Planning
Green Paper "Delivering a Fundamental Change"
Response from Luton Friends of the Earth 18 March 2002
____________________________________________________________
The Seven Principles of Public Life (Nolan committee definitions) are
Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability,
Openness, Honesty and Leadership.
In our view, if the proposals in this Green Paper were to be implemented, there would be a stronger likelihood that these principles would be compromised.
Such major changes in our planning system, which has long needed reform in a different direction to that proposed, merited a longer consultation period; the short time given reflects the general attitude in these proposals towards the views of the ordinary citizen and the already overstretched voluntary sector.
A new hierarchy appears to be the dominant force behind this paper, which, contrary to the Seven Principles above, is clearly influenced unduly by business interests.
The key principles of Sustainability, Protecting the Environment, and Community Needs, which at the start of this government, the Deputy Prime Minister said should be at the heart of all decision-making, no longer seem to be of prime importance.
Indeed, one might imagine from this paper that in the minds
of the writers, Sustainable Development has turned into Sustained
development (with less consultation and reduced power for the individual
to make a difference).
This view is poles away from the Rio Summit principle of leaving the world a better place for our children. The authors of this response have engaged in the Agenda 21 process begun in Rio, and find the prospects presented by this Paper disturbing.
It also flies in the face of the new plans for Strategic Assemblies and Community Strategies (4.7), which appear designed to tie people up in small projects and allow them to vent off steam without being able to change anything. Whereas Local Development Frameworks (4.8) would be designed to speed up major developments. While the current hierarchy of regional, county and local plans is complex and confusing (4.35), the proposed system is fraught with dangers. Transferring strategic planning issues to a subregional level (4.37) has prevented South Bedfordshire getting an integrated and strategic transport system.
Regional Spatial Strategies (4.42) are insufficiently explained, but the message appears to be a worrying one: that the power to make planning decisions at county level will be taken away to be made by non-elected people in regional bodies. More help to resolve strategic issues on a joint basis by neighbouring local authorities (4.49) can only be done with the full involvement of all affected communities - and this is not mentioned here. This applies to all major projects.
If Government is prescribing too much at the national level (4.58), it is often doing so in favour of business and at the expense of the health and quality of life of ordinary people - for instance, it has seriously underestimated the effects on communities of mobile phone masts.
It is stated that there has been a failure historically to provide sufficient guidance on the Government’s policies for delivering the country’s major infrastructure needs (4.58) - this certainly applies to rail, which the whole country believes needs far more help than road. Light rail is also demonstrating considerable success in reducing car use wherever it is introduced, Croydon being a good example.
To provide business with greater certainty (4.9) is to threaten democracy. Business applicants may complain that the planning system is insufficiently responsive to their needs (5.3). But so do ordinary citizens in ever greater numbers when an application affects them directly. Those that they only realise later to be a problem need to be guarded against. Thanks to email and the web, people are no longer remote from planning and decision-making processes - they understand all too well what is going on, and know that any fundamental change must not favour business interests.
This short-cutting of the planning system would be short-changing the vast majority, and would not make for satisfied and engaged citizens. There is already a profound sense of disempowerment (2.5) among citizens of all political persuasions. Much needs to be done to restore civic pride and ownership of people's surroundings. Yet instead of encouraging greater co-operation, the threatening underlying feudal and confrontational element to these proposals would make things worse.
We would strongly advise that the voting public is given not only more say but more involvement and power than this Green Paper would permit - the new century is the time for more pparticipatory government.
Ministers often talk of open government. These ideas would openly remove power from citizens, and allow their legitimate concerns to be ignored. Fast-tracking and regionalising planning in the ways proposed would reduce the opportunity for people to discover what local and central government had in mind for their environment, frequently with knock-on effects for their health. It would not be open - it would shut them out.
The problem is not the small applicant who wishes to add an extension. It is the big schemes. Distinguishing business from householder applications (2.10) is simple;
but 'a fundamental change in planning so that it works much better for business', when the private citizen has little say or redress already, is alarming. Who is to assess the impact of permission for development in Business planning zones on nearby citizens, and decide where controls can be lifted because 'they are not necessary'? This would open the way to abuse.
Businesses frequently abuse planning conditions, so it is
necessary to improve enforcement.
Application procedures could be improved, eg careful assessment of
vehicle movements that would take place, and the previous record of a company.
Paras 2.10 and 2.11 appear to contain incompatible opposites.
If we need the planning system to be delivered in a way that is sympathetic to our environment and that benefits the whole community (1.7), capable of reaching decisions that command public confidence and seen to be open and fair (1.8), these simply cannot be rushed through without proper assessment and consultation.
It would be against "Nolan" principles to determine 90% of planning applications under delegated powers - it should all take place in public.
In very few eyes indeed is the planning process perceived to be a set of rules aimed at preventing development (2.4). For thousands of affected residents, the reverse is usually true. Development control is a misnomer. We agree Local Plans are too long (4.5), but this mainly concerns repetition and jargon. It is astonishing the time and trouble council officers take updating plans when they frequently ignore them, particularly when they wish to put houses on employment land or when they wish to ignore the Nature Conservation Strategy.
The odds are stacked in favour of the developer, who can submit endless revised applications, or, unlike the individual, may appeal, which could involve a council in a costly and time-consuming hearing, a third of which are allowed. (3.10) When an unwelcome development comes along, the only recourse open to a council may be to take time to research legal options and defer a decision, hoping the applicant will tire of waiting and withdraw. So if only 65% of applications are determined within 8 weeks (3.8), this may reflect a number of responsible councils doing all they can to protect their citizens. Most people do not know about developments that threaten their environment or way of life, let alone object within the statutory two or three weeks. If we cannot continue with Plans that can take 5 years to adopt (4.5), we cannot continue to allow developers to cause blight for 5 years before starting work on an approved development.
We support the ending of repeated applications and twin tracking, and the reduction and lapsing of time limited consents.
We welcome a manual on compulsory purchase, but remain to be convinced that it would be democratic to speed up the process.
For developments with potential for polluting emissions (5.17), we have no objection in principle to synchronising pollution control and planning. Our concern is that the Environment Agency is often too close to industry and very far removed from ordinary people. It needs to become a fiercer watchdog, and while joined-up thinking may be desirable, there could be added pressures to give approval more quickly at the expense of care of the environment and health.
The number of statutory consultees should not be reduced (5.33). Health Authorities must be included, to assess potential of developments/activities to harm human health.
There is growing mental and physical malaise in our nation. We have combinations of chemicals in our bodies through living our daily lives, including toxic pesticides, herbicides and the overuse of drugs for both medication and recreational release from stress. Alarming increases are being detected in birth defects, autism and many other conditions affecting quality of life. The constant assault on our immune systems may be compounded by GM technologies let loose on the countryside by those with no understanding of soil science or ecological inter-relationships.
Cumulative effects are also progressively visited on people through increased noise and traffic, and erosion of green spaces and trees, which act as our lungs and as sources of peace, relaxation and respite from stress.
The multinationals responsible for most of the damage are assisted in the case of many if not most major infrastructure and building projects by local authorities themselves, who positively welcome most 'complex commercial and industrial applications' (2.6), which they view as bringing in money to the council and the local economy, and there may be opportunities for 'planning gain' - something they can get without paying for it. Elected councillors making planning decisions are indeed 'often insufficiently trained to undertake important duties' - but officers do the spadework.
Yet although the Green Paper begins by saying the UK is the most crowded country in the world, the planning changes proposed would give companies greater powers to make it more crowded more rapidly. They could operate further beyond the laws which they already use their size to manipulate.
The government will have failed if it does not realise that the best environmental and health options must take precedence over all other considerations, especially the predatory desires of industry, and act on this knowledge on behalf of its citizens.
It is time that the government gave the citizens it serves the opportunity to share in its power and decision-making, and to take back some control over the corporations, whose greed is in conflict with the needs of ordinary people in every walk of life, before it irretrievably gives away all its power. The principle of democracy is of immense importance: like an ancient woodland nurtured and defended over many centuries, once destroyed for development, it is gone forever.
David Oakley-Hill
Co-ordinator, Luton Friends of the Earth
99 Manton Drive, Luton LU2 7DL
Tel 01582 724257