Dear member,
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, has today made a written statement to parliament on the revocation of the Regional Strategies. The statement has been accompanied by guidance to chief planning officers on the resultant position prior to legislation on the new locally-based planning system. Please click here to view the statement and guidance.
Summary background
The Secretary of State has used his power to revoke Regional Strategies (RS) under Section 79(6) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (LD,ED&CA - as referenced at the bottom of page 1 in the Parliamentary Statement). This section of the Act quite clearly states "If the Secretary of State thinks it necessary or expedient to do so the Secretary of State may at any time revoke all or any part of a regional strategy". There is no need for him to give reasons for his actions and no need for parliamentary support. The statement has immediate effect.
The statement and guidance note mainly refer to Regional Strategies (RS), but also mention Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) interchangeably in places. This is because until RS are produced (as required by the LD,ED&CA) the RSS and Regional Economic Strategies were combined to form the interim RS, (S70(6) of the LD,ED&CA2009) hence the interchangeability. The abolition of the RS system will, however, require primary legislation in the Decentralisation and Localism Bill – again as referred to in the statement - since it is enshrined in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as being part of the development plan (as confirmed by S82(1) of the LG,ED&CA2009). It is not immediately clear whether the Regional Economic Strategies will also be revoked.
The statement gives prominence to the introduction of the proposed financial incentive for residential development and says the Government “is committed to housing growth”. The Government regard introduction of the incentive as a priority and will "aim to do so early in the spending review period" – that is not before April 2011, but possibly somewhat later than that. It will "consult on the detail of this later this year."
The guidance notes addresses the position following revocation of the Regional Strategies, including the basis on which local authorities can depart from RS housing figures if they wish to do so.
Guidance note detail
The guidance states that PPSs will remain in force EXCEPT where they refer to RS or RSS.
The London Plan remains unaffected.
Following revocation of the RS, the guidance states that the development plan for any particular area will consist only of:
Adopted development plan documents (of which there are few)
Saved policies (of which there are many) and
Any old style plans that have not lapsed (of which there are not very many, if any.)
The guidance states that local authorities should also have regard to other material considerations (including the revocation of the Regional Strategy).
Of considerable concern it indicates that, although LPAs should make decisions in accordance with the development plan (as defined above) they “may wish to review those decisions in light of the new freedoms following the revocation of RSs”. In effect there will be the ability to depart from an adopted plan. (This was, of course, the issue in Forest Heath Ditrict regarding the allocated site in Newmarket in their adopted Core Strategy.)
While continued preparation of LDF documents is called for this will be in the vacuum of there being no regional strategy. Presumably therefore, in order to be considered sound LPAs will have to submit a robust evidence base for their housing proposals rather than merely rely on the previous RSS figures and/or justification. Similarly the LPA will be able to choose its own role in the wider world as a growth area or area of restraint/conservation etc since there will be no strategic guidance as to where development should be directed.
There is also wider clarification that LPAs can review their adopted development plans to change policies and housing numbers if they wish. They do, however, have to follow consultation procedures and still need to meet the tests of soundness as s et out in PPS12.
Planning data and research undertaken by the Regional Local Authority Leaders Boards will still be available to local authorities. This presumably suggests that it will be available to everyone and certainly open to testing at a development plan examination.
There is no guidance on how the Inspectorate will assess the weight to be placed on adopted or emerging local development plan documents at appeals, especially where the LPA has stated that it is intending to review its housing policies. We will seek to clarify the position on this. A concern is that without the RS housing number it may be very difficult to run an appeal on the lack of housing supply.
There is positive reference to adhering to policies set out in PPS3 which is helpful. This includes reference to strategic housing market assessments, strategic housing land availability assessments and 5 year housing land supply, all of which are required by PPS3. The relevant paragraph states that “although the overall ambition for housing growth may change …” a 5 year supply should be measured against the LPAs own housing target.
The paragraph entitled “Can I replace RSS targets with “option 1 numbers?” states that LPAs “MAY base revised housing targets on the level of provision submitted to the original Regional Spatial Strategy Examination” (my emphasis). Unfortunately this statement is still ambiguous and does not necessarily mean the draft RSS numbers as submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. It is more likely that it refers to the LPA’s own submissions to the RSS EiP. It would be almost impossible to find and log this number for all LPAs in the country.
Another more helpful point is the statement that “authorities should continue to collect and use reliable information to justify their housing supply policies and defend them during the LDF examination process”. Under the current development plan process (until it is changed) the Inspector’s report is still binding albeit that the LPA doesn’t have to adopt its plan if it doesn’t like the Inspector’s conclusions.
The final paragraph relates to the green belt. This defers any revision of green belt boundaries to new local development plan documents. However, more worryingly it suggests that “as part of their preparation or revision of DPDs, planning authorities should consider the desirability of new Green Belt”. With the lack of any strategic authority taking an overview of the need for additional green belt this could lead to the resurgence of local proposals for “strategic gaps”, “areas of landscape protection” and other local designations that were swept away under the RSS process.
Conclusion
Overall the revocation of RS and their associated regional housing targets is a radical step. The clarification that LPAs have freedom if they wish to review their housing figures and other policies means there could be a spreading policy vacuum if additional local authorities dispense with their RS housing targets and take some time before proposing any credible or robust alternative housing figures which might be examined or challenged. The guidance provides no immediate sanction against this happening.
The guidance note clearly struggles with addressing this policy gap, suggesting that LPAs continue producing development plans, maintain a 5 year housing land supply and act responsibly yet offering no clear recourse for applicants seeking to develop in those areas that may be are keen to exploit their new freedom to put off consideration of development. While this is obviously will not be all LPAs it may cause significant problems over the next 18 months with no obvious solution (such as recourse to the appeals process).
In this respect it is also of concern that no further clarity has been provided on the precise nature and timing of the new incentive on which so much of the Government’s proposition hangs.
Andrew Whitaker
Planning Director
