This article represents a personal view but one which appears to be shared by many others.
The Planning White Paper entitled 'Planning for a Sustainable Future' (Cm 7120) comprises 221 pages plus photographs, homilies, rhetoric and a few self-congratulations. It does not resemble white papers of the past which were terse, to the point and unequivocally stated policy in specific terms and clear English. Nevertheless it is better than the equally lengthy Communities White Paper which represented an exercise in confusion.
The purpose of the Planning White Paper is given in the Forward, under the imprint of four Secretaries of State, as '…to streamline further the process of town and country planning, improve the ability of local authorities to shape their local communities and ensure that there is a stronger approach to supporting sustainable economic development alongside work to tackle climate change in a way that is integrated with the delivery of other sustainable development objectives'. In reality the paper is primarily about a more centralised way to deal with major infrastructure projects in which local government and local communities will have significantly less influence in decision-making. The proposal is to establish an Infrastructure Policy Commission with overriding powers over all major infrastructure projects. The effect may well be to adversely impact on the natural and built environments. A large number of national conservation and civic charities have called for government to reconsider its proposals for 'speeding up' the planning and building of projects such as motorways, ports, waste incinerators, runways, reservoirs and supermarkets, which are contained in the white paper, so far without affect. Cm 7120 is,
inter alia, in response to recommendations in Kate Barker’s 'Review of Land Use Planning' and Rod Eddington’s 'The Eddington Transport Study'.
It would appear that the White Paper has been constructed without benefit of a rigorous analysis of the facts, governance, systems of public participation and the development planning process. It is fatally flawed for the following reasons.
- The focus by Barker and Eddington as sole authors is too narrow for subjects of considerable breadth and complexity, despite consultations.
- The alleged delays in the planning system are based on misconceptions.
- Current practices regarding community involvement as introduced by government are ineffective, top-down and not democratic.
- Successive government interventions have made the planning system more complex and bureaucratic.
- The relationship between the planning system and economic growth appears to have been misinterpreted.
- Whatever the intention, proposals in the White Paper represent a further centralisation of decision-making.
Complex, multi-objective issues such as those addressed by Cm 7120 need an inter-disciplinary and inter-departmental approach such as that afforded by a Royal Commission or some such structure rather than by individuals who appear to share the preconceived views of government.
Major delays are mostly the result of practices by developers or other initiators and not the planning system as experience shows. These include time-tabling to accommodate the rhythm of development financing or for purposes of negotiating a more beneficial planning permission (to the developer), as Taplow Parish’s experience with Cliveden illustrates.
Major infrastructure projects and supermarkets require very careful consideration if they are to be compatible with economic, social and environmental desiderata. Consultation should not be truncated.
Delays to public infrastructure projects are mostly to do with the internal procedures of the initiators. Central to the government approach would appear to be the view that the planning system is for the benefit of the developer: a major misconception; it is to ensure that the community at large and future communities enjoy a balanced economic, social and physical environment which is sustainable.
On community involvement HTPS is particularly concerned with that involving parishes and parish communities. Planning Policy Statement 1 saw parish and town councils as pivotal using the parish plan as a vehicle for dialogue and consensus. The role of parish councils was the subject of a statement by the, then, Minister for Planning at the 2006 NALC conference who stated 'Local councils are the cornerstone of democracy…I believe the role of town and parish councils is essential. There is a genuine intention of enablement from the government…'. In the event, regulations under SI 2004 failed to support policies in PPS 1. Neither Cm 7120 nor the Communities White Paper rectifies this situation. As a result, arrangements for parish level engagement is limited to a top-down, tick-box form of consultation in which output and outcome are under the control of district or county. The point to be made is that proposals under the White Paper which limit consultation start from an unacceptably narrow base at the local level. Democracy is largely dependent on provision of checks and balances. The effect of this White Paper is to remove a significant number of both.
Cm 7120 gives the impression that the planning system constrains economc growth, contrary to the statement in PPS 1 that planning delivers significant economic benefits. The national economy is represented by more than financial and fiscal factors. Society, social issues, the environment and the spatial organisation of all these are integral parts of the economy. Research has shown that sustainable economic wellbeing is equally dependent on environmental, social and locational issues as on financial and fiscal issues. The paper would suggest that government sees the former as overriding the latter. Unless all factors are given appropriate weight, which is the prime purpose of the planning process, the economy as a whole will suffer, which would appear to be the end result of current policy.
There has been a dramatic shift to centralised control over the past two decades. This has been achieved through government procedures, financial controls and somewhat spurious forms of management and even more spurious forms of monitoring and evaluation. The proposals represent further centralisation and limit effective community involvement. This appears to be contrary to government statements made elsewhere.
However there is a good argument for the formation of an Infrastructure Policy Commission but its role should be for rationalising and coordinating infrastructure projects cross-departmentally and for purposes of assisting parent departments who should remain the executive authorities but committed to the implementation of rationalised and integrated projects. It should not be promoted as a super-department, the like of which have failed in the past and which duplicate effort, set aside existing expertise, complicate working arrangements and increase costs. Current procedures for community and departmental involvement should be retained. In my view, the Planning White Paper, as it stands, is unacceptable on grounds of good governance, effective planning process, economy of working, public participation and the effective involvement of parish and town councils for purposes of reaching consensus.
Bernard Trevallion
