilst supportive of streamlining DCLG guidance, particularly Planning Policy Statements (PPSs), industry is keen to retain key areas useful for developers / local planning authorities, such as parts of the revised PPS1 Supplement on Climate Change / PPS 22 on Renewable Energy.

Comments on Review of Planning Practice Guidance

Q1 Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changes need to be made?

SSE appreciates that the Review Group has reviewed all the extant DCLG Guidance – more than 200 documents, over 7,000 pages and agree with the attempts to reduce and consolidate guidance where possible. We believe that the main priority at this stage should be to ensure that appropriate guidance is in place, which supports the Government’s growth agenda particularly with regard to supporting sustainable energy objectives. If any further guidance needs to be reduced or consolidated (other than has been identified already by the Review Group), this can be done as part of any future review process.

Q2 Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

SSE particularly agrees with the Recommendation to prioritise “creating guidance to underpin the Duty to Cooperate, which is central to implementation of the National Planning Policy Framework”. This should be enacted as soon as possible and given at least as much priority as to the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance. We also recognise that it may be necessary to give priority to “updating Climate Change and Renewable Energy, to bring this vital material up to date and ensure it is used effectively and proportionately.” However, we would recommend retaining the PPS22 Companion Guide in the interim (which the Review Group also recommends) because it includes important guidance and technical information on planning for renewable energy.

Q3 Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

There is not anything that we are currently aware of.

Q4 Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

SSE welcomes the view from the Review Group that “the need for these revisions is urgent and widely acknowledged”. We note that it recommends that the Government should “aim to complete the immediate cancellations, and work in progress on the preparation of the website and the most urgent updating of guidance by the first anniversary of the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework – 28 March 2013.” While it is not for us to comment on whether this is realistic, this would be desirable.

Q5 Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

We note that the Review Group recommends that “the Government should take immediate steps to build or identify a suitable [web-based resource] site.” In its Conclusions, the Review Group details that “the presentation, processes for updating, and the range of essential material should be managed as a coherent suite by DCLG…with a clear management line of responsibility – we suggest through the Chief Planner.” SSE would agree that this would appear to be the most logical solution although DCLG would need to comment as to what available resource there is.

Q6 Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as the Environment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this be carried out?

SSE believes it is right to focus on the DCLG guidance at this stage and ensure that this is implemented as soon as possible before rolling out to guidance, which may be the responsibility of other departments. The Planning Inspectorate has gone through a very recent process of revising guidance (at a Nationally Significant Infrastructure 74

Project level) following the abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) in April 2012 and therefore it is unlikely that this needs to be revisited so soon. The Triennial Review of the Environment Agency and Natural England is currently taking place and we would recommend that this is completed for considering how any guidance which is the responsibility of these bodies should be revised or consolidated.

Q7 How will a ‘rolling suite of guidance as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as the site will be ‘live’ with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it was used?

The energy industry needs a clear and stable long-term policy framework in which to operate and therefore the process of “continuous amendment” should be limited to what is appropriate. SSE would support the recommendation that “material will need to be readily printable and date stamped (in the way many legal websites provide legal resources) so that anyone relying on the guidance can evidence that it was current when used.” We understand that it is envisaged that the new web-based guidance resource, once fully established, will ensure “accountability will be in great measure achieved by the ability of users to post their comments” – allowing a ‘crowd- sourced’ check to keep it current. We assume that the comments that would be posted would be private, but would welcome clarification this.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Institute of Historic Building Conservation (PTG 24)

The IHBC is pleased to be able to contribute evidence to the Inquiry. Owing to the relatively short notice in the appeal for evidence we set out only the main threads of our view here. We shall be responding more fully to the parallel DCLG Consultation.

1. In principle we support the proposal to replace Government planning guidance with a single structured on-line resource. 2. We also support the proposal to leave “best practice guidance” to specialist bodies with the proviso set out in the Review that this would be signposted from the new on-line Resource. 3. We think best practice guidance needs proper recognition as such as it would carry little weight in planning cases without this. We would hope that “signposting” would do more than just imply this. It is important, particularly in appeal and other high profile cases that the planning profession understands exactly what is reckoned to be “best practice” on a given topic. 4. In order to be credible as a resource, Guidance needs to be properly consulted upon in order to ensure that all interested parties have had an opportunity to contribute. We would hope that this would apply to the new Resource and that the Government would endorse a protocol for the process of producing best practice guidance. 5. We are enthusiastic about being able to contribute to the preparation of best practice guidance collaboratively whether collaboratively with other heritage interests or otherwise perhaps as an updated BS7913. 6. The maintenance of an on-line database of credibility is a major task involving no little resource to achieve. If this is to be the Government’s approach there needs to be a commitment to providing the resource to support it over the long term. Support must include updating of the resource as a whole whenever new or revised material is added including all the active links within it. 7. We are concerned at the precipitous approach to cancellation of old advice. It seems to us that the immediate cancellation of some items in Annex A will lead to Guidance vacuums as there are quite a few examples in which cancellation is recommended against future replacement or absorption into other material. It is not clear from the Annexes why some material referred to in these terms is included here and not in Annex C. We think all Guidance should be retained until adequately replaced. 8. Specifically we highlight the importance of retaining the following: • Annex A (57) Best practice guidance on Listed Building Prosecutions. While we agree that, as best practice guidance, this may not be a candidate for long-term retention, we think it is an essential tool to ensure LPAs deal with this sensitive area in a proper fashion. We would like to see it moved to the Annex C list until up-to-date best 76

practice guidance is in place and can be signposted from the new Resource. • Annex A (63) Manual for Streets. This is a very important document relating to the maintenance of design standards in the public realm. The fact that it is advice to both planning and highway authorities (as well as developers and their designers) makes it all the more important for retention. In the long term it would, itself be suitable for conversion to an on-line facility. We would like to see it moved to the Annex C list until up-to-date best practice guidance is in place and can be signposted from the new Resource. • Annex A (65) Section 215: Best Practice Guidance. Similarly we value this and think that environmental quality will be jeopardized if there is no available guidance. In particular the policy statements contained within this guidance need to be reiterated somewhere in the new Resource. We would like to see it moved to the Annex C list until up-to- date best practice guidance is in place and can be signposted from the new Resource. • Annex C (40 and 71) Guidance on handling Heritage Applications. We support the retention of these in the list at Annex C. 9. There is one proposal in the Report that we feel we need specific advice on from relevant Authorities before coming to a recommendation on it: • Annex A (39) Guidance on the Protection and Management of World Heritage Sites. This could be a candidate for inclusion in an on-line Heritage Resource in the long term. We think it relevant Authorities may find it useful in the meantime.

Jan 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Local Government Association (PTG 25)

The Local Government Association (LGA) is the national voice of local government. We work with councils to support, promote and improve local government.

We are a politically-led, cross party organisation which works on behalf of councils to ensure local government has a strong, credible voice with national government. We aim to influence and set the political agenda on the issues that matter to councils so they are able to deliver local solutions to national problems.

The LGA covers every part of England and Wales, supporting local government as the most efficient and accountable part of the public sector.

This response has been agreed by the LGA’s cross-party Environment and Housing Programme Board. The Environment and Housing Programme Board has responsibility for LGA activity in the area of the sustainability of the environment, including issues of planning, waste and housing.

Summary

The Planning Guidance Review is an essential phase of the implementation of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). A more coherent and focused body of guidance will support practitioners to make effective local decisions and increase confidence in the planning system. We agree with the Review Group’s findings that guidance can play an important role but that over successive administrations it has become unwieldy, overused, and is not in its current form fit for purpose.

The Government made significant steps to streamline national planning policy in the NPPF. It must now move swiftly to the next phase of reducing the weight of planning guidance to secure increased stability and certainty across the planning system for authorities, communities and applicants alike. The next stage is to undertake a similar exercise to rationalise and consolidate development management policies and planning guidance issued by government agencies. We would like to see the Government move towards a development management policy framework which could bring together policy on development management in one place and remove the need for policy in separate guidance notes.

The Review Group rightly identify that any future guidance should simply set the ground rules rather than rehearsing what is set out in legislation or policy and should support locally appropriate decision making rather than automate it. There will need to be a corresponding change in culture and approach to planning guidance across 78 government departments in the future to meet this aim and to encourage local decisions that are appropriate to local needs and priorities. It will be crucial that the Government works closely with practitioners to ensure that any updated or new guidance is fit for purpose, light touch and encourages local decision making.

We would like to see a much stronger risk based approach to planning guidance going forward. The aim should be that local authorities take decisions based on the balance of risk locally rather than in line with central prescription. Every policy, regulation or legislation does not need a partner guide and we would like to see government focus its energies on those issues where the absence of guidance might lead to duplication, additional costs, uncertainty in the planning system and reputational risks. All other support and good practice should be left to practitioner bodies to produce good practice, models and information in line with changing needs.

We strongly agree with the review’s recommendation that there should be a single gateway through the office of the Chief Planner. This will provide much needed clarity over the status of advice, guidance and circulars relating to planning across government. Central to this is a document control system that date stamps all guidance so practitioners can be confident that guidance is up to date. Linked to this is the importance of a managed process for updating or cancelling documents as time passes. In order to ensure that the new system is used effectively by practitioners the new body of online guidance and related updates and bulletins should be free to access for the public, authorities and practitioners alike. a) Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changes need to be made?

The Review Group has clearly identified that the current guidance is no longer fit for purpose and has identified a new approach to government guidance. That is, that guidance should be to support effective delivery of plan making and decision taking and not to automate it, that it should be a live resource and that it should be managed actively. The approach identified is sensible and should provide a framework to manage remaining planning guidance so that it becomes a coherent and up to date package of information.

We agree that where it has been identified that guidance should remain in place that it is revised and significantly reduced to focus on the key issues and extracts. We are encouraged that the Government has agreed to consult on the detail of the guidance, so it can be removed or revised to ensure that key elements are retained and superfluous elements taken out. It will be crucial that government works closely with practitioners to ensure that any updated or new guidance is fit for purpose, light touch and encourages local decision making.

We would like to see a much stronger risk based approach to planning guidance going forward. We need to break the temptation within some departments to issue guidance on every new issue. Government should focus its energies on those issues where the absence of guidance might lead to duplication, additional costs, uncertainty in the planning system and reputational risks. All other support and good practice should be left to practitioner bodies to provide good practice, models and information.

b) Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

The Review Group identify nine areas where new or updated guidance is required7. The two new areas identified for guidance – the Duty to Cooperate and on Viability are unmistakably key issues.

Significant work has been undertaken to develop advice to support viability testing for planning practitioners through the cross sector Local Housing Delivery Group 8led by Sir John Harman. This work has been well received by practitioners and any government led guidance on viability should use this report as its starting point.

New guidance on the Duty to Cooperate will need to be carefully considered. Councils already work together across areas to plan strategically for growth. They do this not because of a duty or centrally-imposed guidance but because of a shared recognition of the pressing needs of their areas.

The additional areas of guidance identified within the review are areas where updates to the existing guidance would be useful to bring the material up to date and in line with the NPPF.

c) Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

No items have been missed or excluded. However there is a natural next step to the work that has been carried out. The LGA would like to see a similar process to rationalise and consolidate development management policies and planning guidance issued by government agencies. We would like to see the Government

7 Duty to cooperate, viability, Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, Climate Change and Renewable Energy, Flooding, Environmental Impact Assessment, Sustainability Appraisal, Biodiversity, Prematurity and Propriety. 8 http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/environment-planning-and-housing/- /journal_content/56/10171/3619786/ARTICLE-TEMPLATE 80 move towards a development management policy framework which could bring together policy on development management in one place and remove the need for policy in separate guidance notes. Annex A illustrates how this review might fit into the wider planning framework.

d) Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic? The timetable recommended by the Review Group is realistic. We recognise that this is a significant task but it is absolutely crucial that a new approach to guidance is embedded as quickly as possible. Clarity over the guidance that is extant and updated will have a significant impact on confidence within the planning system and should be prioritised accordingly by the department.

e) Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within CLG?

The work of consolidation, production and the design of the web based resource is primarily a role for government. However, practitioners will have an important role commenting and advising on the development of new guidance, the web resource and the functioning of the new system. The LGA would be keen to support and input in this regard.

We do not underestimate that there is a significant immediate task to be undertaken by the department to respond to the findings of the review. We agree that the Chief Planner should have responsibility for maintaining new guidance, ensuring it remains up to date and that it remains coherent and limited to the principles outlined in the review - thereby guarding against the unnecessarily proliferation of planning guidance.

The review rightly identifies that in many cases guidance simply sets out what is in legislation or policy, continuing to encourage “lazy legislative thinking”. We agree that the focus should be to ensure that statute, regulations and Statutory Instruments are clearer and therefore minimise the reliance on additional guidance. This shift in focus and the corresponding reduction in time reinterpreting statute in further guidance should release capacity across government.

We feel strongly that access to the site must be free of charge for all. This should include bulletins and alerts to update on changes to guidance and advice. It is crucial to the success of the new approach that widespread buy in and subscription is secured across planning practitioners. A model which includes charging (however nominal) risks partial take up of the new system.

f) Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as the Environment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this be carried out?

We agree with the review’s findings that Planning Inspectorate (PINS) guidance is made transparent and incorporated into the new single coherent guidance resource. This recommendation should be extended across all government agencies.

We strongly endorse the proposals to establish a single gateway for signing off all government planning guidance, managed by the Chief Planner.

g) How will a rolling suite of guidance as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as the site will be ‘live’ with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it was used?

The model proposed by the review is a pragmatic means of avoiding guidance becoming out of date and conflicted with new documents. A ‘live’ resource will bring with it challenges and new ways of working. It increases the importance of a free service of updates to ensure that practitioners are using the most up to date guidance when making their decisions. It also underlines the importance of an effective document management system which ensures that documents and updates are date stamped so that anyone relying on the guidance can evidence that it was current when used.

Jan 2013

Annex A: Outline planning framework

Level one documents – Primary documents that consist of Acts of Parliament and Regulations laid before Parliament.

Relevant planning legislation and statutory instruments

Level two documents – National planning policies, development management policies and ministerial directions. Purpose to establish a national context and directions for implementation. LGA proposal for a new national development management framework to minimise the need for policy in numerous guidance documents.

Planning Policy: Development National Ministerial NPPF Management Infrastructure Directions, Policy: National Statements Development Procedures, Management Policy Framework

Level three documents – DCLG owned guidance as outlined in the guidance review. PINs advice and guidance and bulletins alerting practitioners to changes and updates to guidance.

DCLG planning PINs Guidance Bulletins and updates guidance

Level four documents – Industry produced advice and best practice. Recommended training for planning officers and elected members and CPD focused on skill development and delivery.

Best practice advice and Training and professional case studies produced by development professional bodies and

interested organisations.

Written evidence submitted by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (PTG 26)

Introduction

1. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence. As a charity with a branch in every county, over 200 district groups and more than 2,000 parish council members, we have considerable local and national expertise in planning policy. We were consulted by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor during the preparation of his report, published in December 2012. CPRE supports, in principle, the consolidation of national planning guidance recommended by Lord Taylor, and his recognition that ‘guidance can be essential and adds real value in terms of planning practice’.

2. CPRE firmly believes that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) alone is insufficient to provide the detail needed to make the planning system work day to day. In particular, it is too equivocal on a number of areas of policy that are critical in delivering important planning outcomes, such as the effective re-use of previously developed land, and protection and improvement of the natural environment, particularly the wider countryside not protected by national designations. These issues should be addressed as soon as possible through clearer guidance, but CPRE also believes that policies in the NPPF are likely to need substantial revision in the longer term.

3. We made a detailed submission (reproduced in the Annexe to this evidence) to Lord Taylor in November 2012. We have not responded to questions (e) or (g) in the call for evidence, as we do not have detailed evidence to offer in response to these questions.

a. Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changes need to be made?

4. CPRE believes that the Review goes too far in its focus on reducing and cancelling guidance. We set out the changes that we think are needed in our response to subsequent questions.

5. Our experience of the planning system over many years makes it clear to us that guidance is critical to making the system work well. An absence of guidance could increase uncertainty and thereby encourage a more litigious system, primarily favouring well-resourced developers over local authorities and community groups. It is also likely to compromise the long term public interest in the development and use of land.

6. On a separate but related issue, CPRE is concerned to find that all the statements of national planning policy replaced by the NPPF are at the time of writing no longer publicly available on any Government website. We recommend that relevant guidance from former Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) should be updated and included in the new suite of Government guidance, and that the documents themselves should remain available as an important work of reference. Evidence shows that officially cancelled guidance from these documents continues to be used to inform decision making (see paragraph 12 below).

b. Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

7. We agree with Lord Taylor on many of the key priorities identified in his report, in particular that priority should be given to dealing with:

• Viability of development; • Housing market and land availability studies; • The duty for local authorities to co-operate on strategic planning; and • Environmental issues, including biodiversity protection and landscape planning.

8. CPRE has analysed a number of recent planning appeal decisions9 where the housing policies in the NPPF have been relevant factors. At present there is, in our view, an over-reliance on case by case interpretation, and new policy terms appear to be insufficiently defined. Examples are meeting ‘objectively assessed needs’ for new housing and ‘deliverable’ and ‘viable’ development. Current interpretations are problematic as they encourage a short term view of development viability. This is fuelling growing pressure for greenfield development, arguably contrary to policies in the NPPF that seek to prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield land.

9. We are particularly concerned that Government should produce guidance which addresses the legal context of landscape protection and improvement, including issues such as character assessment, light and noise pollution. The current debate over Clause 8 of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill (on the rollout of broadband infrastructure) illustrates a general lack of clarity over the implications for planning of the ‘have regard’ duty for nationally designated landscapes. The duty under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 to investigate complaints about specified light and noise nuisance also has implications for local planning. CPRE is keen to promote best practice on these issues in the fashion that Lord Taylor recommends.

9 See, for example, decision letters APP/ T2405/A/11/2164413 (Blaby, Leicestershire); APP/U4230/A/11/2157433 (Salford); APP/0660/A/11/2158727 (Congleton, Cheshire); APP/L2630/A/12/2170575 (Costessey, Norfolk); and APP/J3720/A/11/2163206 (Stratford upon Avon), all of which involved granting planning permission for housing in open countryside. 86

10. In CPRE’s view, greater priority should be placed on putting new guidance in place than cancelling old guidance. We believe the Review overstates the extent to which many existing guidance documents, for example on town centre planning, have been superseded.

c. Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

11. CPRE is concerned that some important areas appear not to be seen as a priority by the review. In particular, the need is not clearly identified to provide planners with an understanding of the critical and fundamental links between spatial planning and transport.

12. We also have particular concerns about policies in paragraph 55 of the NPPF relating to housing for ‘rural workers’. Annex A to the former PPG7, which gave guidance on this issue, should be largely retained, and strengthened. This guidance has not been replaced by Annex 3 of the NPPF. Since the publication of the NPPF, however, Planning Inspectors have continued to rely on Annex A to uphold enforcement notices against inappropriate development in the countryside10. The Annex provides crucial detail on when it might be deemed essential for an agricultural worker to live near to their place of work. The NPPF has widened the scope of policy to include all ‘rural workers’, an undefined term. This increases the importance of strong guidance to local authorities on ensuring that permanent damage to the open countryside will not result because of abuse of this policy.

13. CPRE also believes that accessible and authoritative Government guidance providing an overview of planning law and regulations is required, in a similar fashion to that provided for the Planning Act 2008. The report recommends that new guidance ‘should not unnecessarily restate regulations … rather these should be written clearly in the first place’. This recommendation, while laudable, does not address the inaccessible language of much of existing regulations. A particular example is the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO). Many new or proposed regulations are amendments to the GPDO, in turn perpetuating the inaccessibility of the original legislation. The most recent (2003) review of the GPDO for the Government highlighted as a key problem the ‘absence of [a] User Guidance document’11.

d. Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

14. CPRE does not believe that the recommended timetable for the production of new guidance and cancellation of existing guidance, by July 2013, is realistic. This is especially the case as there had been no public consultation prior to this recommendation being made. We would recommend

10 See, for example, decision letters APP/D380/C/11/2152132, APP/D3830/C/11/2152133 and APP/D3830/A/2153792 (all near Cuckfield in West Sussex). 11 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, ‘Review of Permitted Development Rights’, September 2003, report by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners and SJ Berwin Solicitors. 87 instead that new guidance is consulted on and introduced gradually, and by broad topic area, over a period of six months from July 2013, with the existing guidance to be cancelled (unless the overarching response to the consultations identifies a need for it) no earlier than the end of 2013. Further to our points above, existing guidance may in many cases need to be archived following its cancellation.

f. Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as the Environment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this be carried out?

15. In principle, CPRE supports the consolidation of planning guidance into one web location, as this will aid public involvement in planning. A number of other Government departments and agencies have a significant interest in the detailed application of policy and regulations, and they should be encouraged to produce concise and accessible guidance in the style recommended by the Review. They should not be inhibited from doing so because of DCLG’s priority of reducing the overall amount of guidance that it produces. We accordingly have concerns about the suggestion in paragraph 8 of Lord Taylor’s report that DCLG should act as a ‘gatekeeper’ for the proposed new site. It should not be assumed that other Government departments and agencies necessarily need to consolidate their guidance to the same extent as DCLG. For example, guidance covering the historic environment appears to be relatively up to date and well maintained. Defra has also recently indicated that new guidance on planning and noise is necessary, but appears to have been inhibited by DCLG from producing such guidance12.

CPRE

January 2013

WORD COUNT: 1,495

12 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Red Tape Challenge - Environment Theme Implementation Plan, September 2012, see footnote 2 at page 17. 88

ANNEXE

REVIEW OF PLANNING PRACTICE GUIDANCE

A submission by CPRE to the review chaired by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor

November 2012

Introduction and summary

1. This submission by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is intended to inform the deliberations of the review team in (i) outlining subject areas for new consolidated planning guidance; and (ii) considering those areas of existing planning practice guidance that need to be retained, pending the publication of new consolidated guidance. We have long experience of the planning system and were prominently involved in consultations around the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). We have also contributed to a separate submission by Wildlife & Countryside Link to the Review. While welcoming the final version of the NPPF, we have concerns that important details could be lost from existing Government guidance.

2. We welcome the invitation by Lord Taylor and his team to organisations not directly involved in the Review to make a submission to his Panel. (invitation at roundtable meeting at the Town and Country Planning Association on 22 October 2012). We are nonetheless surprised and disappointed at how the Government has chosen to announce and run this review, with only a short window for input by outside organisations and without (to date) any indication of a formal consultation.

3. We note the Government’s recognition, signalled at the round table meeting and in the Review terms of reference, that there continues to be a need for supporting guidance produced directly by Government, but that Government will also encourage civil society organisations to promote best practice. We assume this suggests there is a role for NGO sector-produced best practice guidance and we agree this is sensible. However, as a general comment, we are of the view that Government should identify areas where such guidance is needed and invite relevant organisations to collaborate in preparing it. Then, crucially the documents produced should be Government-branded publications so that they are taken seriously in decision making.

4. We have largely confined the scope of this submission to planning practice guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) or its predecessors (as indicated in

89 the terms of reference), and have been guided by the list of Government planning guidance documents that appears on the Planning Portal website.

5. National planning guidance is critically important to making planning work well. As a result of our detailed comments below, we believe that the mooted new guidance should cover a number of areas. We also recommend that the drafting of this guidance should take place following the recommendations of the Review, involving a number of relevant Government departments, and as an inclusive process involving a full, open public consultation on a draft.

General comments

(i) Subject areas for new consolidated guidance

6. CPRE notes that the Review will seek to consider ‘what new practice guidance may be needed to support the implementation of the NPPF’. We believe that additional guidance will indeed be needed. We have significant concerns that a number of key areas of policy in the NPPF are insufficiently clear. These are set out with references to the relevant points in the NPPF in Table 1 below, along with our reasoning in each case.

7. CPRE does not believe that supporting ‘the implementation of the NPPF’ should be the only reason for producing guidance. This is an unwarranted assumption included in the terms of reference for the review. Ministers have repeatedly made clear that the NPPF only addresses those areas of planning which cover the policy priorities of national Government. Planning law and policy is both much wider in scope and more complex in detail than the NPPF. It has evolved to address common problems faced by local communities, as well as particular public policy objectives at national level. ‘Wider than NPPF-related guidance’ is essential to helping achieve good planning decisions and outcomes.

8. Two examples are provided by way of illustration. First, the use of Section 215 ‘untidy land’ notices is one example of where planning law enables a range of detailed interventions on local issues on which there is little or no need for central Government policy direction. Government planning guidance has provided, rather than policy direction, necessary explanation and assistance on application and consistency, saving individual planning authorities from having to do their own research. Second, it has been necessary for CLG to produce four detailed guidance documents to explain the procedures for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) instituted by the Planning Act 2008, procedures which were introduced to address perceived delays in the process. This example highlights the complexity of much primary and secondary planning legislation, which has needed detailed guidance to enable all parties to use the processes efficiently. Moreover, the NSIP process serves public policy objectives that are largely distinct from the NPPF, as the NPPF

90 itself explains. We have included documents relevant to both of these examples in the list of documents that we believe should be retained (see paragraphs 9-10 and Table 2 below). CPRE recommends, therefore, that any new suite of guidance should look to provide overall supporting guidance for all aspects of planning law as contained in the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and the subsequent planning Acts of 1991 and 2004; extant secondary regulations and European directives relevant to land use planning; as well as any issues remaining from the Planning Act 2008 and Localism Act 2011.

(ii) Areas of existing planning practice guidance that need to be retained

9. CPRE believes that it will be essential to retain at least 40 current DCLG guidance documents pending the publication of new guidance (see Table 2 at the end of this submission for an indicative list, which should not be seen as exhaustive). In many of the cases listed, we would also doubt that there is a need to withdraw or update the substantive guidance already issued. This is because the guidance in question relates to either (i) national policies that have not significantly changed as a result of the NPPF, such as on town centres or assessing open space requirements; or (ii) legal procedures, for example for nationally significant infrastructure projects as set out in the Planning Act 2008, that have not changed or required new explanation since the guidance was issued.

10. Many of the documents that we have recommended for retention into the foreseeable future fit into the category of explaining provisions of planning legislation, in particular the 1991 Act and the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 which the 1991 Act amended. CPRE agrees that there is some scope to consolidate and/or withdraw a number of existing Government guidance documents that were produced before the commencement of Planning & Compensation Act 1991, which instituted the current system of development management in accordance with adopted development plans.

Jan 2013

TABLE 1: NPPF POLICIES NEEDING ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE

Policy NPPF Reasoning Paragraph

Protection of the Green Belt and World 87-91; 126-141 Circulars 02/2009 and 07/2009 explain extant Heritage Sites Directions which assist policies, retained in the NPPF, protecting against inappropriate development in the Green Belt and World Heritage Sites respectively. CPRE believes that both Directions, along with guidance on their implications for local planning authorities, should be retained.

Allocation of employment land 22 An agreed methodology is needed on employment land reviews, which until now has been provided in a CLG guidance note. The methodology should encourage local planning authorities (LPAs) to take a ‘plan, monitor and manage’ approach, avoiding the allocation of land which is not needed for employment purposes.

Town centres 24 Earlier policy from PPS4 in relation to town centre planning is relatively unchanged in the NPPF. Existing guidance on need, impact and the sequential test should therefore be retained and revised where appropriate. Such guidance would support clearer policy making but also help to achieve a primary purpose of the NPPF: to bring clarity to planning to enable wider public engagement with the process. Retail need and impact assessments involve detailed technical analysis usually carried out by specialists. It is vital that guidance should set terms of reference for such studies that can be easily agreed between LPAs, applicants and those wishing to challenge such developments. This will enable better scrutiny of such assessments, help faster decision making and reduce appeals. The need for effective town centre first policy guidance is especially great: town

centres continue to face difficulties during recession, with difficulties faced by national profile retailers and the move of sales to the internet. In this context new large-scale retail developments, particularly edge and out of centre, will remain controversial, especially when they can threaten the character and diversity of retail in smaller towns.

For similar reasons, guidance should also clarify the meaning of ‘significant adverse impact’ in paragraph 27 of the NPPF.

The NPPF did not set out the indicators which LPAs should continue to use to monitor the vitality and viability of their town centres over time. These were set out in Annex D of PPS4 and their use specified in Policy EC9.2 but they were subsequently lost in the NPPF. Guidance should clarify which of these indicators should be monitored to support local policy and decision making. A consistent approach across LPAs would help them in their duty to cooperate (see below) and bring clarity for applicants as well as those seeking to challenge a development on impact. It is important that LPAs should continue to monitor such factors as part of their evidence base for future policy development and developing their expertise in dealing with well-resourced applicants.

Promoting sustainable transport 30 Guidance is needed to explain which patterns of development facilitate the use of sustainable modes of transport and the extent to which it might be reasonable to do so depending on the context. This is a key principle of the NPPF yet is rarely understood – there are long lead times between a development being planned and travel patterns settling down a decade after

completion. This is a particularly weak area of the NPPF. Much of the policy application detail covering transport planning principles and the relationship between land use and transport issues has been lost.

32, 35 Identifying opportunities for sustainable transport modes and how to maximise them through choices about location and design.

Housing: five year supply and under- 47 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires that where delivery there has been a persistent record of under- delivery of housing, local authorities demonstrate, on top of their five year land supply for housing, an extra 20% of supply. This whole concept is flawed as it mixes planning policy and objectives with “punishment” based on a dubious view of management performance. At very least, whilst this policy exists there must be clarification on the meaning of ‘under- delivery’, as inconsistency is emerging in the way that Planning Inspectors are seeking to define this on a case by case basis.

The whole approach to assessing five year land supply is also in need of careful update in the context of current market conditions. The question of the definition of deliverability and the link to other guidance on viability must be reworked in this context. It is crucial that the guidance clearly differentiates between under-delivery in the sense of identification of a land supply in line with the housing need and demand identified in an area, and the delivery of completed units on sites. It must be recognised that the role of local authorities is to allocate enough land to meet requirements. The housebuilding industry then has responsibility for building these sites out. Local planning authorities should not be held culpable, and ultimately unsustainable development permitted, because the market is unable to deliver on allocated sites.

CPRE would like to present further detailed evidence on this issue. We are concerned that the current generalised approach in policy and the lack of political accountability in interpretation are bringing the current arrangements into disrepute. The evidence suggests that the Planning Inspectorate appears to be interpreting this policy in a highly variable fashion with no reference to either intended outcomes, or to a transparent rationale.

Housing: dwellings for rural workers 55 Annex A to PPG7 should be retained. This remained extant under PPS7 and has not been replaced by Annex 3 of the NPPF. CPRE is aware of decisions made since the publication of the NPPF, however, where Planning Inspectors have continued to rely on Annex A to uphold enforcement notices against inappropriate development in the countryside13. The Annex provides crucial detail on when it might be deemed essential for an agricultural worker to live near to their place of work. While the NPPF has widened the scope of this policy to include all ‘rural workers’, the guidance should be broadened to give clarity as to what this term means. The fact that the policy has been widened compounds the importance of strong guidance to local authorities on ensuring that permanent damage to the open countryside will not result because of abuse of this policy.

Control of advertisements 67-68 Law and secondary regulations on advertisement control contain a significant amount of detail, and can be used in a wide variety of situations, none of which are explained in the general policy principles of the NPPF.

Promoting healthy communities 69-70 Guidance to support the growth of local food networks, or ‘webs’, could do much to promote healthy communities, and community facilities in particular, using a

13 See, for example, decision letters APP/D380/C/11/2152132, APP/D3830/C/11/2152133 and APP/D3830/A/2153792. 95 concept that already commands wide public enthusiasm. There are two references to food elsewhere in the NPPF. Arguably, neither gives due prominence to the strategic importance of food nationally or its key role in achieving sustainable and healthy communities.

Guidance should consider:

• how food provision, particularly of fresh food, can be supported as an essential service in local centres and town centres to increase access to all sections of the community, especially for those without use of a car; and • ways that local food production in particular can be supported both through the development of a diverse retail sector and through supporting rural diversification to add value to primary agricultural production.

Greater provision of food produced locally would also enable shops to offer distinctive, seasonal and the freshest food. This could offer a unique selling point to smaller shops providing local services, especially in poorly served villages. It would also help food to remain part of the high street retail offer. This would enhance the attractiveness, individuality and distinctiveness of high streets.

Food plays a central part of day-to-day and weekly shopping; some 50% of retail spend is on food. Support for local food shops would offer more opportunities for residents to shop without their cars, with local environmental and health benefits. It would also increase opportunities for social interaction in accordance with paragraph 69 of the NPPF. Such relationships can also offer informal support and contact to more marginal members of the community, especially the 96

elderly.

CPRE has carried out extensive research on local food webs and the scope for local planning to support them, as part of the Making Local Food Work programme supported by the Big Lottery Fund (more available from www.cpre.org.uk/resources/farming-and- food/local-foods )

Local Green Space designation 76-77 Paragraph 76 of the NPPF enables local and neighbourhood plans to designate Local Green Spaces where ‘the green area is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance’ inter alia because of its ‘tranquillity’, and where the space is not an ‘extensive tract of land’. There is a need for guidance to clarify these terms and on how to implement an LGS designation. More on the issue of tranquillity is set out below.

The guidance could be informed by the work of Leicestershire County Council, the only local authority known to CPRE that has initiated work on how the Local Green Space designation could be implemented. See http://www.leics.gov.uk/greenspaces

The guidance should also clarify how the new designation relates to existing Local Landscape Designations.

Brownfield sites in the Green Belt 89 The NPPF seeks to encourage the redevelopment of brownfield sites in the Green Belt to a greater degree than the former guidance in PPG2, but does not recognise the particular sensitivity of many such sites, which are often either former quarries with high biodiversity value or

former institutions set in extensive landscaped grounds, which contribute greatly to a sense of openness. Guidance is needed to ensure that the openness of the Green Belt is respected when such sites are redeveloped.

Avoiding noise and protecting areas of 123 As the meaning of ‘tranquillity’ is not set out tranquillity in the Glossary to the NPPF there is a need for clarification of how the term should be interpreted by LPAs. Research carried out by Northumbria and Newcastle Universities for CPRE and Natural England shows that both audible and visible elements in the countryside influence people’s experience of tranquillity. Factors include absence of noise but also the presence of ‘positive’ features such as woodland or bodies of water. It is also clear from this research that certain ‘natural’ types of sound such as birdsong and the sound of the sea or other water do not constitute ‘noise’, even though their levels of sound energy may be higher than man-made sources such as road or aviation traffic.

Guidance is needed to clarify which noise factors should be included or excluded as well as which data should support local plan policies or planning decisions. Although under the European Noise Directive there is nationally collected data on urban quiet areas within major agglomerations, we are unaware of any widespread data on rural quiet areas which could be used by LPAs to support this policy. CPRE’s 2007 tranquillity data is available for this purpose but guidance should make it clear that this use is recommended to give clarity to future designations and planning decisions.

Tranquility is a planning concept developed by CPRE and we would welcome an invitation to lead on the production of best practice guidance.

There is a need for new guidance on noise. We are concerned that guidance on noise exposure levels relevant to planning decisions which featured in PPG24 has now been lost. The NPPF para. 23 requires planning policies and decision to avoid ‘significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life’ in accordance with the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE). However, in turn the NPSE does not give guidance on noise exposure levels that would have such significant adverse effects along the lines of PPG24. The noise policy aims of the NPSE explicitly refer to the wider context of Government policy on sustainable development and in para. 1.8 set these out including reference to Living within Environmental Limits. For consistency and clarity in planning decisions guidance is required for different noise contexts and sources on what such environmental limits should be related to noise and based on the best available evidence, including WHO research, data and guidelines.

Defra has also indicated that it believes further guidance on planning and noise is necessary, in order to explain Sections 79 and 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 199014.

Light pollution 125 There is a need for guidance for local authorities on how paragraph 125 could be implemented in their area. The guidance could cover lighting policies in the local plan, adoption of Environmental Lighting Zones, development of technical guidance on good lighting design for various land uses (e.g. lighting in advertisements, commercial developments, decorative building lighting

14 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Red Tape Challenge - Environment Theme Implementation Plan, September 2012, see footnote 2 at page 17. 99

and sports facilities) and management of street lighting. For street lighting, guidance on joint planning and highway authority practice will be needed, along with advice on street light switch-off and dimming schemes. The guidance should share good practice.

Guidance should also give advice on the legal context of lighting and light pollution. Many forms of lighting can be classed as a statutory nuisance under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 which means that local authorities have a duty to investigate complaints about light nuisance from sources listed in the Act.

The guidance could also provide information about the International Dark-Sky Association’s Dark Sky Places scheme as many National Parks and AONBs are in the process of designation as Dark Sky Reserve (e.g. Exmoor National Park) or Dark Sky Park. The application process and designation would have an impact on affected local authorities and their lighting policies.

Light pollution is an area where CPRE has particular expertise. We would welcome an invitation to participate in the production of best practice guidance.

Conserving and enhancing the historic Section 12 We support the retention of guidance for environment para 126-141 local authorities and practitioners on the historic environment. Previously such guidance has been produced by English Heritage and endorsed by CLG and DCMS. We recommend this approach is used for guidance relating to the NPPF.

100

The historic environment represents an extremely varied, sensitive and complex range of factors. Supporting guidance is essential in providing clarity and fostering public understanding, thereby helping ensure that the unnecessary loss of heritage assets is minimised.

Strategic Housing Land Availability 159 It should remain clear that the SHLAA process Assessment (SHLAA) is policy neutral, and does not in itself seek to make judgements about the appropriateness of allocating any particular sites for housing. Given the emphasis placed by the NPPF on the importance of the 5 year supply of land for housing, and the deliverability of this supply, CPRE suggests that standard guidance on the preparation of a policy-neutral SHLAA should be retained and updated to take account of current difficult market conditions and to make links to guidance on viability. By completing a thorough SHLAA process local planning authorities will then hopefully be in a stronger position to decide which sites should be allocated for housing development.

Strategic Housing Market Assessment 159 We support the retention of guidance to local (SHMA) planning authorities on both need and demand.

Concerns about robustness of the evidence of need used to justify some rural exception site development have emerged from some of CPRE’s local groups. We support the development of rural affordable housing to meet local need, including on exception sites. This can be essential for helping those with close family or employment ties to a rural area to live there. For this reason it is important that the local housing needs assessment is robust enough to accurately pinpoint the amount and type of need. We therefore support retaining and updating the helpful guidance contained in the SHMA guidance document on assessing need.

101

Viability 173 Guidance in this area is crucial. Guidance is particularly necessary on what are deemed to be ‘competitive returns’ to a willing landowner or developer. This information would allow users of the planning system to determine more clearly what standards and infrastructure can realistically be expected to be achieved in new developments in variable market conditions.

Reliance on the current informal sector guidance is not acceptable, as Government would effectively be passing interpretation of crucial policy matters of great public interest (as evidenced by the widespread concerns about developer interpretations of viability expressed by MPs in the Second Reading of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill in the House of Commons) to unaccountable and only partially representative bodies. Clarity from CLG as to the status of this recently produced guidance on viability assessment would be welcome. We are aware of two sets of guidance on deliverability and viability having been produced independently in recent months (by the Harman Review and RICS, respectively), and the fact that more than one set of guidance has been produced underscores the importance of clarity from CLG on how deliverability, which is fast becoming a defining policy of the NPPF, will be defined by the Planning Inspectorate.

Duty to co-operate 178-181 Guidance is needed to explain how the evidence to demonstrate co-operation, of which examples are given in paragraph 181 of the NPPF, can be prepared; on ‘other bodies’ that help with strategic priorities, in particular Local Nature Partnerships (paragraph 179); and how and when involvement of other bodies should be built into the planning process.

102

103

TABLE 2: EXISTING GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS THAT CPRE BELIEVES SHOULD BE RETAINED PENDING THE PUBLICATION OF NEW GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE

Name of publication Date of Brief description (taken from Planning Portal website) issue

A Farmer’s Guide to the Jul-02 This guide outlines the planning system for farmers. Planning System

A Practical Guide to the SEA Aug-06 Practical guidance, published in September 2005, on applying Directive European Directive 2001/42/EC "on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment".

Assessing needs and Sep-01 This Guide reflects policy objectives for open space, sport and opportunities: a companion recreation, as set out in PPG17. guide to PPG17

By Design: Urban Design in May-00 This GPG provides sound practical advice to help implement the Planning System - the Government's commitment to good design. Towards Better Practice

Circular 02/02: (ODPM): Nov-02 This Circular explains the new procedures for handling Enforcement appeals enforcement appeals in England. procedure

Circular 02/05: Temporary Mar-05 This circular gives guidance on the temporary stop notice Stop Notice provisions in Part 4 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which inserted sections 171E to 171H to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Circular 02/06: Crown Jun-06 This Circular contains guidance for local planning authorities Application of the Planning in England on dealing with planning applications by the Crown Acts following the commencement of Part 7 Chapter 1 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Circular 02/07: Planning and Mar-07 This circular explains how the Highways Agency (the Agency), the Strategic Road Network on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport, will participate in all stages of the planning process with Government Offices, regional and local planning authorities.

Circular 02/09: The Town Mar-09 This circular sets out the requirements of the Town and and Country Planning Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, (Consultation) which is made under the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (Statutory Instrument 1995 No 419).

104

Circular 02/99: Mar-99 This circular provides guidance on the Town and Country Environmental impact Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and assessment Wales) Regulations 1999 for local planning authorities.

Circular 03/07: Town and Mar-07 This Circular gives an outline of the revised system of Country Planning (Control of advertisement control and includes relevant advice about Advertisements) (England) advertisement applications to local planning authorities. Regulations 2007

Circular 05/00 Appeals Jun-00 This circular explains the new procedures for handling planning appeals in England, introduced with effect from 1 August 2000. The object is to speed up the appeal process while maintaining its quality.

Circular 06/05: Biodiversity Aug-05 This circular provides administrative guidance on the and Geological Conservation application of the law relating to planning and nature - Statutory Obligations and conservation as it applies in England. Their Impact Within the Planning System

Circular 07/09: Protection of Jul-09 This circular replaces and expands on the guidance in Planning World Heritage Sites Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment (PPG15). It gives advice on the level of protection and management needed for World Heritage Sites.

Circular 10/97 - Enforcing Jul-97 This circular brings together and updates earlier guidance, in Planning Control: Legislative DoE circulars 21/91 and 17/92, on how to use the amended Provisions and Procedural planning enforcement provisions. Requirements

Circular 10/05: Permitted Nov-05 This circular gives guidance on the permitted development development rights for rights for antennas found in Part 1, Class H and Part 25, Class antennas A and Class B of the Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (the GPDO).

Circular 11/95: The use of Jul-95 This circular brings up to date DoE circular 1/85 on the use of Conditions in Planning planning conditions. Permissions

Circular 15/92: Publicity Jun-92 This Circular remains the principal source of advice on how local planning authorities should fulfil the statutory requirement to publicise planning applications.

Community involvement in Feb-04 This paper sets out the importance of greater community Planning involvement in planning

Employment Land Reviews: Dec-04 The primary purpose of this guide is to provide planning Guidance Note authorities with effective tools with which to assess the

105

demand for and supply of land for employment.

Enforcing Planning Control: Jul-97 A practice manual for local planning authorities on all aspects Good Practice Guidance for of planning enforcement work. Local Planning Authorities

Good practice guidelines: Apr-09 These travel plan guidelines are intended to set out best Delivering travel plans practice actions that can be taken to produce high-quality, through the planning process robust travel plans.

Guidance on associated Sep-09 This note provides guidance on dealing with associated development: Applications to development for applications for Nationally Significant the Infrastructure Planning Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) made under the Planning Act Commission 2008.

Guidance on transport Mar-07 This document is intended to assist stakeholders in assessment determining whether a transport assessment may be required and, if so, what the level and scope of that assessment should be.

Lighting in the Countryside: Jul-97 The key objective of this guidance is to identify good practice Towards Good Practice in the planning and design of lighting in rural areas.

Making the Planning System Sep-04 A guide intended to help and encourage local planning accessible to everyone: authorities (LPAs) to go beyond the minimum requirements for Good-practice guidance on access to planning information access to and charging for planning information

Manual for Streets Mar-07 The Manual for Streets is a joint publication produced by the Department for Transport (DfT) and Communities and Local Government.

Outdoor advertisements and Jun-07 This guide aims to explain to those wanting to display an signs: A guide for advertisers outdoor advertisement how the system of advertisement control works in England.

Planning Act 2008: Guidance Mar-10 Guidance developed for local authorities affected by the for local authorities changes made to the planning regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects

Planning Act 2008: Guidance Sep-09 This guidance note sets out the procedures for pre-application on pre-application consultation on nationally significant infrastructure projects, consultation as required by the Planning Act 2008.

Planning Act 2008: Nationally Sep-08 This note provides guidance on completing application forms significant infrastructure for nationally significant infrastructure projects, under the projects – Application form Planning Act 2008.

106 guidance

Planning for Town Centres: Mar-05 This Guidance deals specifically with design issues relating to Guidance on Design and planning for town centres and some of the main tools Implementation tools available to secure the implementation of town centre planning policies and proposals.

Planning for Town Centres: Dec-09 This guidance aims to help the interpretation of town centre Practice guidance on need, policies set out in Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for impact and the sequential Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4) approach

Protected trees: a guide to Mar-10 This guide - aimed at tree owners, the general public and tree preservation procedures amenity groups - answers some of the most common questions about tree preservation procedures.

Strategic Housing Land Jul-07 This guidance explains how local authorities and their partners Availability Assessments: must carry out an assessment of land availability for housing, practice guidance over a 15 year period, in their areas as outlined in Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3).

Strategic Housing Market Aug-07 This practice guidance sets out a framework that local Assessments: Practice authorities and regional bodies can follow to develop a good Guidance understanding of how housing markets operate.

The Control of Fly-posting: A Oct-00 This Guide provides local authorities and other agencies with a Good Practice Guide manual to assist them in controlling fly-posting.

Town and Country Planning Jan-05 Advice for local planning authorities (LPAs) on how to make Act 1990 Section 215: Best the best use of their powers to take steps requiring land to be Practice Guidance cleaned up when its condition harmfully affects the amenity of the area.

107