http://www.onlincam.freeserve.co.uk/planpaper.html

CfPS RESPONSE

PLANNING GREEN PAPER

Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change

The Planning Green Paper has within it a few gems that are well overdue, in particular the need to tighten up the abuse of planning conditions that can make meaningless many planning decisions. However overall the proposals are a direct attack on the ability of local communities affected by adverse developments to effectively put forward their concerns in a meaningful manner.

Concerns

Business Planning Zones

Totally unacceptable to have a scheme that allows for development without planning permission.

Action Zones

These could lead to inappropriate developments being approved without sufficient consideration

Parliament to Consider Major Infrastructure Schemes

Totally inappropriate forum

Reduced Rights of the Individual

Any reduction in the ability of local communities affected by development proposals to put their case is unacceptable

Planning Officers to Decide 90% of Planning Applications

Planning decisions decided by officers rather than committee in any other than the most minor of applications and where few if any objection is made is totally unacceptable, and reduces confidence in the planning system. Allowing 90% of all applications to be decided this way is a recipe for disaster.

Speeding up of the System

The speeding up of the system will see many more communities blighted by adverse developments that would otherwise not be approved.

Business Planning Zones

We have grave concerns about the proposed 'Business Planning Zones'. These are set out at paras 5.36 to 5.38 and would require no planning permission. This is totally unacceptable and will undermine confidence in the planning system.

Although the Government proposes that such schemes will have tightly defined parameters, nevertheless it does not get away from the fact that the individual proposals will be developed without any permission. Effectively large factory units, even if they are to be used for high tech industry will be constructed, whilst householders will require either prior approval or full planning permission to carryout extensions to their homes.

This will totally undermine a process that already suffers from extensive discontent within the general population. People do not always react to schemes, they fail to see the significance until firm proposals are on the table, and they can judge how the proposal will affect them.

If we look to the continuing debacle over phone masts, there was national outcry over the fact that members of the public had effectively no say over those developments that would be undertaken under the GPDO 28 day procedure, which did not even require a site notice. This proposal will see many large developments taking place without any actual consideration of the effects on the local community, or public participation in the planning decisions, and will therefore have the same effect with people arriving home to find major developments being constructed on their doorsteps that they had no prior notice of, this will never instil confidence in the planning system.

We reject this idea in its entirety and urge every community nation wide who has ever been affected by an adverse development to rise up as a single entity and make it clear to there elected representatives that they reject this proposal.

Reduced rights of the individual

The lynch pin of the new proposals is 'speed', everything is to be geared towards the need to speed up the process. Whereas in reality even in the present system, if the development proposal is right, then the development gets approved quickly. Problems start to arise when a development proposal is so contrary to the wishes of the local community that they rise up in opposition. Or the local authority is so convinced that the development is wrong, that they refuse the application. However the greatest delays are when the developer fails to supply sufficient information, or more inquiries as to the consequences of a development occurs.

If first two of those scenarios are wrong because they delay the development, then that development is surely delayed for the right reasons and should be refused. Public confidence will only return to the planning system when they are given better control over developments within any given community. The Government argues that some planning inquiries take too long, because too many people make representations. Yet they fail to consider why that is. The vast majority of people do not complain for the sake of it, they object because they perceive that the development proposal will cause them some adverse effect, either on an individual, or community basis.

The answer is not then to reduce public input, but to increase public input in a more structured way. These proposals do not achieve this. Below we set out an alternative framework which we believe will go someway to both speeding up the actual decisions, and ensuring greater public participation. The approach is radical but fair to all parties, including developers.

The proposal to set targets for 90% of all decisions to be delegated to officers will erode public confidence in the system even further. As an advisory group to local communities we find that most people on discovering that many decisions are not made by committees but by officers to be unbelievable. CfPS is of the view that many minor, non-contentious applications can be decided by this means. However this process should not decide the majority of applications where objections have been lodged. We do though propose a radical shift in this direction, where even some minor decisions that do have limited opposition could be dealt with efficiently, but fairly through the delegation system (see below).

CfPS as an organisation specifically set up to advise local communities on planning applications is all to aware of the need for good advise to be freely available at community level. Unfortunately that is not happening, some good work is being carried out by both Planning Aid and CfPS, as well as more specialised groups such as CPRE, Open Spaces, Ramblers Association, FoE etc. However all these groups suffer from the same problem, funds, or rather the lack of them. In the case of CfPS we work on a constant shoe string, yet we still manage to advise large numbers of local communities in 4 primary areas, WEB site, Help Line, Case Work and Training Events.

The result of all this is that we are able to steer local residents away from none planning issues, to ensure their responses accord with the various regulations, that they are able to raise local awareness, and ensure that they are using the right process to put their representations on the specific proposal. This can be very important in ensuring that good decisions are made that local communities do not waste the time of planning officers, and inquiries. An example of this can be by ensuring a co-ordinated approach to planning inquiries in order that the majority are represented by a co-ordinated team, rather than dozens of individuals, although CfPS would oppose any restriction on the rights of individuals to make representation. Therefore funding for community groups can be a positive way of ensuring public confidence, in that respect see our funding proposal below. However we need to stress that there should be no long-winded scheme for allocating funds if groups are to be involved from the outset.

We doubt that the proposal to solely fund the good work of Planning Aid will be able to cope to the degree envisaged in 4.21 and 5.57. The present makeup of that group is about 600 volunteers nationally, which means there would be about 2 volunteers for each local authority area. This would be a difficult task for 2 full time paid employees, let alone 2 volunteers working in their spare time. If such a scheme were to be implemented then it would need to incorporate a wide range of advisory groups, professional consultants and government bodies (see scheme below). However we doubt if the Government would approve the high cost of this. It is our view that they will make big noises, allocate funding to a few select groups who cannot possibly cater for the real needs of the community, in other words there will only be lip service paid to an advisory service for local residents and communities.

Planning Conditions

There are some very good proposals contained in the green paper, particular those relating to enforcement. CfPS and local communities have a constant battle with local authorities attempting to persuade them to take enforcement action, in some cases on quite major infringements. This again is held in disbelieve by local residents. 20% of all case work for CfPS involves breach of condition notices, and persuading local authorities that it is in the interests of good planning to carry out enforcement.

However it is no good simply saying as the Government are proposing, that businesses are ignoring planning conditions so we will reduce them, and do away with them altogether in certain developments. Planning conditions are traditionally used to allow developments to take place that would not otherwise be allowed. By removing them, or reducing them will allow even more developments to have an adverse effect upon the quality of life of nearby residents. An example would be where in order to reduce noise levels late at night a condition is imposed that restricts working hours. By removing the condition the Government would be subjecting those communities to untold suffering from unacceptable noise levels, potentially 24 hours a day.

The Plan Led System

The present system of putting into place local plans is totally out dated, is long and inefficient, all of this we agree with the Government, where we come at odds is with the proposed cure. It is illogical that a system that now takes up to 10 years to implement can be reduced to a few months. Although the proposed new system will be a totally new baby it is still to serve the same basic function. Public confidence will not be put into a scheme that reduces their rights to have their say.

The new system whilst reducing the number of tiers which CfPS believes is well overdue will effectively reduce the ability of the local community to have meaningful input into the decision making process. CfPS firmly believes this is contrary to good policy, will create further mistrust of the system and generally be of detriment to those communities affected by adverse developments.

Yes a system that simplifies the complexity of the present system will be welcome. However not if the public are not allowed to have real input, especially if some of the other proposals will effectively be decided within this process, such as Area Master Plans and Business Planning Zones. These wide coverage planning approvals need careful scrutiny and full participation by the communities affected, not lumped together with policy structures that are decided with little consultation.

As such we reject in principle the proposed new plan led system. Although we believe that some parts of the proposal would give the basic start to a better system. The whole new process appears to be more concerned with ensuring businesses are able to carryout development, whereas it should be more concerned about preserving the fabric of existing communities, and catering for their needs.

Delivery Contracts

These are in our view totally unacceptable. The majority of decisions that take a long time are due to outside influences. Either the developer fails to supply sufficient information, in some instances the LPA has to make more than one request for further information. If a contract was setting the date, then unless this allowed for the unexpected it would mean that some decisions would unjustifiably be rushed at the expense of a quality decision.

Repeated Applications - Twin Tracking - Time Limited Consents

The proposal to do away with all these tactics used by developers is well overdue, they all discredit the system therefore their removal will be applauded. To allow more than one application to go through the system at the same time has been a scandal for many years. Developers have used these processes to good effect, on occasions actually using the system as a means of putting pressure on a local authority that might be concerned at the high cost of an appeal that has been launched,

Planning Appeals

We do not see how effectively a planning inspector can pick up a planning application where work is half completed and then finish the work. The Inspector will need to judge the application on its merits, he cannot do that if he is prevented from investigating parts of the application, this could result in very confusing decisions, and is likely to besieged with problems.

CfPS is totally opposed to any moves to allow decisions to be made on infrastructure projects by Parliament, which clearly is a totally unsuitable forum. Time is always tight in Parliament to consider any debate, let alone introducing more time consuming debates. It boggles the mind to see how a planning inquiry lasting several months can be reduced into a few hours of parliamentary debate. Where few if any witnesses are called, and virtually no opportunity to make oral presentation to Parliament by members of the public, even if they do have a supportive Member of Parliament their case is not going to be given the degree of consideration that it should.

As Parliament is deciding the question the ability of domestic courts to hear applications challenging a decision will be reduced, therefore ever more challenges will need to be made to the European Courts, thereby potentially delaying developments longer than if the applications were considered by the present public inquiry process. It is the view of CfPS that the system will have little public support or confidence.

Whilst we believe that mediation does have a role in minor applications. It has little role where there is a public inquiry. If the main parties to an inquiry agree what is in dispute and the inquiry is restricted to those areas of concern, this would effectively prevent the public from raising other issues that may well be vital to the communities affected. CfPS therefore has grave concerns relating to mediation in any thing other than minor applications with few objections.

Third Party Right of Appeal

CfPS is disappointed that the Government is not to instigate third party rights of appeal. Local communities have to live with the consequences of adverse development decisions, they should therefore have full rights to challenge decisions that have been inappropriately made. Time after time CfPS has to advise local community groups to look to challenging adverse planning decisions by judicial review. Where ever this process is used it means that legal aid funds the application, or where members of the community are not able to obtain legal aid then they have no recourse to redress what are quite often blatantly wrongly decided applications
(see alternative proposals below).

Campaign for Planning Sanity (CfPS)

The Green Paper request that information is supplied on the organisation submitting the response, below we set out a brief description of the work of CfPS, followed by an outline for an alternative proposal.

CfPS is a voluntary organisation set up specifically to help local communities make representation on planning related issues. However unlike Planning Aid who are effectively town planners, CfPS is membership organisation made up of community groups and local activists concerned about planning issues. We operate 4 primary help schemes:

A comprehensive WEB site containing what will eventually be a one stop shop of campaign tools on planning, including briefings, legislation, links to other resources and so forth;

Help Line, where local communities can obtain practical help and advice;

Training Workshops, these consist of day or weekend courses in general and specific topics, such as public inquiry procedure, including mock inquiries to allow those likely to be participating in inquiries practical experience, as well as a basic knowledge of the system;

Case assistance, where we guide the local community through each stage of the process, giving assistance with compiling documents and letters, help with representation, and where appropriate expert witnesses.

Our advise lines are open to all, however we do not get involved in personal disputes, only those developments that affect the wider community. We make no charges for any help given, although some of our courses require a minimum donation to cover costs (currently £15 per day course). However we have a membership scheme with at present 108 local community groups affiliated. Funding is strictly by donation, however we are in the process of making an application for lottery funding.

The Alternative Proposals

Developers often spend a number of months, and even years preparing for a planning application, yet once submitted the whole complex issue is expected to be considered, consultations take place and the decision made within 8 weeks, or 16 weeks where an EIA is concerned. The Governments answer to this is to say that the time limits should be speeded up, which is nonsensical, albeit they go on to say that some consultation should take place prior to the application being submitted. CfPS would instead propose a two stage decision process, the first stage would be the formal lodging of the application followed by all the consultation process, the second stage the decision process.

The benefit of this is that during the first stage the developer would be able to respond to any suggestions or criticisms, thereby dealing with many of the concerns of statutory bodies, the local community and local authority. Unlike the Governments proposal to put some of the consultation process on the shoulders of the developer, the co-ordinator of the consultation would be the LPA. However the developer would be in full control of the time allotted to the consultation by being able to declare that the proposal was ready to be forwarded into stage two.

Stage two would assume that all consultations were complete to the satisfaction of the developer and would move forward smoothly. However there would remain the right of third parties to make written representations to the LPA, as well as improved rights of audience before the deciding committee. This second stage would be decided within the 8 week period.

There would be no need for additional time for consideration of EIA matters as these would be dealt with in the first stage. However if a developer choose to take the matter into stage two without fully completing the EIA or consultation process he would run the risk of the authority refusing the application on the grounds of insufficient information.

This scheme would not allow for further alteration during the decision making process. As all issues that needed addressing would already be addressed during stage one, the actual decision process would be speeded up, few if any decisions would exceed the 8 week period. Whilst at the same time the developer would be able to put his outline proposals into the consultation process before he finalised his plans, thereby potentially speeding up the overall time before a decision.

Far too often incomplete plans are submitted only to see them have to be altered over and over again, this scheme would prevent that by ensuring that all those with an interest in the development could lodge formal representations for consideration. However the first stage would not be a forum for consideration of outright objections, these would simply be forwarded into stage two. Stage two would look at a completed proposal, it would and should then be considered on its merits.

Many local authorities now have area forums that consider planning applications this is a good and positive way forward that should be extended to all local authorities. The councillors on these area committees are normally the ward councillors for the area concerned and therefore are more likely to have a greater understanding of the needs of the area, as well as the concerns of the local community. We would suggest that all stage two applications should be decided in this way, except those that affect a wider area, in which case these would be taken forward to the borough wide planning committee.

Area committees due to the smaller number of applications before them have more time available to consider applications, we would therefore suggest that the time allocated to speak in extended. Many local authorities only allow the public to speak for 2 minutes, whilst some have a comparative generous 5 minutes. However when it is considered that many developments have a profound affect on the lives of local residents for years to come, 2 or 5 minutes is totally inadequate to allow justice to be seen to be done, or to give confidence in the decision making process. Many ordinary people are not used to speaking in public, therefore nerves can account for the first minute of a two minute speech, thereby effectively leaving the resident one minute to put their case across. As such we suggest a 10-minute slot, or a combination of 20 minutes per planning decision for opponents, and a further 20 minutes for supporters, where several people wish to speak on an application, the individual speakers being allocated a proportionate amount of time.

We welcome the proposal to award funding to advisory groups to members of the public, especially as this is the sole reason for the existence of CfPS, which is the lack of sound advice to local communities. CfPS welcomes the advice offered by Planning Aid to local communities. CfPS would hope that we would be given the opportunity to make out a case for similar funding. There are also many commercial organisations that offer limited free, or reduced fee advice to community groups, we have particularly in mind organisations such as EarthRights Solicitors. In view of this we would put forward a basic idea for the better distribution of funds in order to directly relate to the numbers helped.

The basic idea for the scheme would be based upon the ability of members of the public being able to gain vouchers that could be exchanged for advice. These vouchers would be able to be pooled in order that controversial developments would have a greater ability to engage professional/voluntary advice and assistance. This scheme would go some considerable way to speeding up controversial proposals by reducing the numbers of actual participants. If for instance a development received 500 letters of objection (which is a regular occurrence) then by these 500 local residents pooling their vouchers they could purchase professional advise, therefore the LPA is dealing with a single representative, who in turn would only be submitting valid planning considerations, thus saving valuable time of the case officer, and reducing the number of submissions that decisions-makers should take into account, whilst at the same time ensuring that the local community had the best available help in putting forward their submissions, whilst still allowing those more able to put forward their own representations.

The biggest problem for local communities is that they do not become aware of development proposals, or they do not become aware of the significance of the proposal until it is actually submitted and publicised. The above proposals would partly deal with this. However we are very concerned about a number of the proposals that will effectively allow blanket planning decisions, in particular the scheme found in para 5..36 to 5.38 Business Planning Zones. These will see many local communities disenfranchised from the whole planning process, even if the original scheme is advertised its significance for the local community might not be recognised.

The Government are putting considerable weight to the need to ensure that the local communities trust the system. Then go onto say that 90% of applications should be delegated to officers. From our experience of working with local communities this aspect seems to astound them that their decision is not going to be considered by the committee. This single procedure does more harm to the credibility of the planning system than any other single issue. Whilst we accept that some planning decisions of a minor nature can be decided by officers, we submit that this would be more beneficial where objections are made if the decision is decided by oral as well as written representations. This could easily be achieved where the officer effectively acts as an arbitrator hearing the applicant and any objections orally, and then giving the decision. However we suggest that such a scheme would not be suitable for proposals with more than a small number of objectors. But it would be seen to be more open, even if it required greater resources, nevertheless a planning officer could hear a number of these applications in a session, much as a district judge will hear many applications in the county court during a day. The decisions would be instant, but with the potential for an added safety of appeal to the area committee.

As many of the proposals for plans are effectively politically motivated the idea of an independent inquiry is attractive. The present system has two many tiers, proposals can be put forward, put out to public consultation, with the result being put to an inspector. If then that inquiry was conducted on the same lines as any other planning inquiry, the public and all other bodies would be able to make representations to the inquiry. Thus the local authority would put to the inspector the proposals, and others would make alternative proposals, it would for the inspector to sort the wood from the chaff and then make a formal decision, in a reasoned way similar to decisions of the Planning Inspectorate, but with the right of the Regional Assembly to reserve decisions to themselves in appropriate circumstances.

We support the idea of core policies, if they are capable of being supplemented by more detailed policy guidance, especially where specific types of development are involved, in order that consistency is better achieved. If the core policy sets the scene, then guidance will ensure more accurately that applications can be decided consistently, but would relate only to local circumstances, as an example the need to preserve locally areas of land for wildlife corridors. The guidance would bear on the makeup of those corridors, their likely locations, and the degree of protection.

The outline planning procedure is out dated and allows far to many developments to be approved in principle that would be rejected if full consideration was given to the proposals. If our two stage scheme outlined above was adopted then of course the outline procedure would be obsolete in any event. However even if the present system was retained we would still argue that the outline system should be scrapped. However we are equally opposed to it being replaced by some other format that allows the principle of developing a site without full consideration of its effects. This is particularly relevant where EIA is involved. We therefore propose that all permissions should be detailed permissions.

The Green Paper dismisses every potential appeal that could involve local communities. However CfPS believes that there is a simple solution to allowing planning appeals by simply attaching to third parties the right to apply to a district or county court judge for leave to appeal. This would be cheap, fast and effective. The applicant would need to persuade the court that there was an arguable case, if the judge granted leave then the appeal would pass as normal to a public inquiry.

As rules could be set on time limits for applying, and that in most county courts a hearing can be arranged relevantly quickly this would cause little if any delay to the process. The public would see this as a positive step forward and give them greater confidence in the system. Yet only those cases that did indeed have a prospect of success would go onto approval.

CfPS - December 2001