ࡱ> _a^Y _bjbjWW %==>Z]8 D$x.hXh hthb@ I0P4y$Urban Forum Response to the Planning Green Paper Executive Summary Urban Forum acknowledge the need for reforms to the planning system namely because of the complexity of the current system. Although parts of the Green Paper are welcomed including the links with wider regeneration policies - we do have real concerns about how the proposed reforms will effect engagement with the community. Overall, Urban Forum consider that the Green Paper does not always properly balance its stated aims of speeding up decision making (as demanded by developers) and ensuring that communities are able to properly influence decision making. The balance is in favour of business where it should be encouraging active participation of citizens. Significantly, many of the rights that communities enjoy under the existing system would be removed under the proposals. We would therefore urge the Government to re-consider some of those proposals set out in the Green Paper. We are particularly concerned with the following proposals: To replace time-consuming public inquiries with examinations. This may result in 3rd parties losing the right to appear at inquiry and make objections. All those affected by development should have a right to appear at public inquiry /hearing which should follow wide public consultation by the Council For Government to make decisions on major infrastructure projects in Parliament. This will remove the right for communities to challenge the principle of, or need for, development. Dismissal of 3rd party rights of appeal. How can a system be fair when procedures depend not on whether you are affected by a decision but whether you are the applicant for planning permission? Abolition of structure plans with strategic planning at the regional level. This will result in a remote system with decisions made far from communities. Business Planning Zones where no planning consent will be necessary for development. This effectively gives away planning permission with scant consideration to the impact of development. Minimal planning controls with proposals for Local Development Frameworks containing broad brush policies and Action Plans prepared only for areas as chosen by each local authority. This system will result in great uncertainty for local communities It is crucial to have a system which is transparent, accountable and responsive if we are to improve quality of life for local communities. The focus of the paper is, in our view, on the needs of business the developers and landowners. Urban Forum Response to the Planning Green Paper Urban Forum Urban Forum is an umbrella body for community and voluntary groups with interests in urban and regional policy, especially regeneration and renewal. It was set up in 1994 as the national voluntary organisation through which local and central government could relate to the community and voluntary sectors on such issues. Our constituency includes national, regional and local voluntary and community organisations. Introduction The Planning Green Paper sets out plans for the review of the planning system in England. Separate consultation documents have been produced on Compulsory Purchase Orders, Parliamentary Procedures for processing major infrastructure projects and Planning Obligations. This response sets out Urban Forums views on all of the above documents. The Planning Green Paper states that the right way forward is to make the planning system more accessible and transparent and to strengthen the opportunities for community involvement throughout the process. Key proposals in the paper include: Simplification of the complex system of plans with the abolition of structure plans, local plans and unitary development plans and replacement with a statutory single level of plan known as a Local Development Framework (LDF). The LDF would include a Statement of Community Involvement and Action plans for smaller local areas of change. Regional Planning Guidance will be replaced with statutory Regional Spatial Strategies. All local authorities shall be encouraged to work with Local Strategic Partnerships to establish mechanisms for community involvement. Government to produce clear statements of policy on the development of major infrastructure. Business Planning Zones where planning controls will be lifted. New Parliamentary procedures for processing major infrastructure projects with Parliament able to approve a project in principle before detailed examination at a public inquiry. The Importance of the Planning System the social aspects of planning. Further to pressure from those involved in property development, the government is seeking to speed up the planning system. The planning system is often viewed as slow by developers because in coming to a decision planners need to consider the views of all those that are affected by development. It must be remembered that planners will continue to deal with complex issues to come to a balanced view, and so a well considered system can, by its very nature, never be a fast system. Planning affects quality of life. Most obviously, people live and work in buildings and need services. Planning also has wider impacts, for example in relation to sense of community, in enabling regeneration and renewal, and in giving people some control over the environment in which they live. Consultation with communities through out the planning process is crucial in order that planners can plan with rather than for people. In this way planners are able to understand the needs of different groups (including those which are often marginalised) and the views of those affected by development. The private sector tend to view planning in terms of economic progress as opposed to these wider social issues. As set out in Clara Greeds book The Social Aspects of Planning  ..some development professionals operate as if planning were purely for the benefit of the buildings, or for cars, and as if property itself were there primarily for profit and not for use by human beings. Response to the Green Paper There is an acknowledged need for reforms to the planning system namely because of the complexity of the current system. Although parts of the Green Paper are welcomed (detailed below) we do have real concerns about how the proposed reforms will effect engagement with the community. Overall, Urban Forum consider that the Green Paper does not properly balance its stated aims of speeding up decision making (as demanded by developers) and ensuring that communities are able to properly influence decision making. The balance is in favour of business. Although there is emphasis in the paper on community engagement with many laudable objectives such as we need a planning system that fully engages people in shaping the future of their communities and local economies, these are not always reflected in the proposed changes. Significantly, many of the rights that communities enjoy under the existing system would be removed under the proposals. We do acknowledge that there are instances where it is the community driving through change in an area and pressing for rapid decision making. We would therefore urge the Government to re-consider some of those proposals set out in the Green Paper as detailed below. Where we support the content of the paper this is made clear. It is crucial that we have a system which is transparent, accountable and responsive to the needs of local people if we are to improve quality of life for local communities. The focus of the paper is, in our view, on the needs of business the developers and landowners. 1) Public Participation Despite the rhetoric for more community involvement, we consider that the proposals in the Green Paper may actually result in reduced opportunities for participation of communities in the planning process where it should be encouraging active participation of citizens. This includes: Inquiries The present system, where everyone has the right to make objections to draft local plans is seen as time-consuming and adversarial. Under the proposed changes third parties may lose the right to appear at public inquiry if these are replaced with an examination. As existing, only those invited can participate in an examination. Our view is that all those affected by development should have a right to appear at public inquiry/hearing which should follow wide public participation by the Council or any other bodies given planning powers (such as Regional Development Agencies in compulsory purchase). b) Parliamentary Procedures for projects of national interest The Green Paper proposes that the government make decisions on major infrastructure projects e.g. open mining, nuclear power stations, trunk roads. This will remove the right for communities to challenge the principle of, or need for, development and is completely undemocratic. It is of great concern that there will be no open consideration of significant development - with communities only consulted on detail once the principle of development has already been decided. This system could allow major decisions on applications to be determined by a whipped vote. We would therefore urge the Governments role to be restricted to the production of statements of Government policy setting out priorities for investment on issues of genuine national importance. Decisions on major infrastructure projects should be taken at public inquiry. c) Third Party Rights of Appeal We are disappointed that the paper has dismissed 3rd party rights of appeal so that only the applicant for planning permission may appeal against the decision of a local authority. As set out by Friends of the Earth this will reinforce the powers of those with property interests to the exclusion of individuals and communities fighting to have their voice heard. We would urge the government to re-consider the issue of the 3rd party right of appeal if an equitable planning system is to be created. How can a system be fair when procedures depend not on whether you are affected by a decision but whether you are the applicant for planning permission? Those affected by a decision must surely have the same right to challenge a decision. If this issue were to be re-considered, we would advocate a limited 3rd party right of appeal as set out in Third Party Rights of Appeal  funded by a broad alliance of environmental and community groups. This would allow for communities to appeal against a decision made by the local authority in certain circumstances. These include: where an application is contrary to the development plan; where the local authority has an interest in the application; major applications; where the proposal is in conflict with other plans (i.e. the Community Strategy) and where the refusal of the application is recommended to planning committee members. Appeal would only be available to those who objected to the proposed development at the application stage. d) Abolition of Structure Plans Attempts to simplify the complex planning system are supported. However, the removal of planning from the county level to the regional level will result in a remote system with decisions made far from communities. This is likely to prevent communities from participating in important strategic decision making which directly affects their quality of life e.g. housing numbers. In addition, un-elected, un-accountable body would (under the current system) make decisions. This is however an area of uncertainty given the forthcoming Regions White Paper. It is surprising, given the governments interest in devolving power from the centre to more local levels (i.e the regions) that the Planning Green Paper is proposing to move power away from the local to the regional level. e) Business Planning Zones Urban Forum are opposed to the proposed Business Planning Zones where no planning consent will be necessary for development. These seem to be rooted in ideas of past, namely simplified planning zones and enterprise zones, which are often considered to have failed communities. The proposal effectively gives away planning permission in certain areas with scant consideration to the impact of development. This proposal could open the floodgates to inappropriate development with no one body responsible for the cost of dealing with any mistakes. 2) Reduction in development control The Green Paper proposes minimal planning controls with proposals for Local Development Frameworks (LDF) containing broad brush policies (or criteria) and Action Plans prepared only for areas (such as town centres, neighbourhoods and conservation areas) as chosen by each local authority. There will no longer be comprehensive planning of an area as with Local Plans/Unitary Development Plans. Although this system will no doubt save time in plan preparation, it will result in great uncertainty for local communities and a significant decrease in control for local authorities outside of Action Plan areas. It will be left for developers to argue only that a particular development is consistent only with a series of vague policies. If this system of land use control is to be adopted despite these concerns, the LDF must be prepared with wide public participation followed by adoption by the Council. There should also be some independent inspection of the plan to ensure that the Council have listened to and taken on the concerns of local communities. We support planning at a neighbourhood level through the Action Plans. It is positive that Action Plans are seen as a new focus for community involvement in development affecting neighbourhoods or other local areas, that Local authorities will have the opportunity to seek direct participation from local people in shaping the future of their communities and that our concept of action plans is very much one which encourages planning to be undertaken close to the people it most directly affects. As above, it is crucial that Action Plans are developed with full community consultation. 3) Planning Aid The proposed expansion of Planning Aid (a network of planners who give their services voluntarily) is welcomed. This will enable communities to participate in the planning system with the benefit of expert advice. Planning Aid should be extended to provide legal advice and advocacy. 4) Open Committees/Reasons for grant of permission We strongly agree that planning committees should always be held in pubic, with the public able to address the committee meeting. Giving reasons for decisions are welcomed. These measures should help to take the mystery out of planning. 5) Link with Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs)/Community Strategies (CS) and Regeneration It is significant that the paper properly recognises the importance of the links with wider regeneration policies specifically neighbourhood renewal as well as the importance of community engagement via Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs). We welcome the proposal that local authorities should work with LSPs to establish effective mechanisms for community involvement. However, for this to be successful LSPs must operate in an open, transparent and accountable way. It must be remembered that many of these partnerships are still at a very early stage. The links with the statutory Community Strategy (CS) are welcomed. The CS must play a key role in informing the preparation of the LDF and in turn the planning system will help to deliver the policies set out within the CS to promote economic, social and environmental well being. Although links have been made between planning and regeneration within the Green Paper, Urban Forum consider that these should strengthened. For example, local authorities should be required to prepare Action Plans for all neighbourhoods undergoing renewal and all areas where a Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy is to be prepared. 6) Statement of Community Involvement We strongly agree that the LDF should contain a statement of community involvement and that this should set out how the community should be involved both in the review of the LDF and commenting on significant planning applications. Also, that compliance with the terms of the statement and its requirements for engaging with the community should be a material consideration in planning applications is welcomed. It is important that the statement itself is prepared in consultation with communities ! 7) Consultation We support consultation with communities in advance of submission of large or complex applications. Developers should be required to show not only the extent of the consultation but also outcomes from this (i.e. how communities views have been taken on board). 8) Access to Planning Papers The level of charges levied by local authorities can, as recognised, cause difficulties for communities. The proposals to make charges reasonable and provide documents in alternative formats are therefore welcomed. 9) Development Tariffs We support the aim to develop a process which is open and transparent which will include details of the tariff in the planning register. Urban Forum support the higher tariffs imposed on greenfield than brownfield land to encourage developers to build on previously developed sites (as set out in Planning Policy Guidance note (PPG) 3 on Housing). However, we would add that we have concerns that vulnerable green space within cities, such as allotments, may come under increasing development pressure. We consider that if possible, affordable housing should be developed on site (we are in favour of mixed housing development) rather than developers providing local authorities with a payment for the development to take place elsewhere. 11) Improving the Effectiveness of the System We welcome the proposal to do away with tactics used by developers to secure planning permission including repeated applications on the same site and twin tracking (submitting two identical applications so that one can be appealed after an 8 week period). We also support the proposal to reduce the length of time that a planning permission is valid (from 5 to 3 years) and for consents to automatically lapse after that time. 12) Use of Compulsory Purchase powers for land assembly We acknowledge that the existing Compulsory Purchase (CP) system which allows local authorities and other bodies (such as Regional Development Agencies - RDAs) to assemble land in the public interest is complex and that there is need for reform so that the system is both clear and simple. We welcome the launch of a comprehensive Procedure Manual and new public information booklets to better inform those affected by orders. The proposals set out in the Green Paper and its sister paper Compulsory Purchase and Compensation the Governments Proposals for Change defer a great deal for further work particularly by the Law Commission. Key proposals for reform include: New powers to define the full range of planning and regeneration purposes, including halting the physical, economic and/or social deterioration of an area, for which compulsory purchase powers may be used; Clarification as to the justification for CP. This may include: reference to policies in the LDF or Community Strategy; through designation of sites in Action Plans indication that the scheme can attract financial support for regeneration schemes this could be provided through formal Regional Development Agency (RDA) endorsement Improving compensation by providing for an additional loss payment in recognition of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. To include all those with an interest in the land (including tenants) to be treated as statutory objectors. Requirements for all those affected to be told about their rights and crucial dates. Encourage greater use of less formal hearings and make provision for objections to be considered by means of written representations. We are concerned at attempts to speed up the decision making process by encouraging the use of written representations and informal hearings instead of public inquiries. Our view is that all those affected by development should have a right to appear at public inquiry. 13) Permitted Development Rights We welcome the proposal to update the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) and make it more comprehensible. The GPDO enables certain kinds of development to take place without the need for planning permission. However, we do consider that the use of local permitted development rights could lead to confusion and inappropriate development. If the decision were taken to allow local permitted development rights the differences should be justified and determined in consultation with local communities. 14) Use Classes Order Development control includes new building work and changes in use of buildings and land. The Use Classes Order (UCO) groups together certain uses which are similar in land use terms (eg noise, traffic, visual appearance) into classes and excludes from planning control uses that fall within the same class. The green paper and sister paper Use Classes Order, Consultation on possible changes to the Use Classes Order & Temporary Use Provisions proposes that there should be maximum possible de-regulation consistent with delivering planning policy and wider objectives, including protecting amenity. We would agree with the stated aim of the paper although would emphasise the key importance of considering, above speed, the affects of changes on quality of life and amenity for local communities. As for local permitted development rights, we consider that the use of local UCOs could lead to confusion and inappropriate development. If the decision were taken to allow local UCOs differences should be justified and determined in consultation with local communities. 15) Masterplanning Larger Developments It is proposed to replace outline planning consents with an agreement or certificate for a defined period. According to the paper the certificate might cover, for example, design, affordable housing provision and community participation. It is unclear whether the certificate would constitute approval of the principle of development, although the existence of a certificate and compliance with its requirements would weigh heavily in the determination of planning consent would indicate that this is the case. We are opposed to the grant of certificates where the full effects of a proposed development have not been considered. Instead, we would favour developers and landowners being required to submit detailed planning applications. If certificates were to be introduced we consider that it should be compulsory for the certificate to cover Community Involvement. This would be in line with the rhetoric set out in other parts of the paper. Urban Forum March 2002  Clara Greed, The Social Aspects of Planning [Add more info here]  Third Party Rights of Appeal in Planning, Green Balance, Leigh Day & Co, John Popham, Professor Michael Purdoe, January 2002  PAGE 10 2JKcf   01? FGw + !#"$"<"\#f#% &])})))0+2+,,,,c//224456CJOJQJ6CJj0JCJOJQJU55CJOJQJ 6OJQJOJQJ5CJ CJH*OJQJ CJOJQJ 5OJQJ5CJOJQJCJ D 12JK@ U     123?$7 & F & F & F$7$ 12JK@ U     123?@JK Dû~{vqlid()!"    w  :     # _`EF  %?@JK DwVW & F & F$7DwVW+,Q R !!#"$"<"="[#\#f#g#$$%|yvsmjgdakl  ./CE  8      v    $+,Q R !!#"$"<"="[#\#f#g#$$%% & &$'%'H(I( & F%% & &$'%'H(I(\)])})~)**l,m,b/c///1111222244446677*9+9;;;;<<<<=~yVKLKpqno"#23WY.I(\)])})~)**l,m,b/c///1111222244446677 / 466;;<<<==5>6>BEE F&FGGJ4J7KKKLRRSSTUUU'Y8Z9ZaZ&^>^?^@^^^^____ _ ____0JmH0J j0JU6CJ j0JU55CJOJQJ6CJOJQJ CJOJQJ47*9+9;;;;<<<<==5>6>+?,?i@j@AABBBBDDEE==5>6>+?,?i@j@AABBBBDDEE F F'F(FGGGGGGIIJJ3J4J7K8KKKL LEMFMM{vq^_ /0KL*E F F'F(FGGGGGGIIJJ3J4J7K8KKKL LEMFMMMNNMMNNNOOP>PPgQQ*RRRSSSSTTUUUU3W4W&Y'Y8Z9ZaZbZT[U[Q]R]&^'^3^>^^~{xurolj               O    ?@)NNOOP>PPgQQ*RRRSSSSTTUUUU3W4W&Y'Y8Z9Z & F  & F  & F 9ZaZbZT[U[Q]R]&^'^3^>^^_______^_______  #0P. A!"#$% [$@$NormalmH <@< Heading 1$@&5CJOJQJ8@8 Heading 2$@& CJOJQJ<A@<Default Paragraph Font2B@2 Body Text CJOJQJ<T@< Block Text nCJLC@LBody Text Indent ;5CJOJQJ6P@"6 Body Text 2 CJOJQJ,2,Header  9r , @B,Footer  9r &)@Q& Page Number.@b. Footnote Text8&@q8Footnote ReferenceH*([D   DD [         R&i06:CgMV[ qnX 4_19?I(7EN9Z_2468:<>?D%=M^_357;=@ !---->Z[[>Z[[ Urban ForumLC:\windows\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of UF response to planning green paper.asd Urban ForumLC:\windows\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of UF response to planning green paper.asd Urban Forum7C:\My Documents\UF response to planning green paper.doc Urban ForumLC:\windows\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of UF response to planning green paper.asd Urban ForumLC:\windows\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of UF response to planning green paper.asd Urban Forum7C:\My Documents\UF response to planning green paper.doc Urban ForumLC:\windows\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of UF response to planning green paper.asd Urban ForumLC:\windows\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of UF response to planning green paper.asd Urban ForumLC:\windows\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of UF response to planning green paper.asd Urban Forum*A:\UF response to planning green paper.doc1d ?N_tf, ZW 4 @#n>w' H ]Ydr;`_drujddrS+f ?kCg`}l Mip  hhOJQJo(0o() hhOJQJo( hhOJQJo( hhOJQJo(0o() hhOJQJo( hhOJQJo( 0OJQJo(- 0OJQJo(- 0OJQJo(- hhOJQJo(0o() hhOJQJo( hhOJQJo(?k@#MipS+fZW?N_`}lw']Y;`_ujd,4H1d@88̍s82[@G:Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Arial;Wingdings"qh;c;c:c iJ & Yr0da[f'Ideas re planning Urban Forum Urban Forum Oh+'0  0 < H T`hpxIdeas re planningddea Urban Forumrba Normal.dot Urban Forum2baMicrosoft Word 8.0@@ @9y@9y  iJ ՜.+,D՜.+,D hp   Urban Forum&a[j Ideas re planning Title 6> _PID_GUIDAN{D2C4CF43-26C3-11D6-9480-0050DA2A41CD}  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ACDEFGHIJKLMOPQRSTUWXYZ[\]`Root Entry F`O@Ԉb1TableB6WordDocument%SummaryInformation(NDocumentSummaryInformation8VCompObjjObjectPool@Ԉ@Ԉ  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q