September 2001
Introduction
The planning system in the UK is failing. It is failing to deliver
for business, which wants a robust economy with strong infrastructure
and access to a ready supply of skills. And it is failing to deliver
for the wider community in terms of the environment, housing and community
infrastructure. That is the message from Chambers of Commerce across
the country, who tell us loud and clear that planning reform is at
the top of their agenda.
The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) welcomes the announcement
of a forthcoming Green Paper on reform of the planning system and
the Secretary of State's statement that 'this will not just be about
the mechanics of the system... (but) a radical overhaul'1. Far too
often, the current system fails to reconcile the many conflicting
priorities and demands it is designed to guide between, thus failing
to deliver effectively for the economy, environment or indeed any
sector of the community. It can be a slow and bureaucratic system,
burdened by excessive policy from above and delivered with various
degrees of quality below. From a business perspective, the system
often acts as a barrier to economic growth, impacting adversely both
on individual companies and the overall productivity of the UK.
The BCC strongly believes that we need a planning system that works
for Britain - in a positive rather than restrictive fashion. The planning
system of the future needs to be flexible and enabling, able to respond
to the evolving demands of the business sector, which operates in
a world economy, but is based within our local communities. It needs
to deliver more certainty to applicants, minimise conflict and be
more transparent and cost-effective. If the Government does not deliver
this, it will have missed a huge opportunity, with damaging implications
for British business.
As our contribution to the debate, the BCC has prepared the following
brief, based on the observation and analysis of Chambers of Commerce
and illustrated with case studies. Its aim is to help guide the Secretary
of State over the coming months in the decisions taken about the future
shape of our planning system.
Please note that as planning is a devolved issue, this paper refers
primarily to the planning system in England. However, many of the
comments and recommendations are also pertinent to the planning systems
of Scotland and Wales.
Whose plan is it anyway ?
The BCC is supportive of the principle of a 'plan led' system,
but believes that it needs fundamental reform. Ideally, a plan-led
system should provide an effective mechanism to define planning aims
and priorities and give greater certainty to planning applicants.
However, the reality is that far too many tiers of government are
involved in the production of plans, each attempting to force the
system to deliver its priorities. We have a system where the national
government issues Planning Policy Guidelines (PPGs), the regions produce
Regional Policy Guidance (RPG), county councils produce structure
plans and unitary and district councils produce development plans.
This panoply of different policies, produced and reviewed at different
times and with their different rounds of consultation, has led to
a complex and confusing picture. In the worst cases, policies work
against each other, with no clear steer available for the business
applicant. Too often this leads to uncertainty and higher business
costs. In others, one tier of guidance/plan comes under review just
as a lower level plan is being adopted, rendering it if not out of
date, at least less relevant. Chambers also worry about the lack of
coherence at regional level. In some areas, Regional Assemblies have
taken over the task of producing Regional Planning Guidance. In others,
separate regional planning conferences still exist. In both cases,
there is usually insufficient integration with Regional Economic Strategies,
Regional Skill Strategies and the actual work programmes of Regional
Development Agencies.
BCC Key Recommendations
The BCC calls upon Government to:
1. Radically reduce the number of national Policy Planning Guidance
Notes and Mineral Planning Guidance Notes. The Government should confine
its guidance to giving a broad steer about planning policy. Retaining
the current 40 separate detailed documents is unacceptable.
2. Give responsibility for producing Regional Planning Guidance to
Regional Development Agencies. Regional Planning Guidance and Regional
Economic Strategies should be produced in tandem and be complementary.
3. Confine Regional Assemblies' power to scrutinising draft Regional
Planning Guidance and making recommendations prior to it going out
to wider consultation. Ensure sufficient business membership of the
Regional Assembly and provide adequate planning expertise for members
to draw upon.
4. Ensure policies at the edge of regions are complementary, particularly
where a development site straddles boundaries. In these cases, planning
briefs should be drawn up, which are agreed upon by all agencies and
incorporated into relevant plans.
5. Clarify the role of the Mayor of London in planning decisions.
At present, developers are uncertain about which applications are
likely to be deemed 'strategic' and therefore subject to Mayoral interest.
This is leading to increasing developer uncertainty and adding to
business costs.
Development Plans
An up-to-date, coherent and locally-owned development plan is
the bedrock of a successful planning process. The BCC believes local
development plans should reflect current economic (better title?)
conditions, be sufficiently strategic in the policies they contain
and, crucially, be flexible enough to respond to evolving business
needs. Unfortunately, however, far too many Chambers of Commerce still
report inflexible, intransigent plans, that insufficiently recognise
the need of the business community, attempt to designate land-use
for every square metre of land and are wedded to out-of-date assumptions
about industrial trends and employment needs. The traditional problems
of out-of-date development plans and lengthy review processes remain
- and are still very serious. However, the BCC considers the key challenge
to be injecting greater flexibility into the development plan process,
so that they are able to evolve and respond effectively to the needs
of the future.
BCC Key Recommendations
To modernise local development plans, the BCC calls upon Government
to:
1. Require planning authorities to keep their development plans under
constant review, rather than full periodic replacement. Although time
consuming, this is the only way in which plans will be able to reflect
evolving local circumstances. It will also avoid the major upheaval
of a new plan every ten years.
2. Make plans far more strategic and enabling. The scope of plans
should be confined to strong policies on thematic issues, such as
office space, employment land and green space, plus policies on key
geographical areas such as town centres and industrial parks. Plans
should be more enabling, setting out a range of options that might
be considered for particular areas. The temptation to allocate land
uses to every square metre of land must be resisted. This is likely
to render the plan out-of-date very rapidly.
3. Shorten plans and make them readily accessible to the general public.
4. Integrate local transport planning with the development plan process.
Ensure that the aspirations of the local transport plan and Regional
Transportation Strategy are reflected in and supported by the development
plan.
5. Publish and widely publicise the process for continual review and
the stages at which particular policies will be considered and the
opportunity for public involvement.
6. Give the planning commissioner the power to fine planning authorities
that fail to have an up-to-date development plan in place.
Planning Regeneration
Regenerating our cities, towns and rural areas is a key plank of Government
policy and is strongly supported by the BCC. The planning system should
be a key mechanism to make this a reality. At present, however, efforts
to achieve this are too often undermined, rather than supported and
delivered, by local planning policy. There is a lack of integration
between local regeneration objectives and planning policy (let alone
planning decisions), too little consideration of the economic benefits
of potential development, a muddled and uneven understanding of the
term 'sustainability' and inadequate information/forecasting of the
future social, economic and industrial trends that will shape England
in future.
BCC Key Recommendations
To tackle this strategic deficit, the BCC calls upon Government
to:
1. Bring the timetable for the production of local development and
community plans together. The BCC recognises that this will not be
appropriate for the community plans being adopted in 2002, but should
occur in future. Consultation should occur on both in tandem and their
aims and objectives must be complementary.
2. Ensure that the emerging neighbourhood renewal strategies are supported
by local and regional planning policies. Local Strategic Partnerships,
charged with producing and overseeing future Neighbourhood Renewal
Strategies, should comment upon and formally endorse local development
plans.
3. Ensure far better baseline information about the current business
and residential communities when preparing planning policies at both
regional and local levels.
4. Similarly ensure far better quality forecasting about future business
locational needs, employment requirements, industrial trends, etc,
in order to plan effectively for the future. RDA research information
should not only be reflected in Regional Policy Guidance, but should
also be shared with local planning authorities. Chambers of Commerce
and the Small Business Service must be consulted about future business
locational needs.
5. Require local authorities to prioritise major applications that
have significant regeneration, including economic and employment,
benefits for an area. As these tend to be more complex and timeconsuming,
some authorities may be tempted to deprioritise them in order to meet
the 80% processing target.
6. Regularly require economic impact assessments for major development
proposals. These should flag up the key business and employment opportunity
benefits and disbenefits to the local community, including local businesses.
7. Ensure that all reports to planning applications committees contain
a section explaining the regeneration/economic implications of a proposed
development and any link to the community plan.
8. Ensure local authorities adopt a consistent and accurate definition
of 'sustainable development'. Too many local authorities ignore economic
sustainability in favour of a purely environmental interpretation.
9. Bring local planning authorities, RDAs and business bodies together
as a task force to develop planning briefs for key employment/industrial
areas.
10. Streamline the compulsory purchase order (CPO) process. Give RDAs
the power to help fund land assembly in order to undertake large scale
regeneration work.
11. Give RDAs the responsibility for approving local development plans.
Planning Performance
A key concern of Chambers of Commerce is the performance of planning
authorities in deciding planning applications. At present, the Government
target is for planning authorities to decide 80% of applications within
eight weeks. The BCC considers that there are a number of underlying
factors that explain such poor performance. The most obvious of these
are poor management, chronic underfunding and difficulty in recruiting
and retaining planning officers. Measures to improve these areas are
outlined below.
The BCC would be very concerned, however, if the emphasis on reaching
targets encouraged local authorities to prioritise the less strategic
or controversial applications in order to meet the performance indicator.
This could lead to delays in deciding the most important applications,
which are likely to be disproportionately from the business community,
thus increasing business costs. (See recommendation eight and the
key recommendation below.)
BCC Key Recommendations Management
The BCC calls upon Government to:
1. Better use the best value regime to improve performance. In particular,
businesses and potential developers should be better involved in the
'consult' stage of the best value process.
2. Use the new regime of public service agreements to drive up performance.
Introduce tough floor targets for development control, plus allow
greater freedom for successful local authorities to experiment and
innovate in delivering the service.
3. Encourage planning authorities to streamline internal procedures
in the processing of applications. This must include improved procedures
for the registration, processing and decision of planning applications.
The best value process must be more focused on achieving this aim.
4. Introduce greater clarity to the consultation process. An increasing
pressure for more consultation can result in slower decision making,
without necessarily better opinion gathering. There should be clear
policies setting out the approach to consultation.
5. Increase delegation of planning applications to officers for decision.
Although strategic and controversial applications should continue
to be decided by the planning applications committee, more delegation,
against clearly defined guidelines, should be encouraged in order
to speed decisions.
6. Streamline access to the planning department for applicants. This
in turn will help performance by reducing telephone calls, discussions
and application times.
7. Ensure against planning departments prioritising simple applications
in order to boost performance figures. This is likely to impact adversely
on the business sector, which is far more likely to be the sponsor
of more complicated, time-consuming applications. This should be guarded
against by adopting separate business application performance indicators,
plus internal and external auditing procedures.
Funding
It is clear to the BCC that too many planning authorities are
chronically underfunded. Part of the issue is that planning is a service
that needs to be available to all, but is only accessed by individuals
and businesses on occasion. In comparison to services such as education
or benefit administration, it can be low profile and, as a result,
runs the risk of lower political priority and being subject to financial
constraints.
To combat this, the BCC calls upon Government to:
1. Examine the current system of planning application fees. Offer
applicants for large-scale developments the ability to pay an enhanced
application fee in return for a better quality of service. If this
standard of service was not forthcoming, the fee would be returnable.
2. Examine the possibility of local authorities charging for pre-application
discussions with large developers. These early discussions should
be encouraged to increase certainty of planning outcome. However,
they are currently not subject to a fee and there is no incentive
for the planning authority to participate.
3. Keep planning fees for the majority of applications affordable.
In most cases these will be small, straight forward and uncontroversial
and a much larger fee would be unacceptable. Similarly, there should
be no charge for standard advice and information.
4. Planning authorities should not be able to charge higher application
fees or for
pre-application discussions if there is out-of-date development plan.
Developers, large or small, should not be charged to gain information
through discussion that should be available in the local development
plan.
5. Use the best value regime to examine financial performance. Reward
success through greater financial freedom, particularly through public
service agreements.
Recruitment
Chambers know through experience the importance of dealing with
good, well-trained planning officers. Unfortunately, in some parts
of the country - particularly London - there is a growing shortage.
Without a sufficient number of planning officers, all efforts to improve
performance will be undermined.
The BCC calls upon Government to:
1. Introduce a fast-track professional route for the planning profession;
borrowing from the experience of teaching.
2. Central government to fund 'golden hellos' for planners joining
particular hard pressed planning departments.
Planning Transparency
Planning is a quasi-judicial function of a local authority. However,
it can also be highly political, in that a development plan will reflect
national, regional and local political priorities and that both officers
and members may be lobbied on individual planning applications. Chambers
believe that the planning process functions best when there is transparency
and accountability and where party political processes are put to
one side.
The BCC believes there are three (?) strong elements to increasing
transparency. The first is to ensure that the process is as non party
political as possible. The second is to clarify consultation procedures
and the relationship to decision making and the third is to increase
access to quality information.
The BCC calls upon Government to:
1. Introduce an obligatory system of training for both full members
and substitute members of planning application committees. This should
take place in regional centres and should not be left to planning
authorities to organise.
2. Produce far clearer guidance to councillors about the implications
of Nolan and, in particular, when and how they should and should not
speak to applicants. At present, there is a vast difference in the
attitude of members across local authorities, making it particularly
difficult for larger companies progressing simultaneous applications
in different areas.
3. Encourage planning authorities to put development plans, supplementary
planning guidance, planning briefs and details of planning applications
on-line prior to the Government target of 2005. Similarly, provide
the ability to access advice and apply on-line. However, current information
access points should be retained as many smaller businesses are not
yet Internet enabled.
4. Local authorities should produce clear policies setting out their
approach to consultation, including what they expect developer applicants
to undertake. This must include clear timetables for consultation,
clarity about methods of obtaining information and making comment
and a commitment to providing quality feedback.
5. Planning authorities must recognise that businesses are not just
represented as developers, but should also be important consultees.
In relation to major developments, local Chambers of Commerce, as
well as other business organisations should always be consulted.
Planning Contributions
Planning gain (s106 agreements) has always been a contentious issue.
The BCC believes that asking for a contribution towards costs associated
with a development is legitimate. However, there exists significant
confusion about what constitutes 'legitimacy' and the level of contribution
that can be expected. Sadly, some local authorities still abuse their
position by insisting on planning obligations that are completely
unrelated to the proposed development, making it in fact the 'price'
of a consent. The majority of smaller businesses will not understand
s106 agreements and are likely to feel pressured to contribute, leading
to potentially significant and unwarranted business costs.
The BCC calls upon Government to:
1. Provide much clearer guidelines to planning authorities about the
scope of planning gain and the process of negotiation with developers.
2. Produce a leaflet available nationwide to be presented to applicants
explaining about s106 agreements and what they should and should not
expect.
3. Give the planning commissioner the power to judge whether a s106
request is unreasonable.
4. Provide the commissioner with the power to warn and, in extreme
cases, fine local authorities that persist in making unreasonable
demands.
5. Require local authorities to produce a clear set of policies, which
should be available as part of the local development plan.
6. Require local authorities to monitor better the use of planning
gain to ensure that contributions are spent on the purpose for which
they were required and within the timescale agreed. An annual account
of s106 agreements should be produced and made publicly available.
7. Require local authorities to make clear to developers from the
outset the nature and scale of the s106 agreement that they would
expect. There should be no nasty surprises.
Planning Enquiries
Planning appeals and public inquiries can be time consuming and
costly for business. There has been considerable publicity around
the Heathrow Terminal 5 inquiry - the longest and most expensive in
history. However, this is not the only example of a planning decision
being held up by the planning process. The BCC is therefore supporting
the proposal to hold debates in the House of Commons about the most
important strategic infrastructure proposals prior to the planning
process or Transport & Works Act Order proceeding. This is likely
to give far more certainty and speed up the delivery of works essential
to UK economic wellbeing.
BCC Key Recommendations
In addition, the BCC calls upon Government to:
1. Remove the power to 'call in' applications from the Secretary of
State and London Mayor to the planning commissioner. If the most important
applications are subject to a Westminster debate prior to the planning
process commencing, this should diminish the number of applications
subject to call in.
2. Give an indication far earlier in the process about whether call
in is likely to occur. At present, developers do not know whether
this will happen, leading to uncertainty about business costs.
3. Once call in has occurred, the speed of decision making process
should be significantly increased. Speed should be improved by inquiries
having far tighter terms of reference.
4. Ensure that planning authorities provide firm reasons as to why
an application has been turned down on refusal, plus information about
the appeals process as a matter of course.
Planning for Business
The BCC believes that the above agenda will produce a planning
system fit for the twentieth century. This section brings together
the BCC's key recommendations on planning reform.
The BCC calls upon Government to:
1. Appoint a national planning commissioner, responsible for the planning
system.
2. Radically reduce the number of national Policy Planning Notes and
Mineral Planning Notes and ensure that the timescale for the review
of plans across tiers is complementary.
3. Move the responsibility for Regional Planning Guidance to Regional
Development Agencies to be produced in tandem with Regional Economic
Strategies.
4. Make development plans shorter and more strategic. Keep them under
continual review.
5. Integrate development plans with local transport plans and regional
transport strategies.
6. Produce development plans and community plans in tandem so they
are complementary.
7. Give the planning commissioner the power to fine planning authorities
without up-to-date local development plans.
8. Require planning authorities to require Economic Impact Assessments
that make clear the impact (including benefits) of new development
on businesses and local residents.
9. Require planning authorities to prioritise applications of major
economic significance.
10. Streamline compulsory purchase orders and give RDAs the power
to fund land assembly.
11. Inject a stronger performance management culture to development
control departments through the best value regime and floor targets
linked to public service agreements.
12. Ensure greater clarity in the consultation process, so that both
applicants and consultees know what to expect in terms of timescale,
process and feedback.
13. Recognise that businesses are not just developers, but also consultees.
Make sure Chambers of Commerce are consulted on all major applications.
14. Streamline access to planning departments for applicants, including
more use of IT.
15. Allow developers the ability to opt for an enhanced service at
a higher fee rate.
16. Boost recruitment, by introducing a fast track professional route
for planners.
17. Set up regional training centres for the obligatory training of
planning application committee members.
18. Provide far greater clarity about planning gain and give applicants
the ability to appeal to the planning commissioner about unreasonable
planning obligations.
19. Support proposals to introduce a Westminster debate on the most
strategic proposals prior to the commencement of the planning process.
20. Remove the power to 'call in' applications from the Secretary
of State and London Mayor to the planning commissioner. Provide a
much earlier indication of when 'call in' is likely to occur.
1 Speech by Stephen Byers, Secretary of State for Transport, Local
Government & the Regions to the Institute of Policy Research,
26 July 2001
Planning for the Future: The BCC's Priorities for Planning Reform
The British Chambers of Commerce,
Manning House,
22 Carlisle Place,
London
SW1P 1JA
Tel: 020 7565 2027
Fax: 020 7565 2049
Email: k.mchugh@britishchambers.org.uk
