CPRE GLOUCESTERSHIRE BRANCH Planning White Paper Consultation Response

Letter dated 11 August 2007 from CPRE Gloucestershire Vice Chairman to Planning Reform Team

Planning Reform Team

Department for Communities and Local Government

3/J2 Eland House

Bressenden Place

London SW1E 5DU

Dear Sirs

PLANNING WHITE PAPER CONSULTATION

This response is made on behalf of the Gloucestershire Branch of CPRE. CPRE national office is responding separately.

The response is made in the context of our concerns, based on experience in Gloucestershire, at the impact of development, and infrastructure development in particular, on the environment and the need to continue to put sustainable development principles firmly at the heart of policy where economic, social and environmental objectives are considered together. Many of the proposals in the Planning White Paper give undue prominence to economic aspects where the impression is that growing the economy seems to be all that matters.

In Gloucestershire the environmental quality of the countryside is demonstrated as an important driver of economic success. This is reflected in the Gloucestershire Economic Strategy produced by Gloucestershire First. It is becoming clear that expansion in the county is beginning to hit up against environmental limits both in terms of impacts on high quality landscapes and on the flood plain of the Severn Vale. We have seen the damage that can be caused to the tranquillity of the countryside by major “improvements” to the A417 link from the M4 to M5 which have also resulted in greatly increased longer distance commuting and associated congestion.

Our experience shows that it will be absolutely vital that infrastructure policies are put in the context of a national spatial strategy which starts from the principles articulated in PPS1 and recognises the environmental limits on expansion. Many infrastructure projects are a reflection of the long term demands in an area and these can not now be determined solely by unconstrained free market forces.

Our comments on the White Paper reflect this background.

National Policy Statements

The principle of national policy statements for key infrastructure sectors is sensible and we welcome the commitment to thorough and effective consultation in their formulation and to Parliamentary scrutiny.

We have three concerns about what is currently proposed.

Firstly, environmental objectives must be at the heart of National Policy statements as one of the core elements alongside economic and social objectives.

Secondly, such statements should not override and need to be consistent with established national planning policy designed to safeguard the countryside and which has wide public support, for example the policies for nationally designated protected landscapes (National Parks and AONBs) in PPS 7 which make clear that major development should not take place in these areas except in exceptional circumstances, the policies for SACs and SSSIs in PPS 9, and policies for the historic environment in PPG 15.

Central to good planning is the plan-led system where all development proposals should be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this context, policy in Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks is of key importance, policy which has been developed through a thorough process of regional and local consultation across all sectors and interests.

Accordingly, we argue that national policy statements while being a primary consideration should not be the only consideration for the infrastructure planning commission in determining applications for consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects and that the commission should take fully into account the policies in the development plan. Further, adverse local consequences must not be seen as the only consequences which could outweigh the benefits of projects – national environmental consequences could be equally or more significant and must also be taken fully into account.

Thirdly, we note the intention that in some cases such statements will be subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA): our view is that all national policy statements should be tested through the SEA process.

Preparing applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects

We welcome the proposal that promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects would be required to prepare applications to a defined standard before the infrastructure planning commission will consider them. The standard should be sufficiently exacting and we assume guidance will be provided. We note the proposal that the onus for consultation should rest with the promoters of projects. In addition to consultation with the affected local authorities, affected landowners, local communities and the public together with statutory bodies, consultation should be extended to relevant NGOs where particular environmental interests would be affected. The list of statutory bodies in Q14 should also be extended to include AONB Conservation Boards and AONB Joint Advisory Committees.

Determining applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects

We have serious concerns over the concept of an independent unelected infrastructure planning commission, particularly in relation to public accountability. By the very nature of the projects to be considered, its decisions on development consent applications are likely to be highly controversial. Further thought needs to be given to how public accountability is to be ensured if an independent infrastructure planning commission is to command wide support.

It is proposed that the infrastructure planning commission should deal with development consent applications which exceed statutory thresholds. There needs to be some flexibility because of the link between project scale and the sensitivity of the landscape to accommodate development and change. Projects which might be accommodated satisfactory in one type of landscape might be highly damaging in another.

In relation to transport schemes, consideration should be given to extending the provisions to include rail transport infrastructure, and in particular to major rail freight terminals.

The simplification and rationalisation of consent regimes and the creation, as far as possible, of a unified, single consent regime with harmonised requirements and procedures will be welcome.

Determining major applications through a panel of 3 to 5 members seems appropriate. We have major reservations, however, about a single commissioner considering small applications. If such small cases are so non-contentions or straight forward to be determined in this way, we argue that responsibility for their determination should remain with the local planning authorities and not with the commission at all.

Consultation on applications should mirror the consultation by promoters and the list of organisations to be consulted extended to include NGOs and a wider list of statutory bodies, as proposed above. As noted above, there is considerable public unease at the proposals for an unelected independent infrastructure planning commission. Ensuring effective local consultation and engagement in the process will be essential to public acceptability and that means improving, not frustrating, the arrangements for effective public consultation. To this end the proposals for an “open floor” stage in the examination of applications look welcome, and also the commitment to reach “hard to reach” groups.

Strengthening the role of local authorities in place shaping

We welcome the proposals to remove the requirement that all SPDs must be listed in the local development scheme, and that not all SPDs will need to be subject to sustainability appraisal. The present, more onerous, arrangements have resulted local authorities refusing to take Parish Plans and Village Design Statements through the SPD process which is discouraging to communities who have put a great deal of effort into preparing these documents and who see SPD status as an important outcome to ensure that the planning-related aspects of the plans are followed through into policy and action.

Making the planning system more efficient and effective

We would not support an extension of permitted development to other types of development such as industrial and commercial buildings. In the event that such an extension is agreed, all the current Article 1(5) and Article 1(6) restrictions should be retained to ensure that the special quality of nationally designed protected landscapes remains fully protected.

We have considerable reservations about the proposal for Neighbour Agreements which we do not believe would be in the wider public interest. There are serious issues around transparency, fairness and risks of impropriety. This proposal should not be taken forward in any form.

We do not support the proposal to allow amendments to planning permissions at the discretion of the local planning authority. Amendments to permissions agreed in this way would not be subject to the safeguards of the planning process. We are particularly concerned that such discretion could be open to abuse.

Yours sincerely

RICHARD LLOYD

Vice Chairman