Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE 21ST CENTURY

The potential of planning to serve sustainable development

1. The Round Table sees sustainable development as a dynamic process. The term 'development' implies change, progress, the potential for improvement. 'Sustainability' adds to that concept the idea of durability. And that in turn implies that the change must not only be economically viable but also environmentally and socially successful. This paper outlines the Round Table's view on how sustainable development can be achieved by and influenced through the land use planning system in the future. The principles outlined apply to all the planning regimes of the UK but, for the purposes of illustration, the examples used are largely drawn from England.

2. The land use planning system has a crucial part to play in securing sustainable development. The creation of new buildings and changes in the use of land shape the physical world of the future and influence the way people will live their lives in it. The planning system is one of the few current mechanisms which clearly links national goals with local ones; which gives an opportunity for issues to be examined 'in the round'; and which allows, indeed encourages, public participation in decision making. These positive existing traits of the system reflect the concept and process of sustainable development. It is important that they are retained and developed further, and are transferred into other planning regimes.

3. The planning system has always had two main processes:
   • the creation of development plans, in which planning authorities set out the vision and proposals for the future development of their areas, including managing growth and change (and latterly seeking to ensure a more sustainable pattern of development), while taking into account the views of local people, landowners, developers, infrastructure providers and bodies offering specialist advice; and

   • development control, through which planning authorities ensure that for individual proposed development and changes in the use of land the private interests of developers (usually the economic leg of sustainable development) do not prevail unreasonably over the public interest (where the focus is more often on social and environmental considerations).

4. To operate effectively, these two processes should be interdependent. Development plans should be a framework for a positive and proactive approach to managing development for delivering the planning authority's vision for its area, and as the touchstone for development control. Put another way, development control decisions should not be arbitrary; the development plan is the policy that provides for consistency in decision taking. Expenditure priorities should be closely linked with development plans.

5. In theory, therefore, the planning system has the potential to be a fundamental instrument in the achievement of sustainable development - not least because of its role in setting a long term vision for our world, and controlling development that does not fit that vision.

Three major constraints

6. In practice, however, the picture is rather more complicated. For a start, local planning authorities are not masters of their own destiny. The national governments play a significant role in the preparation of plans by local authorities (for example with respect to how much new housing is to be provided for). They also decide individual applications in cases they call in (often economically significant applications) and in cases that aggrieved applicants bring on appeal against the local planning authorities' decisions. Just as at the local level, these interventions in the process should not be arbitrary either. National planning policy guidance therefore aims to give certainty about how the Government will secure the national interest where local planning authorities cannot do so. National planning policy guidance should have sustainable development at its heart (as should the planning system as a whole), not as a bolt on extra.

7. A second complication is that the vision set out by planning authorities cannot be delivered by private sector investment alone. However much development control helps to ensure that individual, private sector-led developments contribute to sustainable development objectives, much development that society needs (eg sufficient social housing) does not happen without public investment. Yet, public investment is managed through almost unrelated processes, at both the national and local levels. Some Government funded developments in fact run counter to sustainable development goals.

8. A third complication is the existence of other controls, often operated by bodies other than planning authorities. One of the most powerful strengths of planning, as a deliverer of sustainable development, is the discretion in the hands of decision takers to weigh all the aspects of the development - social, economic and environmental - in reaching a decision. That discretion can be constrained by other more detailed codes and regulatory regimes. The building regulations, for example, warrant investigation to examine whether they can be further revised to force the pace of change towards truly sustainable building construction.

9. Those who seek to reform the planning system to secure more sustainable development need to bear in mind these critical relationships with the systems for allocating public investment and with other development control regimes, at the national and local level.

Positive plans or incremental control?


10. Within the planning system, the relative importance of development plans and development control has varied over the last fifty years. During much of the 1970s and 1980s, the regulatory emphasis of the system seemed to become dominant; planning authorities became more reactive (as their scope to make public investments became constrained) while central government appeared to undermine the local role through its decisions on appeals and the introduction of a raft of central planning guidelines which local authorities could ignore only at peril of having costs awarded against them by the courts.

11. The positive planning element was regarded as somewhat suspect, and likely to be less successful in shaping the future than allowing market forces to take more of the lead. Market forces are very good at identifying and delivering relatively short-term economic benefits (hence the repeated complaints when decisions take a long time). But they cannot be relied upon to deliver the social and environmental components of sustainable development, except where those components contribute to the profitability of the development itself. Nor do they necessarily deliver the best long-term outcomes - realisation of the community's vision.

12. The 1990s have seen an attempt to reverse the balance between plans and control, with the requirement for all planning authorities to provide comprehensive land use plans for their whole areas, and the requirement for their decisions (and those on appeals) to be "plan-led". Even so, it is not the plan that engages the public most today, but development control decisions. Greater public concern about the impacts of individual developments, case by case, makes it ever harder for the planning system to fulfil its potential as a major shaper of sustainable development - facilitating a better society ten or twenty years in the future.

13. National Parks provide a good illustration of this. Since the 1950s, national park authorities (largely appointed by the national government) have operated a very tight development control regime to protect the environmental assets in the national interest. In doing so, they have generated a great deal of hostility among the local inhabitants. It is only now, after several decades, that people are beginning to make the connection and to see that environmental protection brings with it long-term economic gains. It has required this long-term vision of the National Parks to emphasise that the environment is an economic asset as well as being important in its own right.

14. The Round Table welcomes the attempts that have been made to secure a longer term vision to guide decisions on where and how to develop, but notes that those who own the system often find it hard to look beyond the immediate planning application. The system remains reactive and fails to inspire people and developers to work together for a sustainable society. Politicians say they are not motivated by the development plan system because they don't feel 'ownership' of it. The business community says it is frustrated about the planning process because the development plan process can seem impenetrable and it fails to engage them as stakeholders, and because development control decisions are often slow and appear to be capricious.

    A new vision for planning
    

15. Overall, the Round Table believes that it is time to develop a new approach to planning, which would start from a process of rigorous consultation. Decisions need to be taken at the most appropriate level of competence (eg Heathrow Terminal 5 by the national government; location of major housing development by district planning authorities; minor changes of use by parish councils). At regional and national levels new ways of engaging the interest of the public will be needed. At local government level, the planning process can use active community-led processes to identify the kind of community (and its physical manifestation) that people want to see evolve in the next twenty years. It would go on to guide, encourage and incentivise communities and developers to work within the spirit of this plan, rather than seeking to drive ahead on their own lines against the spirit of sustainable development or the plan.

16. A more inclusive approach is just one way to help local authorities set out a vision for their communities in their plans. Various techniques have been developed for community involvement in generating visions for their area, including as part of the Local Agenda 21 process; these deserve encouragement and more explicit linkage with the development plan process. The proposed community planning process could provide a powerful local mandate for the land use planning system. The Round Table believes that formal links should be established between these two planning processes, and this should be central to the Government's community planning proposals when they emerge. To date, many development plans have tended to lack vision, merely extrapolating past trends. The possible real gains that can be made through land use change and development have often been ignored or marginalised. A more inclusive approach could help to rectify these shortcomings.

17. The guiding instrument for these approaches should be a new duty for local authorities in respect of sustainable development, which the Round Table and others have urged. We welcome the provisions of the current Local Government Bill (clauses 2-4) which take a step towards this, including a power for authorities to enter into partnerships with other bodies which could be significant in the context of the Royal Commission's study. But we have urged the Government to go further, and to:
    • give local authorities the principal purpose of promoting the long term economic, social and environmental well being of their areas in an integrated way, thereby contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK as a whole;

    • require authorities to prepare sustainable development strategies for promoting the long term economic, social and environmental well being of their areas;

    • give authorities a broad power to do anything necessary to promote the economic, social or environmental well-being of their areas, having regard to sustainable development;

    • require authorities to report on the effectiveness of their sustainable development strategies and the exercise of their power.

18. How these powers and strategy should be integrated with the planning system is a key issue. As the Round Table conceives it, the sustainable development/action plan should not be a replacement or substitute for national planning guidance, regional planning guidance, or development plans. It should inform and guide them at the appropriate level. It should also guide and influence all the other relevant functional and spending plans of local and national government. The Round Table believes that a sustainable development strategy should be the central strategy, and the focus around which political leaders seek to establish consensus on key actions which can be taken forward with major developers as drivers for change in their areas.

19. A stronger role for positive land use planning will also require some stronger tools to deliver positive results - tools for land assembly and decontamination, tools to ensure that developments address all the local social and environmental impacts they impose, economic instruments to discourage greenfield development where suitable brownfield sites could be made available, and more imaginative building regulations to force the pace of change towards truly sustainable buildings.

    Issues for consideration by the Royal Commission
    

20. We have identified a number of ways in which the current planning system fails to deliver its potential to promote sustainable development. These are set out in the annex. A number of issues arise from them which we suggest the Royal Commission could usefully address in its study; these are set out below, with letters corresponding to the sections of the annex.

21. The Round Table invites the Royal Commission to consider the following problems and ways of addressing them:
    1. Lack of connection between vision and practice
       How can the public acquire a better understanding of the need for positive planning and sustainable development - that which improves the long-term quality of life? How can people, including the business sector, be more involved in the creation of a vision for their area, one which they can influence and share? And how can local authorities be encouraged to prepare development plans with greater vision, drawing on Local Agenda 21 and local sustainable development strategies? What role can community planning play? How can politicians be encouraged to take more interest in the delivery of that long- term vision through an integrated approach embracing planning and all the other instruments at their disposal, particularly given the relatively short timeframes of political office?

    2. Planning guidance not reflecting the sustainable development agenda
       How can national planning policy guidance be brought up to date as soon as possible to ensure it is promoting best practice for sustainable development? The subject-by-subject approach currently taken is fragmented; better integration is needed. It should say more about positive measures that planners can use to promote sustainable development; focus on national policy, leaving regions and local authorities to interpret these; and enable local authorities' own ambitions to deliver sustainable development to vary with local priorities as expressed through Local Agenda 21. This should complement and develop some of the initial work on good practice for sustainable development that the Government has published, eg Planning for Sustainable Development: Towards Better Practice

    3. Decisions not taken at the right level of competence
       What can be done to ensure that decisions are taken at the right level of competence? How does the Government set out its strategic policy and planning policy for major infrastructure provision? Should all such policies and proposals be subject to strategic sustainability appraisal? At the other end of the spectrum, how can ways be found for more (local) decisions to be taken locally?

    4. Inappropriate trade-offs, eg between environmental assets and economic gains from development proposals
       How can the planning system avoid trading off nationally and internationally important environmental assets for lower order economic gains? (see suggested decision making model, section d of Annex). How can the planning system more effectively assess cumulative impacts of different proposals in different local authority areas? Is there a need for an economic appraisal of development where it would affect assets of national and international importance as part of wider policy appraisal? Could an approach, whereby developers would be required to compensate for lost social or environmental assets, be embodied in the development plan process, and subsequently through planning permissions?'

    5. Lack of integration between land use plans and public investment policies
       Are changes needed to direct public investment towards projects which promote sustainable development and to lessen the extent to which public funds promote environmentally damaging proposals. How can the priorities of government be implemented by public spending and land use planning operating in tandem? Might the two be better integrated by requiring that public funds should not be applied to development that does not accord with the development plan, thus giving the plan at least the same weight in guiding public as private investment?

    6. Lack of integration between land use plans and other controls
       How might land use planning and other systems of regulatory control be made more complementary?

    7. Technical failures of the planning system
       What are the priorities for reviewing perceived technical failures of the planning system?

    8. Culture of the development professions and control systems
       How can the development professions and those involved in making planning decisions: gain better understanding of the issues involved in sustainable development; and be encouraged to innovate and to promote best practice for sustainable development? Would beacon projects be helpful in stimulating a wider appreciation of design issues? Is there a possible role for the new Mayor of London and of other major cities in encouraging a more visionary approach to their cities' development?

       In a broader context, will the proposed 'well-being' power to be given to local authorities (see para. 17 above) help achieve sustainable development in their areas and contribute to a more integrated approach to resource management, or would a more far-reaching duty be more effective? ^[1]

1. Lack of connection between vision and practice
   The planning system is designed to serve the public interest. We should expect those who operate it to develop a vision for their area, in consultation with those they represent and others with an interest - business and service providers. Once that vision is finalised, it should guide decision taking. Yet how many people are aware of what the development plan is, let alone what it might mean for their quality of life? More disturbingly, how many councillors embrace the plan as describing how they want their place to be in ten or fifteen years? In practice, despite the rhetoric of the plan-led system, the plans we are drawing up are failing to inspire.

   Political leaders, national and local, set out visions for society in their manifestos. These then drive their devotion of energy and resources. They do not see a new set of national planning guidance, or a revised development plan, as being a necessary part of the process for delivering their vision (or rather their visions, for this is a diverse and dynamic process with no single vision dominating or lasting). Even if they did, the process of revising guidance and plans takes so long that frustration would quickly set in. The professionals who operate the planning system promote the development plan as a comprehensive and detailed outcome. But they cannot act responsively enough to meet the political needs of those in whose name the system operates: Ministers and councillors. By the time the plan process is completed, the politicians in power may have a different agenda.

   The land use plan is not following through as part of the implementation of the political vision. It is being created independently so there is no political buy-in to the process or the outcome. Indeed, many councillors stand for election after campaigns against individual controversial developments, not to create a better plan. So it is not surprising that people do not see the relevance of development to creating a better society. Instead, they can be forgiven for adopting NIMBY attitudes and seeing development control (the reactive part of the process) as the sole purpose of planning.

   Planning should be more positive and proactive. Planning authorities should plan for the environmental, economic and social well-being of their communities and be less dominated by the control-based approach of the 1980s and 1990s. The planning system should encourage authorities to plan to manage demand and manage change.

   We invite the Royal Commission to consider how the public can acquire a better understanding of the need for development to improve the long-term quality of life: sustainable development. People need to be more involved in the creation of a vision for their place which they can share or influence. Then, at the national, regional and local levels, politicians need to take more interest in their ability to help deliver that vision through an integrated approach embracing planning and all the other instruments at their disposal.

2. Planning guidance not reflecting the sustainable development agenda
   Much of the planning policy guidance series is now considerably out of date and it is fragmented. It is lagging behind the Government's sustainability agenda and this needs to be rectified urgently. Some guidance notes are up to date while others are based on philosophies and commitments of previous Governments. In England PPG1 does set out sustainable development principles, but it is in urgent need of updating ^[i]. The lack of integration between guidance notes, and between the notes and other aspects of policy guidance, results in contradictions which may be exploited in the planning process, for instance at public inquiry. Examples include the advice in draft PPG12 on water resources as compared to PPG11's narrower focus on water supply in its issues chapter (although water resource considerations are included in the appraisal process section, para. 2.31 - an internal inconsistency in PPG11), and the application of advice on 'best and most versatile agricultural land' in PPG7 as compared to national biodiversity priorities for habitat re-establishment.

   Guidance particularly needs updating to accord with the Government's sustainable development strategy A better quality of life. Respondents to the consultation strategy Opportunities for Change identified the need for better recognition of sustainable development in the planning system. Minerals Planning Guidance also needs better to reflect this agenda, especially the 'prudent use of natural resources' which is one of the four Government objectives for sustainable development. Such changes will complement and develop some of the initial work on good practice for sustainable development that the Government has published, eg Planning for Sustainable Development: Towards Better Practice.

   There is a need for local strategies which focus on local issues, but which reflect national guidance.

   We invite the Royal Commission to consider how national planning policy guidance can be brought up to date, as soon as possible. It needs to reflect the new sustainable development agenda and other environmental progress in the last 10 years, such as the UK Biodiversity Action Plan process and various EU Directives on environmental and social matters (and, in due course, the changes to be introduced by the Countryside, Amenities and Conservation Bill). It must be more cohesive and integrated if sustainable development is to be truly delivered through the planning system. It needs to say more about positive measures that planners can use to promote sustainable development. It needs to focus on national policy and leave regions and local authorities to interpret these at more geographically confined scales. For instance, should national policy really prescribe a desired end use for barn conversions across England (PPG7)?^[ii] The net result should be less, more focused guidance of greater clarity.

   In reviewing the guidance regime we invite the Royal Commission to consider whether the split between guidance and technical detail, envisaged when the series was originally introduced, needs to be re-introduced, with technical detail issued in circulars? Alternatively, are there benefits to be gained from keeping these together in one format, as a 'one-stop shop' for planners, developers and the public, with much clearer differentiation between guidance and technical matters in the text? Should the guidance focus more on general principles, with detail provided in further statements, possibly in a loose leaf format that is more readily updated, or as good practice guidance? Is there merit in producing an overarching national planning strategy that binds more detailed guidance together, as is presently under consideration in Scotland?

   Government policy should apply mainly to national decisions which it should take itself, only constraining local authority freedoms where necessary in the interests of strategic policy aims. That would enable local authorities' own ambitions to deliver sustainable development to vary in accordance with local priorities as expressed through the Local Agenda 21 process, local sustainable development strategies, etc (see next section). The Royal Commission might wish to consider whether the PPG series in England, and other series elsewhere in the UK, are prescribing too much detail for local authorities or whether they are restricting themselves to legitimate matters of national interest, that is nationally important development and approaches that require national consistency, such as the sequential tests for housing and retail development?

3. Decisions not taken at the right level of competence
   The planning system sometimes fails to have decisions taken at the right level of competence.

   For example, at one extreme it is hard to see how the decision on Terminal 5 at Heathrow Airport could be anything other than a central Government decision. Moreover, people are entitled to expect that the decision is not arbitrary, but is taken against a framework of Government policy which explains how such decisions can contribute to national priorities.

   At the other extreme, many minor development control decisions are essentially no more than local. But this does not mean they should be merely subjective. They, also, need to be decided against published policy, which should be a local responsibility, and which gives reasonable certainty to developers. That policy should aim to deliver an outcome for that local community that can secure ownership and involvement of all stakeholders, within the framework of national and regional policy.

   There are currently failures at both ends of the spectrum.

   Absence of national strategic policy on major infrastructure provision (eg major airport or seaport expansions, renewable energy developments) means that the public inquiry system has been brought into disrepute. Local inquiries are forced to debate national policy issues in a policy vacuum, which is essentially a political short-coming. At least in this regard, criticism of the speed and efficiency of the planning system is misplaced. Delays in decisions on major projects are unacceptable, but may rest at the door of Government, not that of the inquiry system

   The Government has accepted the need for change (Modernising Planning: Streamlining the processing of major projects through the planning system). It is also committed to a ports strategy and an Airports White Paper, although these have yet to be published. Their publication should be an urgent priority if the strategic vision and policy direction, required for all parties when dealing with major development proposals in these sectors, is to be delivered. The Heathrow Terminal 5 Public Inquiry dragged on for years because of this lack of strategic policy direction. The forth-coming major development proposals at Dibden Bay, Port of Southampton, which are likely to be submitted both as planning applications and harbour revision orders, have been in preparation for nearly three years, partly due to a policy vacuum. They are clearly of national importance in relation to UK ports' competitiveness and the transport implications (Southampton is essentially a port for the south and midlands), and the site-based economic, environmental and social implications, all need to be seen in a wider context.

   It is worth noting that the proposals in Modernising Planning carry some risk of curtailing public involvement in decisions of principle, and need to be considered carefully from this perspective. Whilst Governments are elected on a platform and the public legitimately expect policies to be pursued by them, major development can be improved through consultation and this should not be neglected.

   We invite the Royal Commission to examine how the Government sets out its strategic policy and planning policy for major infrastructure provision and provides political leadership. By clearly setting out its policy, through a consultative process, the Government can equip the public inquiry system to deal with issues efficiently and effectively. The Royal Commission might also consider whether all major infrastructure policies and proposals should be subject to Strategic Environmental (or Sustainability) Appraisal and follow the same ground rules as set out in d below.

   At the same time we invite the Royal Commission to consider whether there are ways in which more decisions could be taken locally, for example by removing the excessively detailed central government control over development plans and looking for a more locally-based alternative to planning appeals. This might include a right for citizens to challenge approvals given against the local development plan.

4. Inappropriate trade-offs, for example between environmental assets and economic gains from development proposals
   Some planning decisions fail to recognise the level of importance of an environmental asset and 'trade' this asset for development of lesser importance. For example, some nationally and internationally important wildlife sites are sacrificed for development that is, at best, of regional significance, and sometimes of just local significance. This is often the result of strong local political pressure to create jobs and the lack of local political pressure to retain nationally or internationally important biodiversity. Such decisions often display failure to take a long-term view.

   Assets of international and national importance should be identified strategically and given the highest level of protection appropriate to their scale of importance. This means strong, robust and unambiguous policies to protect them from both direct and off-site effects, including in national planning policy guidance, Regional Planning Guidance (where applicable) and development plans. Decisions should be made at the appropriate level, as it is unfair on planning authorities to subject them to intense local political pressures when the principles of the decision are regional or national (see c above). When local authorities do determine development proposals, they should fully understand the environmental importance of assets affected and follow strategic policy - it is often an issue of implementation.

   This problem is compounded by public funding for infrastructure projects, as the 'in principle' decision on subsidy is often taken independently of that on planning (see section e below), and sometimes precedes it. Political momentum creates a major, and sometimes insurmountable, obstacle to objective consideration of the environmental/economic trade-offs. Current examples across the UK include the Cardiff Bay Barrage, the Cairgorms Funicular Railway (Highland), the threat to Lough Foyle from expansion of Derry City airport and threats to Rainham Marshes in East London.

   A further problem comes from 'salami slicing' of the natural environment: that is, reaching decisions which result in loss upon loss of habitat etc, each of which in itself may be small in scale but which in combination are significant. The planning system has a strong tendency continually to 'balance' conflicting demands and to see the date of the latest development proposal as the start of the balancing process. There is little sense of historical perspective, of the compounding effect of successive decisions, which in the case of lowland heath and intertidal habitats, for example, has resulted in dramatic losses.

   We invite the Royal Commission to examine a new approach under which determining authorities permit development which would have a significant detrimental effect only where no alternative is available, and it is clearly demonstrated that the benefits of the development outweigh the disbenefits. We suggest the following as a model approach to considering potentially damaging development:

   • have a clear understanding of the environmental, social and economic importance of the assets affected, and the potential impacts (including cumulative effects) of development, through the use of a sustainability appraisal;

   • avoid adverse impacts wherever possible; search for alternative solutions (including the 'do nothing' option), and for non-damaging or less damaging locations;

   • where no alternative is available, seek a clear demonstration that the benefits of the development outweigh the disbenefits;

   • where development proceeds, reduce adverse impacts through the use of mitigation measures

   • if adverse impacts will still occur, compensate^[iii] wherever possible; and

   • always seek opportunities positively to enhance through development.

   Quite often, the economic importance of development is over-stated, for example the number of jobs promised does not materialise. One solution to this could be to require an economic appraisal for development which would affect assets of national and international importance.

   As development will sometimes impact on the social and environmental capital of an area, one approach the Royal Commission might usefully consider would be to place a clear obligation on the developer to replace, or compensate for, lost assets, according to their significance. This might be achieved through the concept of 'developer obligations', in place of 'planning gain'. The aim would be to use the development plan to explore and define the things a development must supply to deal with its impacts on the community and environment where it takes place. Involvement in the plan process is essential to give the approach legitimacy with the public, developers and the Planning Inspectorate. Without this framework, developer contributions will be seen as opportunistic. The methods pioneered for dealing with environmental capital show how this can be done, and no further legislation is needed: just a revision of Circular 1/97, which we understand is being considered. The plan could then guide decisions that incorporated conditions or obligations to deliver a better society overall, in which choices had been properly debated and which reflected national and local priorities. It would also help to ensure that developers addressed such issues at the project design stage, rather than as a late 'add on' when problems were identified.

5. Lack of integration between land use plans and public investment policies
   Too often, the public investment of central and local government seems strangely at odds with plans and planning policy guidance. This contrasts with the expectation that private sector investment must be in line with the plans. The public and private sectors should be treated on a par.

   For example, at the same time as introducing a Sustainable Development Strategy and Planning Policy Guidance designed to reduce the need to travel, the Government embarked on several new major hospitals on greenfield sites, which would effectively impose car-based commuting and working patterns for a whole generation of visitors, patients and health service staff. This is partly as a result of the Government's approach to the Private Finance Initiative, which does not reflect the sustainable development agenda.

   The same can be true at the local level. In Cheltenham, an old maternity hospital site has been reused to co-locate five multiple GP practices from North Cheltenham. This is undoubtedly more efficient for the health staff, and enables specialists such as chiro-practors to serve the practices jointly. But it requires most people to come by car, adding to urban congestion and pollution (and potentially social exclusion), whereas previously they could walk.

   Lest it seem that it is only the health service that fails to abide by central and local planning guidance, it is instructive to look at the failure to provide affordable housing in the countryside. Many people seek to blame the planning system for this, and promote ever more detailed mechanisms for linking affordable and market housing (in the hope that the latter is sufficiently profitable to pay for a few affordable units). In fact there is a clear need for substantial additional public funds to provide housing at prices families in the countryside can afford locally. The planning system should back up such funding by helping to identify the best sites for such development.

   Potentially similar mismatches between expenditure priorities and land use policies arise at regional level, in the context of the new Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). The Round Table report Sustainable Development - Devolved and Regional Dimensions addresses these issues, and we are continuing to encourage an integrated approach. We plan to hold a conference on 23 February 2000 for senior policy makers in the RDAs and other regional bodies. The Round Table believes that the establishment of the RDAs provides an opportunity to move further towards achieving sustainable development in practice, and that their success in doing so is critical for sustainable development in England. If this is to happen, the RDAs must act within the spatial strategy set out by emerging Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) and within the national strategy provided by the White Paper A better quality of life. RDAs should demonstrate how, through their Regional Economic Strategies (RESs), they will contribute to the national sustainable development strategy. And they should work together with regional chambers, planning conferences and round tables, and other stakeholders, to integrate regional plans within a framework of sustainable development. They will have a key part to play, with those other bodies, in the preparation of Regional Sustainable Development Frameworks (RSDFs). The RDAs' own RESs need to be mutually reinforcing with the RPGs and RSDFs. RPGs should set out a vision for the future of the region and the part that all stakeholders can play in helping to achieve it.

   The key to delivering sustainable development in the regions lies with the action plans which will flow from the RESs. These must be rooted in the concept of sustainable development and should draw on the above framework in setting priorities for expenditure and other action. Regional indicators of sustainable development, linked with targets, are also essential as a means of measuring progress and initiating changes in policy. The regional conference will address these and related issues. We shall send the Royal Commission a record of proceedings.

   We invite the Royal Commission to consider how the priorities of national and local government, and of regional agencies, can be implemented by public spending and land use planning operating in tandem. Public investments - national, regional or local - should be made only where they can be shown clearly to be part of the implementation of the plan or guidance relevant to that level. The Commission could investigate the issue of compatibility of RESs and RPG and explore how sustainable development can best be monitored in the regions.

6. Lack of integration between land use plans and other controls
   In the previous section we identified the need for planning, as a form of regulation, to complement public spending, as a more effective way of achieving government objectives - national and local. Planning is not the only form of regulation, but it is the main form subject to political decision taking. As a result, those who operate the planning system sometimes attempt to use it to achieve objectives which pertain to systems which central Government has placed at arm's length from elected members -eg building regulations and environmental controls.

   One example of this is the lack of integration between building regulations and development control, for instance with respect to energy efficiency standards. Another is the Government's insistence that traffic control policies have no place in local plans. Wind energy proposals offer yet another example. Many of the windiest places are in our finest landscapes: the National Parks and AONBs. In these areas strong Government policies presume against such prominent development. Yet the DTI, which controls wind energy development, has issued licences to companies proposing turbines in just these locations, presumably because they would provide the best economic return. The result has been a battle between regulators, and meanwhile we are not getting the early investment in wind energy that might enable us to create a domestic turbines market and generate new jobs in clean technology, as well as reduce CO2 emissions.

   We invite the Royal Commission to consider how better to knit together the various regulatory regimes. There is, inevitably and correctly, much greater discretion and political influence over land use plans and development control than over the codified approval of the building regulations and various forms of pollution control. All these control systems should nevertheless work in a reasonably consistent way.

7. Technical failures of the planning system
   The planning system is still dogged by a number of problems that could best be described as technical failures or failures related to implementation. The following examples are indicative of these and illustrate some options for more effective resolution that lie outside formal planning controls.

   A good example is that of old minerals permissions. These have been subject to review under the Minerals Act 1985, as amended by the Environment Act 1995. This is welcome, if rather overdue. Many are now recognised to be inappropriate and damaging. Some 220 SSSIs are directly affected by 370 old minerals consents (of which some 240 are active, although this figure includes geological sites). Powers exist to revoke minerals permissions where they are no longer deemed to be acceptable, but compensation rights apply to the operators. There is now a will amongst some mineral planning authorities to revoke some of these damaging permissions, but the financial resources for compensation are not available. Revocation could be achieved either by resourcing local authorities to pay the compensation liable or by changing the compensation rules, eg by introducing a shorter time limitation for all consents. There is also the potential to deal with some through innovative negotiations with co-operative operators, for example through 'land-swaps'.

   Another perceived failure is the inability of the planning system to find suitable alternative uses for listed buildings when their former use ceases. This can result in a stalemate where the building begins to deteriorate, but the planning authority will not grant permission for an alternative use that would allow investment into the upkeep of the building. In some cases landowners will not release the building and cling onto it in the hope that it will deteriorate to such an extent that they will be permitted to demolish it and develop the site more intensively. The planning system is also unable to act when any sound building that is capable of alternative use lies empty, nor when an extant and necessary planning permission is unimplemented (but is regularly renewed), for example for residential development. Is there scope for using rating or compulsory purchase regimes to encourage owners to use their building stock more effectively, whether listed or not?

   Some local authorities are also guilty of clinging onto 'outdated' land use strategies in their plans in the face of contrary prevailing market signals and to the detriment of other potential development. For example, the Government has signalled its concern that many local authorities 'protect' employment sites in their plan where there is very little prospect of such development coming forward and the release of these sites for housing would assist it in meeting its target for accommodating housing on previously developed sites.^[iv]

   There is another clutch of issues to do with agricultural buildings and activities. In our report Aspects of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Policy, the Round Table recommended that "The Government should introduce requirements for full development control on all agricultural buildings and on the carrying out of excavations or engineering operations for the purposes of agriculture". The report addressed some other aspects of development control and agriculture, and we commend it to the Royal Commission, but the subject is much larger than we could fully address even in that study, let alone now. The Commission could explore the extent to which certain agricultural proposals might be captured by processes which include assessment of their potential environmental and social impacts.

   We invite the Royal Commission to consider these and other technical issues of development control, and to advise on how the system could be subjected to an overall review to address and so far as possible resolve them. Are these problems of the planning system itself, or of people's expectations of what the planning system legitimately ought to be able to achieve? Can we remedy such problems through more effective operation of the system, or should we be looking for non-land use planning mechanisms to support planning objectives that cannot be achieved through planning controls alone - eg greater resources to enable revocation of inappropriate planning consents or compulsory purchase to bring empty built stock into productive economic use? How can we ensure that the planning system facilitates and promotes moves towards more sustainable development and doesn't stifle legitimate change?

8. Culture of the development professions and control systems
   "One of the key political challenges of the new century is to make Britain's towns and cities not just fit to live in, but thriving centres of human activities. There is no single solution and we need co-ordinated action based on joint principles of design excellence, economic strength, environmental responsibility, good governance and social well-being^[v]. There are significant 'cultural' barriers to co-ordinated action for sustainable development, within the development professions and the systems that control the development process.

   Real change will be very difficult to achieve unless better training in, and under-standing of, sustainable development issues is provided to a wide range of players. We need an enhanced skills and knowledge base for planners, engineers, architects, building controllers, the Planning Inspectorate, councillors, and ideally the public. Many planners, and elected representatives in particular, have little or no training in the design and technology of the built environment. As a result they can frustrate efforts to produce sustainable or innovative design. Proposals that are familiar are approved, although they may be badly designed in sustainability terms, whilst schemes which attempt to do something different can be rejected because of decision makers' lack of 'comfort' with and understanding of what is being proposed.

   Another potential barrier to achieving sustainable development is the rather narrow concept of zonation which characterised much traditional land use planning, and whose legacy is still evident in many development plans. In particular, zonation to separate commercial and residential activities made sense in an industrial society seeking to minimise the impacts of noise, pollution etc. With technological advances and the changed nature of the industrial economy, sustainability may now be better served by mixed developments with associated reductions in energy consumption and the need to travel. National planning guidance now recognises that provision of more mixed development would help drive changes to living and working patterns. But this is not yet well reflected in development plans, apparently as much due to the 'culture' of those involved in land use planning as anything else.

   In other European countries, notably the Netherlands, there has been substantial public investment in researching and trialing innovative building styles and techniques. Local authorities here should be enabled to play a key role in facilitating sustainable development through funding innovation. In the 1960s and early 70s there were many examples of such initiatives, including The Ryde, Hatfield where the county and district councils enabled a low cost mixed use sustainable development to be built through a number of financial and planning measures; this innovative model development retains a strong community spirit with a very low turnover of residents. There is clearly a major financial issue here but, even were local authorities to be given a more creative role and resources to match (as advocated for example in the report of the Urban Task Force), big attitudinal changes would be needed in order for them to add real value.

   We invite the Royal Commission to consider how best to bring about the necessary changes in the culture of all those involved in the planning process, and how to encourage more good practice. In the latter context, they might consider the prospects for beacon projects to stimulate wider appreciation of design issues. We also see a possible role for the new Mayor of London, and in due course of other major cities, in encouraging a more visionary approach to their cities' development. Visioning' exercises based on public participation could help create community-led changes and lead to experimental demonstration projects to test and disseminate good practice in creating sustainable developments.

^[ii] PPG7 The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development, February 1997, para 3.15

^[iii] "Compensate" here refers to provision of alternative related economic (including cash payment), social or environmental assets. The cost of this would have to be built into the budget for the project from the outset.

^[iv] Draft PPG3 Housing, March 1999, para 33 v John Prescott's Preface to Towards an Urban Renaissance, Final Report of the Urban Task Force, DETR London 1999 ISBN 185112 165 X

^[v]John Prescott's Preface to Towards an Urban Renaissance, Final Report of the Urban Task Force, DETR London 1999 ISBN 1 85112 165 X

Back to Index of comments on the scoping of the Environmental Planning Study