review of planning practice guidance...chief planner and it can respond, therefore, to people coming...

HC 940-i Published on 17 April 2014

by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

£12.50

House of Commons

Communities and Local Government Committee

Review of Planning Practice Guidance

Oral and written evidence

30 January 2013 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 30 January 2013

The Communities and Local Government Committee

The Communities and Local Government Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Current membership

Mr Clive Betts MP (Labour, Sheffield South-East)(Chair) Bob Blackman MP (Conservative, Harrow East) Simon Danczuk MP (Labour, Rochdale) Mrs Mary Glindon MP (Labour, North Tyneside) David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) James Morris MP(Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis) Mark Pawsey MP (Conservative, Rugby) John Pugh MP (Liberal Democrat, Southport) John Stevenson MP (Conservative, Carlisle) Heather Wheeler MP (Conservative, South Derbyshire) Chris Williamson MP(Labour, Derby North) The following members were also members of the Committee when this evidence was taken. Bill EstersonMP (Labour, Sefton Central) Stephen Gilbert MP (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay) Andy Sawford MP (Labour, Corby)

Powers

The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/clg. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Glenn McKee (Clerk), Sarah Coe (Second Clerk), Stephen Habberley (Inquiry Manager), Kevin Maddison (Committee Specialist), David Nicholas (Senior Committee Assistant), Eldon Gallagher (Committee Support Assistant), David Foster (Assistant Media Officer) and Jonathan Olivier Wright (Web and Publications Assistant).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Communities and Local Government Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 1234; the Committee’s email address is [email protected].

List of witnesses

30January 2013 Page

Nick Boles MP, Parliamentary UnderSecretary of State for Communities and Local Government,and Lord Taylor of Goss Moore, who led the External Review of Government Planning Practice Ev w1

List of written evidence

1 Institute for Archaeologists Ev w16

2 Building Research Establishment Ev w17

3 Home Builders Federation Evw19

4 Campaign for Better Transport Evw21

5 Law Society of England and Wales Evw22

6 County Land and Business Association Evw24

7 Heritage Alliance Evw26

8 Residential Landlords Association Ev w27

9 Town and Country Planning Association Ev w29

10 Royal Town Planning Institute Ev w31

11 English Heritage Ev w33

12 Planning Officers Society Ev w35

13 British Property Federation Ev w37

14 Living Streets Ev w39

15 Spatial Planning and Health Group Ev w40

16 Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation Ev w42

17 Design Council Ev w45

18 Historic Houses Association Ev w46

19 UK Green Building Council Ev w48

20 Theatres Trust Ev w49

21 Renewables UK Ev w52

22 Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors Ev w53

23 SSE Ev w54

24 Institute of Historic Building Conservation Ev w56

25 Local Government Association Ev w57

26 Campaign to Protect Rural England Ev w59

27 Department for Communities and Local Government Ev w70

28 Letter to DCLG from the Chair of the Committee Ev w71

29 Reply from the Department for Communities and Local Government Ev w72

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w1

Oral evidenceTaken before the Communities and Local Government Committee

on Wednesday 30 January 2013

Members present:

Mr Clive Betts (Chair)

Simon DanczukBill Esterson

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Nick Boles MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Communities and LocalGovernment, and Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who led the External Review of Government Planning Practice,gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Welcome, everyone, to this one-offevidence session on the planning practice guidanceand the announcement on permitted developmentrights made on 24 January. Minister and Lord Taylor,you are both welcome. I am sure, Minister, you are aspleased to be back as we are to see you here; you arecertainly a regular visitor to us. Lord Taylor, I think itis the first time you have been with us, so thank youvery much indeed for coming this afternoon.Would it be fair to say, Minister, that, from theGovernment’s point of view, they generally havegiven a pretty warm welcome to Lord Taylor’srecommendations and, unless there are particularproblems identified, you are going to implement themas quickly as you can?Nick Boles: Mr Chairman, thank you very much toyou and to the Committee for agreeing to delayslightly the start time so that I was able to respond toa Westminster Hall debate that was of someimportance to a colleague of ours.You are absolutely right, Mr Chairman, that theGovernment is very enthusiastic about the review thatLord Taylor has led and many, if not most, of therecommendations. As you know, we are consulting onthose recommendations and on the package that theyhave suggested, so we start off very, very enthusiastic,but we make no absolute commitments to anythinguntil we have properly considered the consultationresponses, including, of course, from this SelectCommittee.

Q2 Chair: In terms of the big issues and the variouscategories—A, B and C—that particular guidance isput in, which is pretty crucial to the process, will theGovernment consider appeals by organisations orindividuals that something is in the wrong category?How will you go about determining the criteria youwill use to decide whether the right category has beenchosen or whether it should change?Nick Boles: There are probably three points to make.Firstly, we already have a number of responses to thisconsultation from organisations with particularinterests in particular bits of guidance. The second isthat just because something is no longer going to beplanning guidance does not mean that there is notgoing to be an appetite for that guidance to informplanning officers, planning committees and other

Mark PawseyAndy Sawford

people—developers and the like—about theirdecisions. It may well be that when Government hasa much slimmed-down set of planning guidance therewill be more room for other organisations to putforward their ideas and for them to be taken seriously.The third point I would make is that perhaps the mostingenious element of Lord Taylor’s recommendationsis this idea that there will be a set of guidance on awebsite that is updated on a fairly regular basis by theChief Planner and it can respond, therefore, to peoplecoming in and saying, “This has changed” or “We seethe need for this”. Even if perhaps a particular elementof guidance is not included initially in the packagethat goes on to that website, that does not mean thedoor is closed forever more; if a sufficiently good casecan be made, it could be included. The main thing wedo not want is, instead of 7,000 paper pages, 7,000web pages of guidance.

Q3 Chair: We will come on to changes on thewebsite and other ancillary guidance by theorganisations in due course. In terms of the key issuesabout the guidance that will be removed, the guidancethat will be amended and the guidance that will bekept—the A, B and C categories—is the Governmentopen to changing any of Lord Taylor’srecommendations in the light of the consultationprocess? If so, what criteria are you going to use todetermine whether certain guidance should be in adifferent category from what is now recommended?Nick Boles: We are open. It is a proper consultationand we are open to suggestions. The criteria we willuse are, bluntly: “Do they make a good argument?”and “Does it persuade Lord Taylor?” It may beappropriate for Lord Taylor to make a comment onthe different categories, because he is the one who hascreated them.Chair: Certainly, yes.Lord Taylor: The answer is clearly yes. We do wantto hear what people have to say; that is a reallyimportant part of the process. In fact, part of theconcept of it running forwards is that there is a crowd-sourced element—people can easily put in theircomments. The whole set of recommendations wasinformed by the pretty rapid recognition as we workedthrough 7,000 pages of this material that virtuallynone of it was up to date. That is why we said the

Ev w2 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

30 January 2013 Nick Boles MP and Lord Taylor of Goss Moor

whole thing is not fit for purpose. At that point wehad to think, “What are the crucial documents thatclearly have to be maintained until they are broughtin to the new format and whose importance we needto signal?” There was not really a selectivity about thedocument—it can be better done, but it is an importantdocument. Those are in the category that needs toremain until updated.We then wanted to identify those documents that werereally unnecessary. A lot of them are Chief Planner’scommunications that are simply out of date; some arethe kinds of documents that we do not think maintainthe kind of guidance that should be Governmentguidance anyway, such as best-practice material.However, there was also a category of material thatwas very out of date and should not really be reliedon, but there were things in it that would need to bein an updated form on the new site. That is thematerial that we signalled should go, but in whichthere are important elements. In signalling that, we aresaying to people that until there is something new, werecognise the importance of that.Things may shift between them. There may be anargument that people put forward convincingly thatsome of what we have recommended should simplygo needs to be transferred on to the new website insome form; and there may be arguments put forwardthat were we to recommend a document be removedon an interim basis, the system would fall over. Wedid keep asking ourselves: “What will happen if thisdocument is not here?” If it matters—for example, forthe plan-making process that is prioritised at themoment—we would retain it. If it would not matterwhether it was there or not over a six to nine-monthperiod, it should be recommended for abolition.

Q4 Chair: You also recommend, Lord Taylor, thatthere should be a second formal consultation at thepoint the new website goes live. That is arecommendation. Are Government going to followthat through?Nick Boles: Yes. What is interesting about thisproposal is that, in truth, it is a permanentconsultation. That is just as it should be. The wholepoint about this is that this resource will be online;when decisions are made or other Governmentpolicies change that require an update to guidance, theChief Planner and the Department will have aresponsibility to bring that forward. Equally, inresponse to people saying, “We really think you needto do something on this,” they will be able to makethat proposal, and there will be an annual review ofthe website to take into account those suggestions. Iwould not want to suggest that somehow there is awindow of consultation that closes forever. The truthis this is meant to be as open and consultative aprocess as possible, and so consultation will bepermanent.

Q5 Chair: But at the time the website goes live, therewill be a proper consultation on the whole of theguidance as it stands then?Nick Boles: I would not want to suggest that thatwould mean the website was not somehow valid.People will be absolutely invited to respond to what

is up on the website and make suggestions if they feelthat some bit of it or another bit of it is not sufficient,but what I would not want the Committee to takeaway is an understanding that there will be a furtherconsultation period in which the whole thing will beon hold for another couple of months. The websitewill be there; we are consulting now on the broadrecommendations, and then it will be permanentlyopen to further revision as people suggest good ideas.Lord Taylor: The reason that we need that waypointconsultation at that period is there are going to be twothings happening with this. One is the material itselfin its revised form, so it is a good rain-check to invitepeople to say, “What do you make of that?” Therewill, of course, be all sorts of experts and practitionersinvolved in the drafting process along the way, butlet’s invite that commentary at that point. Then therecommendation is that we do that every year as well,so there is a rain-check quite frequently on it. Thesecond element and reason for consulting is that thefunctionality of the website will also be important, notjust the material on it. We need to make sure thatthis is working for people in the format as well asthe content.

Q6 Chair: The NPPF has now been in operation for10 months. Like anything new, the wrinkles come outwhere people are not quite clear about what somethingmeans or something does not appear to mean what itmay have been intended to mean in the first place. Ijust wonder whether, Minister, you have identified orhad identified for you any words or phrases in theNPPF that require further clarification through theguidance. There are terms that have come to ourattention such as “public benefit”, “optimal viableuse” and “valued landscapes”, which are there aswords in the NPPF but may not be absolutely definedthere. Is that something the guidance ought to do?Nick Boles: It is an interesting question. What we donot want to do is start pulling at the threads in thecarefully constructed and well knitted sweater of theNPPF, though we have always said that it would bereviewed, and that indeed is the case. But it absolutelyis the case that some elements of the guidance thathave been suggested—for instance, on viability andon the housing assessments—will effectively clarifypolicies that are in the NPPF to make it easier forpeople to understand how they should interpret them.Yes, clarificatory guidance will be very much a partof what will be going up on the website, but notchanges to the NPPF.

Q7 Simon Danczuk: Minister, the review believes itshould be possible to get the revised guidance in placeby July. Is that going to be achieved?Nick Boles: I am an optimistic man and I believe insetting ambitious targets, knowing that one will notalways meet them all in full. We are determined to geta move on because there is an industry and aprofession out there who are waiting for this. On theother hand, some of the recommendations, particularlyon the technical functionality of the website, may bequite challenging to produce immediately, so it maynot be that it is the final form. I am not going to getinto “beta” language and all of that, but it may not be



the final form. However, I am determined that therewill be a website with the bulk of the new guidancethat has been specified on it in July; whether it is1 July or 31 July may be an open question.

Q8 Simon Danczuk: So you can guarantee that itwill be live and running properly by Christmas?Nick Boles: I can guarantee that I am highlyambitious for the timetable, but I am not going tospecify any particular deadlines. What is important isthat it is right and it works.

Q9 Simon Danczuk: The review says the guidanceshould concentrate on what is essential. I am curiousto know what the criteria will be to define what isessential.Nick Boles: May I pass that over to Lord Taylor, whoI think is probably better placed to respond?Lord Taylor: If you look at the report, we seek todescribe there the things that are essential for the plan-making process. I think at one point we possiblyunhelpfully described them as “nuggets”. If I can givean example, one of the representations we had verystrongly from business was the importance of the“town centres first” document1 and its explanationof the sequential test and the decision-taking processfor that. Probably all of us would agree that is a reallyfundamental document. It became very evident in ourdiscussions that actually what was essential was thesequential test, which is quite a small part of a verylong document plus a small number of paragraphs.That is the challenge that we are working through withthe officials, because once we had that discussion,instead of defending the document, there was generalagreement that lots of it was out of date, lots of it wasdescriptive and unnecessary, but there were essentialelements. It is that that we are keying in on. Wedescribe such essential elements in a series ofparagraphs in the report that, if you gave me amoment, I could probably quote, but I do not thinkthat is necessary.On the timescale of that, one of the reasons that I andthe group consciously recommended a tighttimescale—after discussing it, it has to be said, withofficials and others—was that the material isoverwhelmingly out of date, some of it desperately so,and some of the gaps desperately need filling. Wehave recommended some of those priority areas. It isnot helpful to set a long timescale for it.Secondly, the nature of identifying what is importantand honing it down is a really big sub-editing job, butthat is all it is. A lot of the material is there; it is wellunderstood. PINS, who were directly involved, werevery clear about what is used at appeals and judicialreviews; others are very clear what the material is. Ireally wanted officials not to feel that they had to goaway and do a lot of brainstorming and discussion; Iwanted them to get down to it, so that we could thenhave drafts that could be discussed, worked throughand put up. If that needs further improvement, wehave got a rolling process for doing that, but I do thinkthat doing this quickly is necessary. We are verynearly a year out from the NPPF already, and the1 Planning for town centres: practice guidance on need,

impact and the sequential approach.

sooner this is done the better. The group did talk withofficials and others to agree that.Will we get all of it? The recommendation does notsay we will get all of it; it says that most of it shouldbe up and running and the functionality should bethere. There are actually reasons why some thingscould not be done—there may be some areas that needspecific consultation; there may be some areas wherea legislative programme is interacting with the work—but I think it can be done, and that is what we meanby the “essential elements”.

Q10 Simon Danczuk: Who will determine what isessential? Will Ministers sign off what is essential?Lord Taylor: I am assuming that question is to me.What I understand the process to be is that clearly itrests with the Department to draft, and there arepeople whose role that is and who have that expertise.They will consult others—not official consultation,but that interaction with people with expertise and soon in the process. Assuming this goes ahead, theMinister has asked that the group, slightly expanded,work with the officials on that and then review thosedrafts and make our independent advice available tothe Minister on whether we believe the job has beendone effectively. The group itself contains a range ofexpertise, of course.Nick Boles: I just want to remind the Committee—Iam sure you all know—who else is on the group,because if none of these people think something isessential, there is a reasonably high probability that itis not. You have Trudi Elliott from the RTPI; SimonMarsh from the RSPB; Andrew Whitaker from theHome Builders Federation; Councillor Mike Jones,who is Leader of Cheshire West and Chester Council;and recently the group was expanded for this secondphase to include Steve Ingram, who is a localauthority planner from Huntingdonshire, and JohnRhodes from the Quod planning consultancy. Youhave a range of perspectives there. They may not allagree with each other and they may not all agree withofficials, but where there are disagreements, there willbe advice coming to me—because I am the leastexpert in this process—to make final decisions.

Q11 Simon Danczuk: For clarity’s sake, Minister,will Ministers sign off guidance before it is published?Nick Boles: Yes. Of course I am not going to suggestthat I am going to sign off every sentence of thewebsite, because that would require me to read manyhundreds of pages, but there will be recommendationscoming through; much of it, hopefully, will berecommendations that officials and the group havereached an agreement on and, while I will ask somequestions, that will tend to suggest that that is a goodidea. I think I will probably try to stick my finger ina bit more when there is a difference of opinionbetween the official advice and the group. That willbe where we need to be tested. As I say, the mostimportant thing is please let’s not all expect this to beabsolutely right the first time. It is an iterative site; itis an iterative process; and it will, I hope, like all goodprocesses in Government, be subject to constantimprovement.



Q12 Mark Pawsey: I think the Committeeunderstands that there is very broad acceptance of theneed for this work and the sense of urgency on thepart of both planning practitioners and those applyingfor consents, but can I just ask you about the status ofexisting guidance in the interim? We were hoping toget on with this and get stuff in place by the middleof the year, but what is the status of existing guidance?As things are being worked up, can you give someguidance to local authorities on where they should seethings right now?Nick Boles: I will give a general answer and thenperhaps Lord Taylor would like to add to it. Firstly,as a matter of practice, it is very important for all ofus to remember that the formal status of the vastmajority of existing guidance is out of date and totallyignored by everybody who is involved indevelopment. The idea that planning officials,developers and planning consultants are going aroundsifting through the 7,000 pages every time they haveto look at a development is simply not the case. Ofcourse, what the profession does already is focus onthe things that really matter and are relevant to theircurrent decisions. Lord Taylor has suggested a hugeamount that can be cancelled immediately. This issubject to consultation on the total package, so legallythey have not been cancelled until that has terminated,but I think everybody will understand the implicationof that. On the important subjects that have beenlisted, people should look at the existing guidanceuntil the new guidance is up on the website in July.Whether it is on viability or flooding—whatever itis—people should observe the existing guidance untilthere is something to work with in July. You have verysuccessfully underlined why it is important that weget a move on.Lord Taylor: The truth is this is only guidance and itcannot take the place of local discretion andprofessional input. That currently has to include thefact that the guidance is massively out of date,references the wrong documents, etc. The guidance isstill guidance, but we also do not really have adefinition of what guidance is at the moment, so it isreally just all sorts of Government material that maybe taken into account. What we will shift to issomething that is very clearly the guidance suite. Itwill give strength to decision-taking; it will helppeople be proportionate about what they ask for aswell as understand what they need to do. In theinterim, there will be, I hope, the cancellation of someof the material that is so out of date it is unhelpful. Wehave clearly indicated where there are some importantelements nevertheless; the documents will not ceaseto exist, so people can be aware of those and areprofessionally trained around that. The only thing thatthe Minister may not have touched on is that we haveset some priority areas, and it may be that, althoughwe see the website being fully functional in July, someof those priority areas come into use before that—andindeed I hope they can.

Q13 Mark Pawsey: That was what I was going tomove on to: the nine priority areas. Is there an orderof priority within those nine in terms of the urgencyto get out certain advice and guidance?

Lord Taylor: That probably is a question for me, inthe sense of whether I intended a priority—whetherthe Minister has a priority I do not know. The groupdid not intend to distinguish between those priorityareas. There is one distinction within it, which is thatsome elements are about areas that need urgentupdating, like the environmental impact appraisalwork, and some of it is about filling in areas whereGovernment really does not have anything to say interms of guidance, such as duty to co-operate. In bothcases, the reason we highlighted them as priorities isthat we think they need to come in as early as ispractical.

Q14 Mark Pawsey: Minister, are some higher onthat list than others?Nick Boles: Not formally, because it is a relativelyshort list and the group and officials are capable ofadvancing all of those priority areas quickly. But if Ihave a personal priority, it is to get rid of anything thatrejoices in the name SHMA or SHLAA and replace itwith something that has a name that normal peoplecan understand. That was a frivolous comment, butunderlying it is the fact that those are particularlyimportant for people who are writing local plans, andplan-making is a core priority. Viability guidance isalso particularly important, as is, as Lord Taylor said,the duty to co-operate. In a sense, that is my politicalgloss on where I feel people most need help, but thereis no formal ranking of the nine; they are all prioritiesfor work as soon as we can do it.

Q15 Mark Pawsey: Minister, if it helps, my localauthority sees as the key priorities duty to co-operate,viability and identifying housing need, so that fits veryneatly with yours. I know I have got colleagues whowill ask about the first two, but in terms of identifyinghousing need, we all know the pressures on providinghousing land and the challenges to increasing rates ofhouse-building. How are we going to get that in placeas quickly as possible to stimulate house-building?Nick Boles: You have successfully communicated thepolitical importance; perhaps Matthew can talk abouthow we are going to go about satisfying it.Lord Taylor: It was not hard to identify the prioritiesyou have just mentioned; I think we were all aware ofthe importance of that. It is the plan-making set thatis especially important, because clearly that is key tothings going forward from here. There has been a lotof thinking, both among the officials and outside.There is a lot of practitioner work going on. Onhousing need, for example, there is a broad group ofpractitioners who have been doing work on this,which I hope will come forward soon, and that willhelp inform the process. But the key is this: if theNPPF, as it does, says that at core, local authoritiesneed to identify and evidence their need, guidanceneeds to help to explain what good evidence lookslike. That does not just help the plan-making processin terms of the local authority, but also then informsthe Inspectorate and any challenges that might takeplace. It is absolutely fundamental. In my mind, theNPPF is, in many respects, built on that. If we do nothave top-down figures, we have to have a robust



process building up from the bottom, and there is anactive demand for better understanding on that.

Q16 Mark Pawsey: We know the key three; weknow there are nine. The Committee has heard lots ofother priorities, and I am sure people are comingforward with them in your consultation. How are yougoing to determine, Minister, which of those prioritiesare going to be pursued and which ones,unfortunately, are too narrow and need to be put onone side?Nick Boles: I am going to take advice from a very,very good group of experts.Lord Taylor: You have seen the evidence that hascome forward: there is broad support, people want itto happen quickly, but there is scepticism aboutwhether we can deliver. Well, that is the challenge, isit not? But also a lot of organisations have highlightedparticular areas—in some cases, although not always,the areas that organisation has a particular interest in.The consultation itself will help reveal that. The bigpriority areas were, as I said, pretty universally putforward and then people tend to add another, or oneor two others. If they make a convincing case for it,clearly that will be given some priority in the process,but we are not talking about a long period. This is notlike, in the past, commissioning big documents thatmight take a year or a year and a half to comeforward.On the whole, I think those requests for priority arenot so much that they are concerned about thetimescale; I think it is mainly that they are concernedthat their area is regarded as important. Bluntly, all ofthis is. At the end it will be a single suite; everythingwill be within that and it will not be the case, as it isas the moment, that each individual area is written asa separate document, as if that is the only importantthing in the world, without cross-referencing againsteverything else. One of the advantages of a singlesuite is that that will not be the issue.

Q17 Mark Pawsey: May I just pick up on oneparticular area of concern that the Committee has hada strong representation on? That relates to changes tothe use classes order in respect of houses in multipleoccupation. The changes to legislation there are very,very recent and there is some concern that a furtherchange may be about to happen. How can you putpeople’s minds at rest on that specific issue?Nick Boles: We have consulted on a broad range—which no doubt we are going to go on to—ofrelaxations of the use classes order and the extensionof permitted development rights. We brought forwarda package of relaxations last week.

Q18 Mark Pawsey: Minister, I am particularlyreferring to the Article 4 declarations that someauthorities are able to make in respect of houses inmultiple occupation and changing the rights of peopleto choose where they may live—particularly studentdesignations. Have you any proposals to makechanges here?Nick Boles: To Article 4?Mark Pawsey: Yes.Nick Boles: No.

Q19 Andy Sawford: You mentioned, Minister, thatone key area of the new guidance is the viability test.You will know that Sir John Harman has been doingsome work on this with the Local Housing DeliveryGroup that has been welcomed by lots of practitioners.We are interested to know whether you will followHarman’s advice.Nick Boles: I am very much aware of that piece ofwork, but I would not want to pre-judge where it liesin the balance against other people’s work, becausethere are many views on viability, as I am graduallydiscovering. Matthew?Lord Taylor: You mentioned Harman; he has done anexcellent job. There is also the work that RICS haveled on. In the representations we received and thediscussions we had, there was lots of pressure to havethe ultimate answer on viability. There is not anultimate answer on viability, because it will always bea contested area, and therefore the question then is:how can we make the guidance help that? Do weidentify a particular model? Does Government own amodel? I think the balance of view at the moment—and we are not into the process of bottoming it outyet—is that what the guidance I hope can do is makesure that people are on the same page. It may notrecommend a particular model, but it has to givepeople the borders within which they are working sothat there is a common understanding of what willultimately still be contested. A developer undoubtedly,in most cases, will have a different starting point fromthe local authority; you are trying to get them to cometogether. If that discussion is on the basis ofcompletely different places and understandings ofwhat counts, that is not helpful. If the guidance canhelp get them in to a constructive debate, that isimportant. So yes, we are paying a lot of attention toHarman and RICS; we are not necessarily adopting aparticular model, but we are certainly trying to makesure that there is a common language in which thoseassessments can be made. But as I say, that is not myfinal conclusion or the group’s final conclusion, letalone where the Minister may end up.

Q20 Andy Sawford: You said this was quitecontested. What would you see as the major contestedspace as this develops between what Harman is sayingat the moment and whoever else is influencing this?His is the work that is out there that certainly localauthorities are looking to.Lord Taylor: It is not the only piece out there, as Isaid, but there are two senses of contested. The sensein which I was referring to it is that it is not possibleto give a definitive answer on the viability of aparticular site that will be agreed, because if it was,every developer would always make money. There isalways a judgment call on the viability and the likelyprofitability of a development. In that sense, I do notthink there is a magic wand that simply gives thedefinitive answer. You raised it in the sense of whetherthere are contested areas regarding how you go aboutit. Absolutely there are. There is argument about whatfactors count in how you judge it. That is where theguidance may be able to help, which is why I talkabout getting them on the same page, so that weunderstand the terms of reference in those discussions



that inevitably take place in assessing viability. At themoment, local authority after local authority anddeveloper after developer tell me that is not the case.It will not be perfect, but I think there is a clear rolefor guidance. The group is very clear that that is whatwe have got to achieve. Have we got there yet? CouldI give you a piece of paper that showed it?Unfortunately not, but that is the work that needs tobe done.

Q21 Andy Sawford: Another key area for newguidance is the duty on local authorities to co-operate.How are you developing this guidance?Lord Taylor: The short answer is we have not startedyet, other than having discussed the difficulties inachieving it. Clearly, local authorities need tounderstand what is meant by the duty to co-operate,what co-operation looks like and what that process is.Some local authorities seem to have taken the viewthat merely writing to the neighbouring authority isenough; I do not think that is enough. Others havetaken a view that telling other local authorities theirconclusion and that the ball is in their court is enough,and I do not think that is what is intended by the dutyto co-operate either. Given that those approaches arebeing seen—and there are some very good examplesof co-operation, I should add—I think we needpossibly to help describe that. But if you were to askme to identify the most difficult area to resolve—difficult because I do not think it is clear where wego, and difficult because it is immediate and necessaryto do it—I would probably finger duty to co-operate.

Q22 Andy Sawford: You said that there are goodexamples. We see lots of local authorities alreadyworking with their neighbouring authorities onstrategic planning issues and, indeed, on many, manyother areas. The current Government has been keen toencourage local authorities to develop thoserelationships with neighbouring authorities—and“neighbouring authorities” can be quite considerablein terms of what other authorities have an interest—such as on the Local Enterprise Partnerships, wherethe message from Government has been, “You tell uswhat makes sense”. I am particularly interested in theMinister’s view on how you will avoid making thisguidance overly prescriptive for authorities, whichmay be some distance from London and fromMinisters’ understanding of what communities ofinterest look like in planning terms.Nick Boles: I entirely agree with the thrust of thequestion, which is that we do not want it to be overlyprescriptive, and that will mean that there are, to someextent, slightly painful uncertainties for authorities, asindeed there are in interpreting the National PlanningPolicy Framework and implanting those policies intoa local plan. It places a great responsibility on eachlocal authority to work out what works best and isright for them.I think the guidance should be reasonably light-touch,and the whole site is expected to be crisp and notoverly complex or prescriptive, but the other way thatpeople will work out how this in fact works is overtime, as they see local authorities practise the duty toco-operate and they also see how the Planning

Inspectorate judges those interactions, there will buildup a practice of the duty to co-operate. There will begood examples, which no doubt the PlanningInspectorate will recognise, and bad examples, whichwill probably lead to an authority being asked to berewrite a local plan or the process being gone throughagain. It is not just the guidance that will inform this.Over time, people will also see what processes seemto work well and which ones the PlanningInspectorate singles out as being effective. Wecertainly do not want to be in the business of writingguidance that prescribes that you have got to write tothis person and then three weeks later you have got tohold a meeting with that person in order to fulfil theduty to co-operate. The whole point is to give them aduty, give them some broad guidelines about how tointerpret it, and then get on and make it work forthem.

Q23 Andy Sawford: How will you maintain thedepth and the quality of the guidance, given that insome local authorities the relative levels of expertiseand capacity may not be sufficient for them to handleparticularly technical planning applications withoutthere being good quality advice available through thisprocess? We can see—and we are probing thattoday—how you are going to develop the guidanceinitially, but the maintenance of that guidance is veryimportant.Nick Boles: The first thing that is important is that theguidance should not be seen as the only source ofadvice. The Planning Advisory Service that theGovernment funds and the Local GovernmentAssociation operates is an important source of advice.The Planning Inspectorate is a source of advice thatmany local authorities go to, not just when they areunder examination but when they are dealing withdifferent issues. Then, of course, there are planningconsultants and many other non-state providers of thatadvice. The guidance is, in a sense, there to set outthe indications—the guidelines—that everybody,whatever their situation, should follow. Thereafter,depending on their situation or level of planningexpertise—if it is a small district that does not havea hugely well resourced planning department and aparticular application is particularly unlike anythingthey have ever received before—there will be othersources of advice available to them that will not havethe status of guidance that applies to everyone but willstill probably be good advice for how to deal withthose difficult decisions.Lord Taylor: I have observed in other forums thatorganisations will ask not to be told what to do, andwhen you take away the thing that tells them what todo in detail, they then say, “But what do we do?”There is always a conflict there. A good mentor doesnot tell someone what to do; they help them thinkabout the questions they should be addressing. I amvery keen on having those kinds of prompts—“theseare the issues that you should be thinking about; thisis how you might go about that”—but not tellingpeople what the answers are. In that sense, I think theguidance site needs to be a good mentor, not thatslightly bullying boss who hovers over your shouldertelling you ‘you are doing it wrong’. That is easier



said than done, and I think it will lead both to somelocal authorities complaining that they are now notsure as well as quite a lot of organisations saying,“This is all great, except that in our particular areayou have not told them how to do it enough.” Weshould resist both those pressures, but we do need tomake sure that it is sufficient so that peopleunderstand. This is really quite a radical recasting; thatis why that process of feedback and consultation isso important.I have to say that I am really pleased with just howpositive the response has been. There has been a bitof a collective sigh of relief. One of the reasons—and the conclusion we came to—was that the presentprocess just does not work. It just is not possible forthe Department to manage 7,000 pages. Thecommissioning of individual documents that sit apartmeans they are not coherent, but also, inevitably, theyare commissioned, they are published and then theyare forgotten, and they very quickly become out ofdate. If people feel that there is not quite as muchdirection, that is actually a good thing, but where thereis direction, at least it will be up to date and relevant,which is an even better thing.

Q24 Chair: Despite the general welcome, which Iaccept, there have been a number of comments to usthat there are issues that simply are not covered at allnow—they just are not mentioned. We have had a listthat includes sustainable development; health andwellbeing; design; arts, culture and tourism; andsimplified planning zones. There is just nothing onthere for local authorities to look at and say, “That ishelpful to us.”Lord Taylor: I should probably answer that. If youlook at the list, they are all covered; we are not sayingthat there should be nothing on those things.2 Thereare two things that are not covered and are the thingsthat have been really forcefully cut out of this. One isthat historic accumulation of Chief Planner’s lettersthat are essentially reactive or drawing attention; it isjust nonsense that they do not have a short life.Secondly, perhaps more fundamentally, in the areawhere there is potentially some push-back by thosewith a particular interest in that particular bit, is thebest practice exemplar-type guidance—the quitelengthy documents of all different kinds. Take designfor example. My view is that design is incrediblyimportant—in fact, I call it “good planning”, notdesign. It is about place-shaping; it is about creatinggreat places. There are quite a number of documentsthat set out examples of best practice around that, butthey are overwhelmingly out of date and I do not thinkthe Department is capable of maintaining that, nor hasit got the best expertise to do it. We are saying thatthose kinds of best practice resources will beelsewhere. What the guidance should do is talk aboutthe importance of design, the kinds of things that youshould be considering, but not telling you that aparticular town centre designed 20 years ago is anexample of best practice. It probably was at the2 Correction by witness: If you look at the list, they are almost

all still to be covered; we are not saying that there should benothing on most of those things.

time—it may not have been—but it certainly is notnow.

Q25 Chair: Simplified planning zones, for example.Lord Taylor: For all the areas that planning covers,people should be able to go to this site and find outwhat it has to say. If it needs to say something, it willsay it; if it does not need to say it, it will not. Nothingwill not be considered for that; we will be looking atwhat needs to be said. Some of it may be very short,but I think simplified planning zones probably willneed some guidance, yes.

Q26 Chair: So you will be looking at those issues aspeople raise them. That is helpful.Lord Taylor: Yes, absolutely.

Q27 Chair: I just have just one or two points forclarification. What is going to happen to theadministrative-type guidance on how to prepare alocal plan and charging for planning information—those sorts of things that local authorities receive fromthe Department? Are they still going to be in placebut separate and completely off this website?Nick Boles: I would not want to jump, but Matthewmay know the precise sub-definitions.Lord Taylor: The whole process of local-plan-makingis absolutely central, and it is central to the NPPF andI think a lot of the advice will come off it. You willlook at different paragraphs of the NPPF and you willget menus and so on that tell you about that. Plan-making is very central to this, as I say. I think it ismuch more likely to be: “These are the issues youneed to consider. These are the opportunities youhave”—because I think people need to raise their eyesto how they shape places long term, rather thanfighting the next 50 houses down the road—and itwill also, very importantly, help local authorities beproportionate in what they ask for in that process.Consultants have a tendency to recommend a mass ofnew research that replicates material that alreadyexists, and I think the guidance can help people beproportionate and appropriate in their plan-makingprocess.Nick Boles: But I am not sure about the example yougave of fees, because that truly is administrative,whereas plan-making is not really administrative; it isa core of the process.Lord Taylor: Sorry, I misunderstood.Chair: No, I can see the difference.Lord Taylor: Slightly bizarrely, there probably is aneed for fees, because there is not currently anywhereelse that a definitive list of fees exists. That possiblyshould not be guidance; it possibly should be in someother format, but that is how it is and therefore it willneed to be there.Nick Boles: If it is not there, it needs to be somewhereelse, but it is an open question as to exactly whatstatus it has.Lord Taylor: It is probably a good place for people tolook it up.Chair: Or for a link to somewhere.Lord Taylor: Exactly.



Q28 Chair: In terms of ministerial statements, whichwe get a number of from time to time, as weunderstand it, the recommendation is that Governmentguidance will only be what is up there on the website.You will get a ministerial statement; it will be inHansard and people will look at it and say, “Ah,” butwill it take a little bit of time to migrate on to thewebsite? Will it become guidance as soon as it isissued in the House, or do we have to wait until itgets on the website before it officially can be takenaccount of?Nick Boles: It is an extremely good question, MrChairman, and I hope that we will not be issuing, norwill any future Government, of whatever stripe, beissuing, so many written ministerial statements, butthe Chief Planner, who will be the person who is theauthor and the controller of this site and everythingthat is on it, will be able to amend the guidance that ison the site at the same time as the written ministerialstatement is laid. It may be that there are other thingsthat happen elsewhere that require or trigger the needfor an adjustment of guidance that may not be able tobe done instantaneously, but anything as important asa written ministerial statement laid in Parliamentshould be reflected in the guidance online at thesame time.

Q29 Chair: Probably the most optimisticrecommendation in Lord Taylor’s review was thatnew guidance “should not unnecessarily restateregulations… rather these should be written clearly inthe first place”. But regularly they are not, are they?They are very often almost incomprehensible toanyone but the lawyers who wrote them. How can weget round that particular problem?Lord Taylor: Firstly, I would stress the word“unnecessarily”; there are occasions when it is all toonecessary. But I have to say we did also see quitea lot of examples where the original was perfectlyunderstandable but someone had paraphrased it insome guidance and, in some cases, we were being toldthat that paraphrasing may not be an entirely accurateinterpretation either. Firstly, resist the temptationwhere it is not necessary. We would also support theview of the House itself that regulation should bewritten more clearly in the first place. That has beena recommendation here, and there is a bit of disciplineon Government. With legislation it may be necessaryto amend previous Acts; with regulations, it should bepossible to replace. The group was horrified by thenumber of things that amend the previous Acts and asa result are inexplicable in their own right.3 I wouldhope that Members here would increasingly fuss aboutthat process, because it is just lazy government.

Q30 Simon Danczuk: Minister, what plans has theGovernment got to review the material produced byother Departments and bodies whose guidance orpolicy requirements are delivered through theplanning system?3 Correction by witness: The group was horrified by the

number of things that amend not replace the previousregulations and circulars and as a result are inexplicable intheir own right.

Nick Boles: It would be bold, even foolhardy, for avery junior, very newly appointed Minister to dare totread on other Departments’ guidance.Chair: Do not let that stop you.Bill Esterson: You used that excuse last time.Nick Boles: We want to make it clear that planningguidance is the stuff that is on this website. Otherguidance might well be great guidance—it might beakin to the 10 commandments laid down on thetablet—but it is not planning guidance if it is not onthis website. That is not to undermine its importance,but it is to clarify, for everybody involved in theplanning system, that if it is going to be treated asplanning guidance, it has got to be on this website,and if it is not, then it may be guidance of some otherform but it is not planning guidance.Lord Taylor: One thing you might be interested toknow is that, while it was not in our terms of referenceto cover anything that was not DCLG-badged,including those jointly badged with other Departmentsor organisations, my understanding is there isconsiderable interest in other Departments in theserecommendations. Insofar as it relates to planning,they are keen to come on to this site, and that waspart of the intention. I would like this to be effectiveenough and important enough that, if people want tobe paid attention to, they would wish to be on thissite, and then there is a process to make sure that it isin a suitable format and works with the rest, throughthe Chief Planner. Other Departments who havesimilar kinds of material are also looking to migrateto this kind of way of giving Government informationand advice. In that respect, I certainly hope that thiscan provide a model for how we communicate fromGovernment.

Q31 Simon Danczuk: Could I just ask for a bit ofclarity there? There are clearly other Departments inGovernment that produce guidance around planning-related issues that has a direct relevance to this. Areyou saying that their guidance will not appear on thewebsite? For example, the Department for Transportgive guidance about cycle-infrastructure design; thereis guidance around energy infrastructure—overheadpower lines and things like that—and there isEnvironment Agency guidance on permeablesurfacing of front gardens. Is that not going to appearon the website, Lord Taylor?Lord Taylor: Some of that is within remit—permeablematerial in front of houses is, as it happens, thoughwe are not convinced that it should be Governmentguidance in that particular case. The answer is theDepartment for Transport will have its views ontransport. If it believes that it is important that it istaken into account in the planning process, it cansimply have those views, but I think it would be wiseto talk to DCLG and the Chief Planner about gettingsuitable material on to the planning guidance site,because that is where people will turn to for planningguidance. All things Government does may be takeninto account, whether it is ministerial statements, otherDepartments and the rest, but my sense is that thereis a keenness to make this work across theDepartments. The Minister may be able to tell youmore.



Nick Boles: That is exactly right. We are open tosuggestions from other Departments of guidance thatthey produce that is nevertheless relevant to theplanning process and that should be included, but wewill subject any suggestions of other Departments tothe same pretty ferocious examination—in terms ofwhether it is really necessary, clear, well drafted andconcise—we are making, as you have seen and wehave been discussing, of the historic legacy ofplanning guidance. We are absolutely open to that, butwe will be quite testing in our demands about whetherit is really necessary. If I could just clarify that further,even if we end up saying either that we only wantsomething in very reduced form or not at all, that doesnot mean that another agency could not then maintainthe full set as its own guidance; it just would not beplanning guidance.

Q32 Simon Danczuk: Is not what you are saying acase of the tail wagging the dog? You are saying thatit is for Government—DCLG, the Department forTransport and others—to determine what is on thewebsite, but in reality, the website is there for othersto use. It is not for Government to determine whatmight and might not be useful for people, is it? Surelyif that particular policy and guidance around cycle-infrastructure design is relevant to people, it shouldbe there.Nick Boles: No, I do not agree at all, Mr Danczuk,because the whole point about this is that this isGovernment guidance on planning coming from theDepartment that is responsible for planning and theofficial who is called the Chief Planner. Anyorganisation, public or private, is entirely free toproduce material—if it wants to call it guidance, itcan call it guidance—that can inform, and no doubt ifit is very, very well-drafted and helpful, people willrely on it. We do have a responsibility—there isnational planning policy, fortunately now muchsimplified and much clarified, and we have a duty tomaintain that and give guidance as to how peopleshould interpret it and apply it. Others are absolutelyfree to publish whatever guidance they want, but ifthey want it to be government planning guidance, theyshould come through the Department that isresponsible for planning policy.

Q33 Simon Danczuk: You have touched alreadyupon creating understanding for ordinary people andthings not being too complex. Will the website have ahouse style that makes the documentation that is onthere easily accessible to people?Nick Boles: I hope that the house stylist would beGeorge Orwell, and if it met that standard, we couldall be proud. That might be quite hard when you aregetting into some of the technicalities of viabilitytests, but I am sure that Matthew and his colleaguesare up to it.Lord Taylor: I’m definitely not George Orwell. Wehave, as you would expect, done a bit of playingaround with how this might work, and that includesthinking about audiences. The primary audience isclearly the professional and the person interfacingwith the planning system: local authorities, thoseproposing development, and those advising them.

That is the guidance and it is to assist in that processthat it will exist, but we also want it to have anelement of being a guide, by which I mean that itshould be understandable to intelligent inquiry, so inlanguage that is not obscure, with an index that doesnot assume you already know what you are talkingabout so that it is readily searchable, and with theacronyms SHMA and SHLAA being replaced bysomething about housing need or assessing housingneed. All of those kinds of things are clearly there. Ido believe it needs to be simple and accessible, butnot to the point that it is not a professional tool, whichis what its primary purpose will be. Primarily it isprofessional guidance, but it is also a bit of a guide,and if that helps a citizens advice bureau or a solicitoror a planning consultant take someone to it and showthem, that is certainly far better than what exists atthe moment.One of the earliest concerns that was raised by theDaily Telegraph when it first heard about this inquirywas whether this was some kind of authoritarian, top-down stripping-away of the powers. Actually, one ofthe key things is that this makes the planning guidanceinfinitely more accountable than it has ever beenbefore. It will be readily accessible; it will be oneresource; it should be readable; it should beunderstandable, within reason; and it will be possiblefor people to put in their views. The one example Igive on that is that there is currently guidance ontackling Dutch elm disease, which is a little late, butnothing at all on ash dieback. I suspect in this formatpeople would have pointed that out quite early and itcould have been dealt with. Similarly, the climatechange data in the current document are out of date—they are not the current climate change data. That ispartly because the commissioning of a new documentis a lengthy process, but it has also not necessarilybeen spotted. Again, even if the officials had notspotted it, I am pretty certain that someone out therewould have pointed it out within minutes.

Q34 Simon Danczuk: So there will be guidance onhow the guidance is written?Lord Taylor: I was talking to the Design Councilyesterday and I think that they can help with that, butthere are people very expert on this withinGovernment. It would be fair to say that the group’sview is that it is clearly extremely important to get thematerial right, but if the web resource itself does notfunction effectively, it will not matter how good whatis written is; the conclusion will be it has not been asuccess. Getting it right is incredibly important. It isnot going to be a complicated thing; it is not somegreat vast Government IT project. Nevertheless, itneeds to work and it needs to work well.

Q35 Mark Pawsey: Gentlemen, can I move on fromguidance to signposts? Lord Taylor, in your report,you said that the new website “should signpostorganisations providing best-practice guidance andother advice”. It is quite interesting, Lord Taylor, thatyou have just referred to climate change, because thePlanning for Climate Change guide had noGovernment endorsement in it. If we have gotsignposts in there, how will local authorities, whether



they are in the plan-making role or determiningapplications, know how much weight to put when theyare being signposted to an organisation other thanDCLG that has given some best practice?Nick Boles: If I might answer that first, Mr Pawsey,you have lighted on probably the one recommendationwhere we were not 100% persuaded. There aredifferent layers, or levels, as it were, of organisationto which one might imagine having some kind of alinks page. If it were the Environment Agency, whichhas its responsibilities, many of which are relevant toplanning, then I can see how that might be sensible.We get into slightly more difficult territory if you startpicking and choosing organisations that are notstatutory bodies with statutory responsibilities andputting them on the list of signposts, because thenimmediately you will have lots of other organisationsthat will say either, “They should not be there,” or“They should not be as high up the list as they are.”As you know, all of these recommendations are opento consultation; the consultation runs for anothercouple of weeks. We would be interested in theCommittee’s views and in anybody else’s views on allthe recommendations, but that is one in particularwhere we are open to suggestions as to whichapproach is the best one.

Q36 Mark Pawsey: One of the examples that theCommittee has got is that you could get conflictingadvice, where two bodies with different views couldbe signposted. Lord Taylor, how would you reconcilethat problem?Lord Taylor: What we said about signposting hasbeen quite widely over-read as if we will besignposting lots and lots of organisations. The debateactually took place in the opposite direction, becausesome people had thrown around the thought that allguidance should be equal—that is all guidance outthere as well as any Government guidance. Our viewwas that there did need to be a clear governmentguidance suite. Then the question was whether thereare documents out there, particularly around bestpractice—and I have said that we do not think that isfundamentally a role for Government, though theymay support awards schemes and so on—and what wedo there. Again, our view was the guidance cannotsignpost individual documents, because ourunderstanding is that at the point that an individualdocument is identified, that effectively gains the statusof government guidance, and of course if Governmentdoes not control it, it may change over time, it mayhave elements that are out of date, and so on. Thatbrought us from particular documents toorganisations, but really the organisations that weenvisaged were the kinds of Government and publicbodies that have been referred to and also the statutoryconsultees that exist in many areas. As you go acrossthe various plan-making areas, there are bodies thatdo have status that people might look to to get furtheradvice. I do not envisage it being a plethora of private,charitable and other bodies that may have justpublished all sorts of things, because the Departmentwould have no reading of what they might be sayingat any given time.

Q37 Mark Pawsey: We wondered whether thismight be something in the way of preventing peoplereinventing the wheel, so one authority, placed withone set of circumstances, might have a look at howsomebody else had done it. You are saying that theycan do that, but there should be no particular weightattached to it?Lord Taylor: No. I think others would signpost that—the LGA, the Planning Advisory Service and a rangeof bodies that are interested in planning, like the RTPIand others. There are plenty of professional sourcesfor that kind of advice. To take an example, onheritage, there are a number of specific consultees.They do publish documents. We did not think thatparticular documents should be highlighted, becauseif it was thought there was necessary guidance, itshould be on this site rather than in a separatedocument, but clearly it would be appropriate to drawpeople’s attention to the statutory consultees and theGovernment bodies that may be providing advicearound it. That was really what we envisaged.

Q38 Chair: Let me be clear: there is going to be noguidance signposted or indicated in any way asapproved by Government that private-sectororganisations produce?Lord Taylor: No.Chair: I think there has been a misunderstandingabout that.Lord Taylor: Yes, there has been a misunderstanding.In these reports, there is always some bit that youmight word slightly differently if you went back to it,but that has been helpful.

Q39 Bill Esterson: I think that goes with the pointabout crowd-sourcing that you raised. Perhaps youwould just clarify that is what you mean by it: thatthe crowd-sourcing would only be to do with non-Government comments and that you are not going tocrowd-source the Government’s own planningguidance—or maybe you are.Nick Boles: Maybe we covered this, Mr Esterson,before you came in. We want the site to be a livingthing. There will be an annual review by the ChiefPlanner. There may be changes in the meantime thatwill come as a result of changes in Governmentlegislation or written ministerial statements, as theChairman has suggested, but there will also be anannual moment where all of the comments that comein from the outside world—i.e. the people whoactually have to do this job—will be taken intoaccount. To that extent, suggested amendments oradditions over time will be crowd-sourced, but theoriginal body of guidance that is going up there isbeing sourced from the combination of Lord Taylor’sgroup and officials, ultimately subject to ministerialdecision.Lord Taylor: It is a one-click process of pointing outmistakes or requesting some further information.

Q40 Bill Esterson: But it will not update itself.Lord Taylor: It will not be Wikipedia.Bill Esterson: There was an implication along thoselines.Nick Boles: No, it is not Wiki-guidance.



Lord Taylor: We could have recommended that; itwould be a whole different recommendation.

Q41 Bill Esterson: I think so. I have a few questionson the way the guidance will be kept up to date onthe website. What will happen to the existingPlanning Portal?Nick Boles: The Planning Portal is, to my mind, oneof the best websites operating within the broad realmof central Government. I am a huge supporter of boththe website and the organisation. These two things arenot directly linked, although of course you will pointout that they cover some similar topics. We have notmade any final decisions on it. I hope that we canlearn from the flexibility and usability of the PlanningPortal site in the design of the planning guidance site,and I think there is much we can do with thatorganisation, but it does not necessarily replaceanything that they currently have.

Q42 Bill Esterson: So this is not about being a newPlanning Portal?Nick Boles: This is not about being a new PlanningPortal, no.

Q43 Bill Esterson: You have touched on some ofthese points, but perhaps you can explain how youwill make sure that whatever is on there is the latest,up-to-date guidance, given that there is this rollingapproach of updates.Nick Boles: The way it will work is that firstlyeverything will need to go through the Chief Plannerand have the Chief Planner’s approval. You will nothave myriad people having diffuse accountability foradding, subtracting or amending. Secondly, to theextent that an amendment or an addition is requiredas a result of a change in policy or a piece of newlegislation, there will be a very strong expectation thatthat is done pretty much exactly at the same time asthat legislation becomes law or that change isimplemented. To the extent that it is a result of asuggestion or a discussion out there in the world abouthow something is working—for example, ash diebackdisease has suddenly arrived and we need to deal withit—that will be dealt with as soon as it seemsnecessary or at the annual review. It may be that youdo not want to wait all the time for the annual review,but the commitment for immediate up-to-date changewill be simply those things that are a result of majorchanges in central Government policy.

Q44 Bill Esterson: So anyone going to the websitewill be clear that whatever is available is the absolutelatest guidance?Nick Boles: Yes.Bill Esterson: You just said that you might have towait for the annual review to update; that seemsslightly at odds.Nick Boles: No. Until it has been updated, it has notbeen updated. There may be a suggestion that hascome forward for an addition or an amendment; untilit has been adopted, it has not been adopted.Lord Taylor: The current planning guidance is whatis current on the site. I would just add that the mostimportant thing in that process is that people can print

out date-stamped evidence of when they applied andtook that guidance, if it comes to appeal or somethingof that sort at a later stage, because they do want tobe able to evidence that it was current at the time; itmay have shifted since. That is part of the necessaryfunctionality of the site. It happens already with legalsites and so on, so it is not a complex thing to do, butit is very important that people know when it wascurrent. Necessarily there will be some form ofarchiving process, but also people need to be able togo to the site—for registered users; those who areregularly using it professionally—and have changesbrought to their attention. Changes would be flaggedto those who are regular users.

Q45 Chair: Just before we move on to the permitteddevelopment rights, I would like to make one briefcomment and ask one question of the Minister, if Imight. Lord Taylor, I thought your description of theimportance and the methods of bringing new ways ofmeasuring housing need on a consistent basis was spoton. It seems to be absolutely crucial we get that rightas a matter of urgency; the Minister has indicated thatas well. I thought that was very helpful indeed, amongother useful things you have said to us.Minister, one of the things it seems with the websiteis the importance of keeping it up to date, as you havesaid—making sure that it reflects the current guidanceand it is there and does not have things that areirrelevant. One of the concerns that the Committeeraised on the NPPF, which has not been enacted yet—probably for obvious reasons: a lot of change ishappening—is that local plans are at the centre of theplanning process, but they can very easily become outof date, so the measures of housing need that wererelevant two or three years ago may not be relevantnow and they certainly will not be relevant in four orfive years’ time, but the local plan will still be there.I just wonder whether any consideration has beengiven, or whether you might be prepared to give itconsideration and let the Committee have a note on itin due course4, to how there could be a light-touchway of updating local plans. In a way there is goingto be an easy way of updating the guidance; can wedo the same with plans without a complete need torevisit the whole plan in an elaborate process that willtake another two or three years?Nick Boles: Mr Chairman, I have total sympathy forthat suggestion. I think it is extremely important thatwe do find such a way. If I could take up your offerof going away and perhaps doing a bit more work onit and coming back with a slightly more full response,I would like to do so. The thrust of what you aresuggesting I completely agree with.Chair: Thanks very much indeed. We will move onto permitted development issues.Lord Taylor: Chairman, I am meant to be flying backhome tonight. If the part that involves me is over, Iwill make my aeroplane, but I do not want to put youunder any obligation.Chair: You can make your aeroplane and we thankyou very much indeed for coming. That has beenreally helpful to the Committee. Thank you verymuch.4 Ev



Q46 Mark Pawsey: Minister, my question relates tothe change in policy with regard to the conversionfrom commercial use to residential use. We allunderstand that there is pressure on housing, but weknow that there are commercial buildings that are notcurrently in use and, in some instances, thosecommercial buildings may be effectively converted toresidential. But there is a very strong steer in theNPPF for that to happen, so why the need to relaxpermitted development rights? Why not just allow theplanning process to take due course?Nick Boles: I am grateful for the question and wasparticularly grateful for Lord Taylor’s help, which Inow do not have; on this I am flying solo. When wewere all talking about our plans as a Government andas two separate parties for greater localism, both theConservative Party and the Liberal Democrats talked,if not in the precise phrase nevertheless in the intent,of the phrase “double devolution”. Hence it was notjust a matter of central Government devolving powersto and removing restrictions from local government;it was also a matter of all branches of governmentthinking about what powers could be devolved topeople—to families, to communities and tohouseholds. It is absolutely right that we have,through the NPPF, created a strong steer to localauthorities that they should look favourably upon suchchanges of use, but the whole point is that we do notenforce that in a policed way. It is an encouragement,like many of the things in the NPPF.We also believe—and it is entirely complementary,not contradictory, to that suggestion in the NPPF—that there is a greater ability to give property owners,business owners and landlords a greater freedom todo what they think is going to be both socially andeconomically best with their property, subject to somerestrictions, because of course certain changes canhave certain impacts. That is why the liberalisationthat we have brought in has been linked to theintroduction of a prior approval regime, which wehope will be introduced through the Growth andInfrastructure Bill. Once that has Royal Assent, thenit will be possible for this to take place. The priorapproval regime maintains the right for the localauthority to have oversight over and some control ofspecific issues, but the general permitted developmentright will give a greater freedom to landlords andbusiness owners to make the best use of their property.

Q47 Mark Pawsey: If such a change involves thebest use of their property for broader purposes, thelocal authority will grant consent anyway, and theremay be certain instances where it may not be a goodidea because it may involve intensification andadditional demand on local services, or it may haveroad transport implications. Why not just let it gothrough the process in the usual way—as apresumption in favour?Nick Boles: I believe I have already explained that,and it may be a matter on which we do not agree, butI think my position is clear. To a very large extent,I think that we should trust people—either acting ashouseholds and families, or acting as businessowners—to make good decisions. I accept that thereare occasions when those decisions will impact on

other people, and it is therefore right that some dulyelected and accountable authority has some ability toreview and adjudicate. I believe that the permitteddevelopment right that we are proposing is anabsolutely proper level of trust in individuals to makegood use, but we have been very clear that there arecertain kinds of impacts that, if they were substantial,would need to be assessed and adjudicated by thelocal authority, and that, therefore, is the reason for aprior-approval regime. We do not believe that all ofthe impact that is taken in by the planning process isone that it is appropriate for some authority to judge.Authorities should intervene and should have a roleand control where it is necessary, but not everywherethat they want to.Of course, Mr Pawsey, you are right that manyauthorities are being very sensible and progressive intheir interpretation of the policies of the NationalPlanning Policy Framework, but we do not believethat the individual’s freedom should be dependentupon the benign nature of the authorities under whichthey live. There are certain rights and freedoms thatpeople should have, and this is a small extension ofpersonal freedom that we think is reasonable andbalanced by the prior-approval process.

Q48 Mark Pawsey: Why apply it to some useclasses and not to others?Nick Boles: We have applied it to a number of useclasses, as you will be aware—we made a number ofannouncements last week—and the use class systemis one that we are constantly looking at and inquiringwhether there is there an area of further liberalisationor simplification that would be fair to neighbours andfair to the community. There are not always commonviews on where to strike the balance, but we havenever reached a conclusion on that, nor, I suspect, willany future Government reach a final conclusion onthat. It is an ongoing process, but what we broughtforward last week was a package of liberalisingmeasures that we thought was a reasonable resettingof the balance between freedom and authority: controlof the local authority and the property owner’s rights.

Q49 Mark Pawsey: Something that fits into B2—general industry—is not subject to this new freedom,but something that fits into B1—offices—is.Nick Boles: As you know, we consulted very widelyand for an extended period of time on this particularproposal, and we also had some discussions about theconsultation responses, and there were some fairlystrong suggestions that some of the broadercommercial uses would be inappropriate—that theimpact of that change would be such that it was rightthat there was a planning process to deal with them.But on this relatively narrow category of office uses,the impact described in the prior-approval process wasall that needed to be looked at by a local authority,and the planning process itself was overlycumbersome and bureaucratic and thereforeconstraining on people—because it both costs andtakes time—for that quite narrow change of use.

Q50 Simon Danczuk: The statement on 24 Januarysaid that the Secretary of State would “grant an



exemption in exceptional circumstances”. It gives twoexamples: “loss of a nationally significant area ofeconomic activity” and “substantial adverse economicconsequences at the local authority level”. How wouldthe exemption work?Nick Boles: Thank you for the question, because it isuseful to be able to explain this. The first thing Iwould like to make clear is that, as with everypermitted development right, the Article 4 route willremain in existence, so any local authority will be ableto look at how this permitted development right isworking in their area, or how they anticipate it willwork, and be able to look at whether an Article 4direction is appropriate. What came back to us duringthe process of consultation was that that was aninsufficient protection for some places because of thedelay in introducing an Article 4 or the liability forcompensation that can operate if you go ahead andintroduce an Article 4 direction as soon as thepermitted development right becomes law.We listened to that and there was a suggestion that weneeded to have a prior-exemption regime as well asArticle 4. We are writing, or may even have writtentoday, or possibly will write tomorrow, to localauthorities—indeed, I have the letter here, dated 24January—to invite them to make proposals for wherethey think should be exempted in their area. It will bea reasonably high test that we will apply—you quotedthe criteria—but we are open to good arguments aboutparticular places. The one that everybody has talkedabout is the City of London, but that is by no meansthe only one that might well have a good case foran exemption.

Q51 Simon Danczuk: I am concerned about thevitality of town centres. That is something that thePortas review picked up on. That report by theDepartment talked about being in favour ofsustainable development in town centres, and aboutthe inclusion of offices as well as shops andbusinesses. This is going to have an adverse effect onthat, is it not?Nick Boles: No, I do not accept that. Some of theother recommendations of the Portas review were fora relaxation of change of use and, as you will beaware, we have already introduced the greaterfreedom to create residential property above shops,which was something that many people hadsuggested. It will be possible for local authorities toidentify areas where they feel that it would be gravelydamaging to the local economy to have this permitteddevelopment right, but the truth is that to some extentthe free market does work, and so if commercialproperty is a very important part of a particular place,then it is likely a) to be occupied and b) to haverelatively good returns for landlords.I suspect we are all aware of areas in ourconstituencies where there are offices that are notoccupied and perhaps have not been for quite a longtime, due to changes in work patterns, a change ofindustrial structure and change in our economy—welive in a fast-changing economic world—and whereresidential values are substantially higher. It seems tous right that in those situations, people who ownproperty can form a judgment about the best way to

put that property to use. I am often somewhatcriticised for what people represent as my desire tobuild houses on open fields, and I would point out thatthe more houses we can get into pre-existingbuildings—offices among them—the fewer we willhave to build on open fields.

Q52 Simon Danczuk: Did you carry out an impactassessment in relation to this policy?Nick Boles: We did carry out an impact assessmenton the original consultation. Forgive me for not beingfamiliar with it, because this policy was announcedreally quite a long time ago and so it had been throughmany parts of the gestation process long before Iwas appointed.

Q53 Chair: The permitted development rights do notjust apply to empty offices, do they? It can be a fullyoccupied office.Nick Boles: They absolutely do not, but of course, asa landlord, it would be a higher test to your judgmentabout whether to run the risk of converting it toresidential use if you already have a tenant in therewho is paying you good rent. That is simply the pointI was trying to make. You are absolutely right.

Q54 Chair: Does the office block have to exist?Could someone get permission for an office block andthen decide to build flats instead?Nick Boles: Apparently yes.

Q55 Chair: So there could be a situation where acouncil believes residential development is notappropriate in an area, has turned down permissionfor a block of flats, and permission is then given fora block of offices—Nick Boles: You would be a brave man who wouldthen go ahead and build a block of offices in order tothen convert them into flats.

Q56 Chair: Why?Nick Boles: Because surely it would be a slightlyrisky form of investment. You are going to have toput it up as offices and then change it.

Q57 Chair: You would not have to put it up, though;you could actually build the block of flats instead,could you not?Nick Boles: The building has to be an office beforeyou can exercise the permitted development right toconvert it into residential.

Q58 Chair: So you actually have to build the office?Nick Boles: You would have to build the office inorder to then be able to apply the permitteddevelopment right.

Q59 Chair: An office could be a shell, could it not?Does it have to be fitted out as an office?Nick Boles: Mr Chairman, you are pursuing aninteresting and creative line of inquiry and I am surethat we could write to the Committee with somefurther thoughts on it5, but I do not believe it is a5 Ev



very likely proposition to completely from scratchgame the system by building an office that does noteven exist.Chair: It might be helpful to have a note, then, onprecisely what is allowed.Nick Boles: Absolutely right.Bill Esterson: When you are writing that note,perhaps you would take on board the point that itwould be very easy to build an office that wasinternally designed so that it would very quicklyconvert to flats.Nick Boles: We will certainly address that in the notewe write.

Q60 Bill Esterson: The question I wanted to ask youis about the economic impact. The presumption isabout development; that is very much the thrust ofyour Government’s stated policy. I take your pointabout the fact that offices may have been empty for along time, but is it not important that an attempt ismade to regenerate in terms of growth and economicactivity using those offices, rather than just saying,“Okay, we will have residential because they havebeen empty for a long time”?Nick Boles: As I pointed out, there are two sourcesof exemption from this policy: firstly, the specialexemption regime that has been created; and secondly,Article 4. For those authorities that right up front, hereand now, anticipate that this could do damage tosomething that is either of national significance or ofgreat economic importance to their locality, they canapply for an exemption now. Then, if there are otherlocal authorities that go along with it for a bit andstart getting worried about some of the impact thatyou are talking about, they can put in place an Article4 direction.It is simply a question about what you think thepresumption should be. Our view is the presumptionshould be that, if a property owner thinks this is aworthwhile move and can satisfy the local authorityon the very narrow set of issues in the prior-approvalregime, they should be allowed to do it. If the localauthority thinks, “This is undermining our local plan,”they are of course at liberty either to take advantageof the exemption regime up front, or, if they do notrealise that until after then, to do that through anArticle 4.I would just remind the Committee that this relaxationis time-limited to three years and it will be reviewedafter three years. We are responding to thecircumstance that we hear from many Membersshould be our first priority, which is the need tostimulate growth, but if in three years’ time peoplefeel that it has not worked positively, there will be areview to look at it again.

Q61 Chair: Have you received lots of complaintsfrom people that local authorities have been turningapplications of this kind down?Nick Boles: We have had complaints. “Complaints”is perhaps unfair. We have had evidence of that.Chair: How much?Nick Boles: One of the things I think is important isto establish whether you are doing something becauseof an application of a principle or whether you are

doing it simply in response to lots of squeals. We dobelieve that it is a fundamental principle that propertyowners should be able to make the best use of theirproperty so long as the impact on other people is notegregious or unfair or not capable of being mitigatedsome other way. I would not personally need to havehad a single complaint to be persuaded that this is abetter way of handling questions of the proper useof property than the requirement to go through a fullplanning process for something that may only have avery narrow range of impacts that can be judgedthrough a prior approval process instead.

Q62 Mark Pawsey: Minister, I do not think peopleobject to that principle—the Committee certainly doesnot object to that principle. The notion that ourbuilding stock should be more efficiently used at atime of housing shortage is entirely appropriate. I havegot a particular view about retail; there is a lot ofvacant retail because people are spending more moneyon the internet than they are in traditional methods ofretail. It should be easier for retail at the fringes oftown centres, much of which in my view wasdeveloped as housing and converted to retail, to goback to housing. Should not those things be dealt withthrough the planning system, because that is what theplanning system is there for?Nick Boles: The planning system is there for asubstantial range of effects that a use of property or achange of use of property has upon the neighboursand the broader community. We want local authoritiesto focus on those planning applications that genuinelyhave that impact and genuinely, therefore, need to bemanaged, directed and adjudicated in that way. We donot want them to be gumming up the works withplanning decisions that, frankly, do not need to be putthrough the planning system. The prior-approvalregime that we are putting in place will be much moretightly defined and, therefore, swifter and lessexpensive for both planning authority and applicant.We think it is entirely right and proper to narrow itdown and liberalise as much as is reasonable, whilenevertheless allowing the impact that might happen tobe assessed by the authority.

Q63 Chair: Can you help us by telling us when anannouncement will be made on the issue of permitteddevelopment rights for extensions to dwellings?Nick Boles: I am not sure if I know exactly whenan announcement will be made. We had an extensiveconsultation, which I am glad to say attracted greatinterest, as one would hope every consultation would,and we are in the process of reviewing the responsesto that consultation. You may be aware that theGrowth and Infrastructure Bill is going through theother place, and there are indeed Members of theHouse of Lords who also have a great interest in thatparticular proposal, even though it is not in factcontained within the legislation; however, the prior-approval regimes for other permitted developmentrights are in that, so they have taken that opportunityto pass comment. I am advised that we had 1,400responses to that consultation—I must be the envy ofevery other Minister—and we are reviewing those, butwe do not have a date for our response.



Chair: Perhaps we can just say as a Committee thatwe produced our report on this matter on20 December.Nick Boles: The closing date was 24 December, Ibelieve.Chair: As I say, our report was produced on 20December. The normal requirement is thatGovernment replies to Select Committee reports

within eight weeks, so by 20 February, allowing a bitof leeway, we would expect a reply to our report.Nick Boles: I am sure that we would always wish tobe polite and correct, Mr Chairman.Chair: On that note, Minister, thank you very muchfor coming this afternoon and for giving evidence tous.


Written evidence

Written evidence submitted by the Institute for Archaeologists

1. Summary

1.1 IfA agrees with the Review Group that there is not presently “an effective suite of planning practiceguidance to support plan making and development management by the sector as a whole, nor is it in a formwhich can be effectively managed and kept up-to-date”.

1.2 With regard to the historic environment, IfA also agrees that PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment:Historic Environment Practice Guide (2010) (Review Report, Annex C, document 31) should be replaced byrevised guidance and accepts that this may involve a substantial reduction in the length of that guidance.

1.3 Such high-level guidance should nonetheless address the following (amongst other things) in relationto archaeology

— clarification of the concept of “archaeological interest”;

— recognition of the importance of undesignated heritage assets in the planning system; and

— the advantages of development-related, archaeological work being carried out by competent,accredited practitioners working in accordance with professional standards.

1.4 Furthermore, policy and guidance “does not necessarily achieve clarity by virtue of its brevity”.1

Although IfA supports the National Planning Policy Framework in its current form, it does require detailedelaboration in guidance. Much of the detail in PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: HistoricEnvironment Practice Guide (2010) and the draft Historic Environment Forum (HEF) guidance (whichimproves upon the earlier document) should be viewed as necessary guidance on what is required in consideringapplications relating to the historic environment (“minimum compliance”) rather than discretionary goodpractice. If all of this cannot be included in high-level, Government-endorsed guidance, then it should at leastbe signposted in that guidance and produced by the sector with the support of Government.

1.5 In addition to guidance on the minimum requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (suchas the HEF draft and IfA Standards and guidance), the Review Group notes the value of good practice guidance(such as the “clients’ guide to archaeology” presently under development by IfA). IfA remains committed tothe continuing development of good practice guidance for the historic environment.

2. Introduction

2.1 The Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) is the professional body for archaeologists and related professionsconcerned with the study and care of the historic environment. It promotes best practice in archaeology andprovides a self-regulatory quality assurance framework for the sector and those it serves.

2.2 The IfA has over 3,200 members and more than 70 registered practices across the United Kingdom andabroad. Its members work in all branches of the discipline: heritage management, planning advice, excavation,finds and environmental study, buildings recording, underwater and aerial archaeology, museums, conservation,survey, research and development, teaching and liaison with the community, industry and the commercial andfinancial sectors.

2.3 IfA has responsibility for setting practice standards for its members in the public interest.

3. Response to Specific Questions

1. Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changesneed to be made?

3.1 Yes. If anything it has gone too far. In an ideal world, it is true that regulations, SIs and policy “shouldbe written clearly in the first place” (Review Group Report, page 6)2 but in reality detailed guidance isrequired, particularly when the emphasis in policy is upon brevity. (As this Committee noted in consideringthe National Planning Policy Framework last year,3 brevity is not necessarily synonymous with clarity.)

3.2 That is not to say that IfA takes issue with Lord Taylor’s basic premise that there is currently too muchplanning guidance, much of which is outdated, obscure and inaccessible. We are simply, respectfully sayingthat “you should not throw out the baby with the bath water”.1 CLG Committee Report: The National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1526, page 32 Even when policy is clearly written there can still be problems. For instance, the need for a historic environment record (HER)

made clear in the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 127) has been misinterpreted by some local authorities whoseek to refute the need for a HER. The answer to this problem would be a statutory duty on local authorities to have access toa properly maintained HER.

3 CLG Committee Report: The National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1526, page 3


2. Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescaleshould be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

3.3 IfA wishes to see the revision of PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic EnvironmentPractice Guide (2010) included as an urgent priority to ensure the continued protection of the historicenvironment. We commend the HEF draft for its clear explanation of the responsibilities under the NationalPlanning Policy Framework of applicants and planning authorities, but there is also an urgent need for goodpractice guidance.

3. Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

3.4 See above.

4. Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

3.5 The timetable is challenging, but might be achieved (at least with regard to the historic environment) ifthe historic environment sector is fully and promptly engaged in the process.

5. Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

3.6 This should be the primary responsibility of DCLG, but (in respect of the historic environment) fullengagement with professional institutes, English Heritage and the wider sector would ameliorate the resourcingimplications for the Department.

6. Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as theEnvironment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this becarried out?

3.7 Ideally, yes. With regard to the historic environment, this would best be achieved by the activeinvolvement of DCMS, professional institutes, English Heritage and the wider historic environment sector, ledby DCLG.

7. How will a “rolling suite of guidance” as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as thesite will be “live” with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time itwas used?

3.8 IfA supports the concept of a “rolling suite of guidance” but recognises the practical difficulties indelivering such a mechanism. In practical terms clarity might be achieved by avoiding ad hoc revision ofguidance and instead revising only at predetermined times (for instance, the first of every month).

4. Recommendations

4.1 PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Practice Guide (2010) should as apriority be replaced by revised guidance which should address the following (amongst other things) in relationto archaeology

— clarification of the concept of “archaeological interest”;

— recognition of the importance of undesignated heritage assets in the planning system; and

— the advantages of development-related, archaeological work being carried out by competent,accredited practitioners working in accordance with professional standards.

4.2 Further guidance on minimum compliance and good practice in relation to the historic environmentshould be signposted in any high-level guidance.

17 January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Building Research Establishment

Executive Summary

1. The recommendation that the Government should provide planning practice guidance that is clear, up-to-date, coherent and easily accessible is welcome and supported in principle.

2. There should be a consistent approach as to whether guidance from Government agencies should beincorporated within the content of the proposed new website.

3. The planning guidance on the proposed new website should be aligned with other relevant Governmentpolicy and guidance eg National Adaptation Programme, Natural Environment White Paper.

4. Proposed new guidance (eg on viability) should reflect this, and ensure that economic, social andenvironmental gains are sought jointly and simultaneously.


5. Adequate resources in terms of both quantity and expertise should be provided to set up and maintain theproposed new website. A seamless transition to the new system will be critical to its credibility.

6. There should be a second formal consultation on the proposals as recommended by Lord Taylor.

7. The Government should clarify its intentions in relation to good practice guidance provided by otherbodies.

Person Submitting Evidence

8. Chris Cousins is local government liaison manager for BRE (formerly the Building ResearchEstablishment). A significant part of his job involves working with local planning authorities which wish toencourage higher standards of sustainability in the built environment.

9. He previously worked as chief planning officer and head of sustainable development for OxfordshireCounty Council.

Reducing and Consolidating Guidance

10. The review’s recommendation that the Government should provide planning guidance which is clear,up-to-date, coherent and easily accessible is welcome and supported in principle.

11. Many of the detailed proposals as to which guidance should be cancelled, etc. are unexceptionable.However, there are a few areas where the review’s thinking is not entirely clear.

12. For example, the review suggests (at paragraph 7) that Planning Inspectorate (PINS) guidance “isincorporated into the new single coherent guidance resource”, apparently on the basis that “PINS is aGovernment body”. However, elsewhere (Annex A, Document 48) the joint DCLG/Environment Agencyguidance on the permeable surfacing of front gardens is recommended for cancellation as “not appropriate forGovt planning guidance”. This is despite the fact that the Environment Agency is also a Government body,and that this guidance appears directly relevant to the Government’s own climate change risk assessment(DEFRA, 2012) and national adaptation programme. It is also not clear on what basis the review team concludethat the “Private sector can provide advice” on this issue, or indeed why the private sector would wish to.

13. There should be a consistent approach as to whether guidance from Government agencies should beincorporated within the content of the proposed new website.

Aligning Planning Practice Guidance With Other Government Policy and Guidance

14. The review’s recommendations refer (at paragraph 8) to “Cross-Government guidance”, and suggest thatother material should only constitute “formal Government Planning Practice Guidance once it is admitted tothis website” (ie the one proposed by the review). While this seems a sensible approach, it needs to becombined with ensuring that the planning practice guidance takes account of and is aligned with other relevantGovernment policy and guidance.

15. For example, local planning authorities have statutory duties in relation to contributing to the achievementof sustainable development (S39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004), mitigation of andadaptation to climate change (S19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, as amended by S182 of thePlanning Act 2008), and promoting good design (ibid.). It will therefore be important to ensure that planningpractice guidance properly reflects such duties and aligns closely with such things as the National AdaptationProgramme and the Natural Environment White Paper.

Proposed New Guidance

16. This has a bearing on some of the areas where new guidance is proposed. For example, guidance onviability should ensure that the approach reflects the National Planning Policy Framework’s aim (NPPFparagraph 8) that “economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneouslythrough the planning system”. Thus a proposed development which was not resilient to climate change overthe next 50 to 100 years, or which resulted in unmet requirements for necessary social infrastructure shouldnot be considered viable, even if it resulted in “competitive returns to a willing land owner and willingdeveloper” (NPPF paragraph 173).

Process

17. The process of transition to the proposed new regime will be critical to its success. A key issue will beto ensure a seamless transition from the old system to the new, to ensure that problems are not caused eitherby important guidance being cancelled before there is something to take its place or by new contradictions orconfusion being introduced. Unless this transition is carefully handled it could lead to problems at examinationsand inquiries, not to mention scope for legal debate.

18. The transition to the proposed new system will require considerable resources in terms of quantity andexpertise both to implement and, equally importantly, to keep up to date. (In passing, it appears that letters


from DCLG to local authority chief planning officers are continuing to be sent out, so that the volume ofguidance is still growing.)

19. Given the resources available within DCLG the timetable proposed by the review appears optimistic.

20. The review’s proposals for keeping the website up to date, which cite legal websites as an example thatwould be appropriate to follow, appear sensible. However, the resources and discipline required to achieve thisshould not be underestimated.

21. The Government does not appear to have responded to the review’s recommendation that there shouldbe a second formal consultation. Given the scale of the change proposed such a consultation should be includedas an essential part of the process.

Best Practice Guidance Provided by Other Bodies

22. The review suggests that the new Government website for planning practice guidance should provide asignpost to, but should not endorse, guidance produced by others. This begs several questions, including:

(a) What status and weight should be given to such guidance?

(b) Producing best practice guidance, particularly if it comes from a range of differentorganisations, takes considerable time and effort. What incentive will there be for organisationsto produce such guidance?

(c) What happens if different groups produce conflicting guidance?

23. In its consultation on the draft NPPF, the Government asked for views on the statement that “Anyguidance needed to support the new Framework should be light-touch and could be provided by organisationsoutside Government”. The Government took a similar line in its March 2012 response to the Communities andLocal Government Select Committee Report on the NPPF.

24. Largely in response to this background a number of cross-sector examples of good practice guidancehave been published. The subjects covered include: planning for climate change; biodiversity and greeninfrastructure; sustainable design and construction. Dozens of private, public and voluntary organisations havebeen involved in producing this guidance. The willingness of such organisations to be similarly involved infuture is likely to depend in part on the importance attached to such guidance in the planning system, and theGovernment should clarify its position on this.

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Home Builders Federation

Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changes needto be made?

The Review Team were comprehensive in their examination of existing guidance and concluded that evenwhere extant guidance was necessary and up to date there was considerable scope for consolidation and greaterbrevity. We believe the Review team have got the balance right in proposing an appropriate, manageable andconcise body of guidance for the future.

It is a matter for Part 2 of the Review to produce the new guidance required—this was not in the scope ofthe Review Team given the very tight timescale to which they were working. The identification of the varioustopics for which guidance is necessary and the relationship with the NPPF is both applauded and welcome.

Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescaleshould be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

The Review team have been quite clear that in some cases, although the extant guidance is neither up todate nor totally fit for purpose its removal would give the wrong signals to practitioners. Thus, in paragraph18 of the report they have recommended those areas of guidance that should be a priority for updating andrevision. These include SHMAA and SHLAA, the duty to co-operate and various environmental issues suchas climate change, EIA and sustainability appraisal. We agree with this list.

The cancellation and consolidation of other guidance should take place as soon as possible, and not laterthan July 2013. However, the areas of priority are just that—their updating, consolidation or, in some case,production, should be undertaken as a matter of priority, long before July 2013.

We have some concerns about a number of the recommendations, but we will look to see these are addressedin the production of the new guidance.

While we agree that viability assessment is a key planning issue we doubt that any government guidancewill provide a more comprehensive basis for this than the recent work undertaken by the HBF and LGA whichwas led by Sir John Harman. We would therefore wish to see DCLG use Sir John Harman’s report as the basisfor any new guidance on viability assessment issues.


The report also doesn’t make it clear that the recommended guidance on environmental quality refers to anumber of the subjects previously covered by the more technical PPSs such as PPS24 on noise and PPS23 onpollution control. While this is also part of the current standards review the proposed planning guidance could,as recommended by the Review, set appropriate standards for planning for these issues.

Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

The Review was comprehensive in covering all of the guidance issued by DCLG or jointly badged byDCLG with other government departments. However, there are other departments whose guidance or policyrequirements are delivered through the planning system. Such guidance was excluded from the remit of theReview team and we would like to see a similar review process undertaken in all government departmentswhose guidance is delivered through planning.

Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

It is critical that the review of guidance does not stop with the publication of the Review teamrecommendations. The implementation of the NPPF is dependent upon its policy being supported by conciseand necessary planning guidance as recommended by the Review Team. Much of the extant guidance (asidentified by the team) is out of date and much of it relates to policy as set out in now withdrawn PPSs andPPGs. The new suite of guidance should be specifically related to, and clearly identifiable with, the policyrequirements of the NPPF.

The timetable of having the new suite in place by July 2013 is challenging and will require a prioritising ofresources within DCLG. However, it is realistic and will only fail if the department fails to give the task theappropriate priority or resource.

Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-basedresource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

It will be possible for much of this work to be undertaken in-house by DCLG officials. The recommendationof the Review Team is that the new guidance should be “living” documents, open to continual comment anddiscussion amongst practitioners. Thus any mistakes that are made in the production of the new guidance canbe easily corrected through the new structure proposed by the Review Team.

The proposals rely on a clear, easy to use, web-based structure for the new guidance and the establishmentof this key piece of infrastructure should be a departmental priority. Population of the web-based resource willbe an ongoing, constantly reviewed task. However, it is vital that the web resource is designed correctly in thefirst place in order that this can happen efficiently and effectively.

Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as theEnvironment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this becarried out?

Given the limited remit of the Taylor Review solely to DCLG guidance it would seem reasonable andsensible for similar reviews to be undertaken of all government departments’ guidance on development andthe development process. This will ensure that government policy is delivered in an integrated andcomplementary manner.

The model recommended by the Review Team could be utilised for other government departments with aclear policy document supplemented by concise and relevant guidance easily accessible and understandablethrough an interactive web-based tool.

How will a “rolling suite of guidance” as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as the sitewill be “live” with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it wasused?

It is essential for the suite of guidance to be printable (for use outside the electronic environment). With thatcomes the need to ensure that every page is date stamped as to its relevant publication date. That is not thedate on which it was printed but the last date on which it was updated. This is not considered to betechnologically difficult, but it is an essential element of such an interactive, web based tool.

We also recognise the need to be able to archive previous iterations of the guidance in order that it is possibleto look back over guidance to know what was extant at what period of time. This would, perhaps, be best donethrough a comprehensive “timeline” held as part of the website with the previous iterations of the guidancedocument held within an archive.


These are both important technical issues which must be solved if the benefits of an up to date guidancesuite is to be maintained and we do not merely spend the next 10 years recreating the unmanageable mass ofguidance that the Review Team clearly found in their herculean task of review.

17 January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Campaign for Better Transport

Summary— Revising planning practice guidance is an opportunity to improve the integration of land-use

and transport planning.

— Where guidance is still needed, it is important to prepare and adopt new or revised guidancebefore the old guidance is cancelled.

— It is not sufficient to assert that Guidance is redundant because the principles are wellunderstood. Often they evidently are not.

— Guidance is often needed because local planning authorities do not have specialised expertise.

— Sustainable transport should be one of the priority areas identified by the Review Group fornew and updated guidance.

— The principles of PPG13: Good Practice Guide should be included in guidance on sustainabletransport.

— The timetable for cancelling out-of-date guidance and producing new guidance isunrealistically short.

— The DfT must have a major role in the preparation of new guidance.

Introduction

1. In the limited time available, Campaign for Better Transport is pleased to provide the following briefcomments for the Committee Inquiry on the External Review of Government Planning Guidance.

2. We agree with the recommendations of the External Review that planning practice guidance be simplified,reduced, consolidated and made available on a single accessible website.

3. The future management of planning guidance is an important opportunity to ensure necessary integrationof transport policy and provision with planning policy and practice. There have been times when therelationship between the two areas and between DfT and DCLG has not been as close as sustainable transportplanning requires. This is an opportunity to address that weakness.

4. In this evidence we will not attempt to provide views on all the matters which the Committee expects toput to the Minister.


5. Yes, the Review Group has gone far enough and in some cases has gone too far by suggesting thatessential guidance be cancelled before replacement guidance has been adopted. It is important not to create avacuum in a key policy area (as the Review Group said in relation to Document 54, Annex C).

6. We are concerned that the Review Group often asserted that issues are “well-understood” when, inpractice, it is often clear, in transport matters at any rate, that this is not the case. See for example the ReviewGroup’s comments on documents 22 and 24 in Appendix B. If the principles of urban design are so wellunderstood why are they not more evident?

7. It is essential that the full scope and depth of guidance be maintained to replace skills and expertise thatmay no longer be available in local planning authorities and to enable local authorities to mediate withconsultants when their expertise has had to be brought in.

8. It would be helpful if guidance could be grouped by subject and if the relevance of guidance documentsto particular policy areas could be clearly indicated on the website.

9. In general we are concerned that the Review does not make clear the importance of the relationship ofplanning with specific policy areas.

Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescaleshould be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

10. In paragraph 18 of its recommendations the Review Group identified clear priorities for new and updatedguidance. It named nine areas that it considered particularly vital for the delivery of good plan-making anddecision taking and therefore needed immediate attention. Sustainable transport is a striking omission from thislist and should be added. Arguably it is of equal or greater importance than some areas on the list and a major


and essential element of several more. It should be a major factor in deciding the form and location ofdevelopment and is a significant component of local plans.

11. Guidance should be prepared for priority areas before previous guidance is replaced and guidance forlower priority areas is addressed.


12. Much of “PPG 13: A Guide to Better Practice” has not been adequately replaced by the NPPF. Guidanceis still required on the form and location of development to minimise transport requirements, reduce the needto travel and maximise sustainable transport. These could be included in the guidance on sustainable transportwhich we have already suggested should be produced as a priority.


13. The Review Group proposes that the website, the immediate cancellations and the most urgent updatingof guidance be complete by 28 March and that majority of the remaining work and cancelling of existingguidance be complete by July. We do not think this timetable is realistic or see the need to proceed at suchspeed. We doubt that Government departments will have the capacity to update guidance material to aconsultation stage so quickly or that it will be possible for other organisations to give enough attention to theirconsultation responses. It is important to avoid creating gaps in guidance for important policy areas.


14. Bearing in mind recent cuts in DCLG, we doubt that it will have the capacity to produce the quantity ofnew or revised guidance that will be needed. On the other hand, partly in order to ensure that planning policyobjectives are consistent with those of other policy areas, there must be a major role for other governmentdepartments including DfT in deciding when to cancel or revise existing guidance and in preparing newguidance. This will help to ensure the integration of planning with transport and other areas.

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Law Society of England and Wales

1. The Law Society of England and Wales is the independent professional body, established for solicitors in1825, that works globally to support and represent its 166,000 members, promoting the highest professionalstandards and the rule of law.

2. This written evidence submission has been prepared by members of the Law Society’s Planning andEnvironmental Law Committee. The Committee is comprised of expert practitioners from a cross section ofthe profession, both public and private sectors, and from across the UK nations.

3. The Society welcomes Lord Taylor’s review of planning practice guidance as a necessary and essentialcomplement to the bonfire of planning policy guidance following the adoption of the National Planning PolicyFramework (NPPF). While the concentration of planning policy guidance in a single document was to bewelcomed, it did leave gaps which practitioners quickly identified as needing to be addressed urgently.

4. The Review Group has insisted that in future planning practice guidance must be related to and supportthe NPPF. The Society supports that recommendation. The Review Group is to be congratulated for sifting 50years of Government planning practice guidance to identify those items that can be cancelled, those that canbe incorporated into revised guidance and that which needs to be retained until replaced by revised guidance.

Question 1: Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, whatchanges need to be made?

5. In the view of the Law Society the scale of reduction and consolidation recommended is roughly correct.It continues the process of making planning guidance more focussed and readily available.

Question 2: Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority andtimescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

6. The Review Group’s priorities for new guidance are in line with the views of planning practitionersgenerally. The Society had itself identified as priorities:

6.1 the new duty for neighbouring local authorities to cooperate on local plan production;

6.2 the assessment of the financial viability of planning obligations entered into in differenteconomic conditions and which are now threatening to halt a project from beingimplemented; and

6.3 the assessment of housing market and housing land availability.


Question 3: Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

7. The short time between the issue of the invitation to submit views to the Select Committee and thedeadline has not allowed us to examine the Review Group’s recommendation in respect of each item ofplanning practice guidance.

Question 4: Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

8. The recommended timetable is tight but could be achieved given commitment by the Government.Cancellation of documents which no longer have any value to coincide with the first annual review of theNPPF in March 2013 is certainly achievable. The Society’s second priority would be the production of thenew planning practice guidance to fill the gaps which have been identified. That exercise should also facilitatethe incorporation of that guidance which the review group has recommended for retention until included innew revised guidance and the subsequent cancellation of documents which are thus rendered superfluous at anearly date.

Question 5: Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designinga web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

9. The Law Society strongly believes that this is a task for the Government as that will ensure that anyrevised, consolidated or new planning practice guidance is authoritative. That will inevitably have implicationsfor resources at DCLG. The view of the Society is that this function must be given a higher priority withinDCLG even if at the cost of slackening the pace of reform to the town and country planning system.

10. If the Government is not willing to take the lead, then it should consider subcontracting the productionof guidance on certain topics to appropriately qualified bodies. For example, the Royal Institute of CharteredSurveyors has produced a professional guidance note, Financial Viability in Planning, which involved crossprofessional input and which is well respected in the industry. It could be “endorsed” by the Government if itis unable to produce its own guidance quickly.

Question 6: Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such asthe Environment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this becarried out?

11. The Law Society considers that it is essential that planning guidance produced by bodies other thanDCLG, primarily the Environment Agency and the Planning Inspectorate, ought to be incorporated into thecorpus of planning practice guidance. A single source for all guidance is highly desirable, especially if theelectronic platform recommended by the Review Group can be achieved. As part of that process of integrationexisting guidance ought to be revised and consolidated.

12. The Society has been concerned for some time that these quasi governmental bodies have been issuingauthoritative guidance which can carry weight in the determination of appeals, often without the benefit ofconsultation. The Society has had to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate and DCLG that thelegal guidance contained in Good Practice Advice Note 16/2010 Submitting Planning Obligations is incorrectas a result of no consultations on the text prior to issue to inspectors. Another example of different bodiesproducing guidance on the same issue is the suite of guidance on the NPPF issued by the Environment Agencylast year which refers the reader to the Planning Advisory Service website for more information.

Question 7: How will a “rolling suite of guidance” as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example,as the site will be “live” with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at thetime it was used?

13. The Law Society would envisage that in future the planning practice guidance will be available online.That would enable the guidance to be kept regularly up to date. If online, the guidance could be annotatedwhere it has been revised or updated just as the UK Public Acts and UK Statutory Instruments are kept up todate showing which provisions have been brought into force or amended and when on the legislation.gov.ukwebsite.

January 2013


Written evidence submitted by the Country Land and Business Association

The Country Land & Business Association (CLA) represents 34,000 members in England and Wales. Ourmembers both live and work within rural areas; they operate a wide range of businesses, at the last count theCLA represents some 250 different types of rural businesses. Most objectives for the countryside—economic,social and environmental—rely on landowners and managers for their success, and frequently bring them intocontact with the planning system, giving the CLA a unique standing.

We welcome the recommendations of the Review Group. Their practical effect should be to streamlinenational planning policy to provide coherent guidance which should provide a more transparent, efficient andeffective planning system.

As an important point of detail, the CLA urges the Committee to ask CLG to overhaul the entire format andstructure of information contained on its website at the same time so that it is logically presented and easilyaccessible. Since moving the CLG website onto the GOV.UK site, it has become almost impossible to findanything, and the CLG website is unwieldy and difficult to navigate. An overhauled website will assistpractitioners and lay people to be able to access the relevant information.

(a) Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance?

In general, yes.

If not what changes need to be made?

See (b) below.

(b) Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance?

Yes, in general. But we set out below some additional comments on the new guidance proposed in AnnexC and D of the Review Report:

1. Local Green Space Designation (LGSD)—the NPPF sets out clear criteria for LGSD, so we areunclear as to why new guidance is thought to be required.

2. Environmental Quality—it is unclear why “new” guidance is required on noise, given DEFRA’sNoise Policy Statement for England (2010). Would this not lead to duplication of guidance or wouldthe DEFRA noise statement become part of the NPPF guidance?

3. Water supply—it is important that the guidance on Water supply would include guidance forfarmers who want to construct winter water storage reservoirs for on-farm irrigation purposes.

4. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAAs)—We trust that guidance onSHLAAs will include a requirement for local planning authorities to reassess the viability of historicbrownfield allocations.

5. Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMAs)—We trust that guidance on SHMAs willspecifically exclude the Local Authority Statutory Housing Waiting List as a data source for housingneeds. This is because s146 of the 2011 Localism Act added a new power for Local HousingAuthorities to prescribe, the applicants entitled to be allocated social housing. There is nowsignificant variation between access to Local Housing Authority waiting lists, with some authoritiesoperating wholly open schemes. The unintended consequence of this action is to produce inflatedhousing need figures in some Local Authority areas that in turn, have the ability to skew s106negotiations and produce incorrect housing need figures in SHMAs.

Linked to the Duty to the Co-operate, it would be useful to charge LEPS with undertaking SHMAsalongside Employment Land Reviews, as economic activity functions. The LEPS have a statutorybasis and may be less likely to review housing targets downwards.

What priority and timescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existingguidance?

Given that we need to deliver economic growth urgently, the suggested timescales are correct in thecircumstances.

(c) Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

Yes, there are some important omissions:

(i) Government messages since publication of the NPPF have been that the document must be readas a whole, in practice it appears that a substantial number of planning authorities are “cherrypicking” the policies they like, and ignoring the rest. In particular, although the CLA has beentold by senior officials that all twelve core planning principles carry equal weight, the NPPF(probably unintentionally) doesn’t explicitly say this. It is vital that this is made in explicitterms.


(ii) The guidance must explain some of the terms used in the NPPF, and areas which are unclearwithout further explanation. We note that the Review suggests that the term “Viability” requiresguidance to “ensure….a good mutual understanding of what this test requires”. This is oftennot within the skill set of planners. For example determining what is the “essential need for arural workers dwelling” (para 55 bullet one) is often the subject of a financial assessment onthe viability of an agricultural, forestry or rural holding, and misunderstandings on the viabilitytest are often used as grounds to turn down these applications.

(iii) There are many further terms used in the NPPF which need definition, including “publicbenefit”, “substantial harm”, “optimal viable use”, “deliberate harm”, and “valued landscapes”.None are defined, they are not self-explanatory, and they require definition or guidance toprovide a mutual understanding at national level. It may be reasonable not to have explainedthem at length in the NPPF, but if they are not explained somewhere this creates a high degreeof uncertainty for all users of the system, much scope for time-wasting argument, and forunnecessarily-detailed applications and unjustified refusals.

(iv) The Review suggests best-practice documents signposted from the new web-based guidance,and published by professional bodies or stakeholder groups. Some guidance is needed on thisto ensure that this is evidence-based and endorsed by a all relevant stakeholders.

(d) Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

The proposed 28 March 2013 deadline to cancel out of date guidance is an ambitious target, but some ofthe guidance ought to be removed soon. Given that the government’s deadline for the associated consultationis 15 February 2013, it is doubtful that this target will actually be met.

(e) Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, produce new guidance and designing a web-based resource?

Probably an ad hoc combination of CLG and external stakeholders. There are two main ways of creatingnew or revised guidance:

(i) Guidance being drawn up by stakeholder groups and endorsed by Government

We think this is generally a better solution, provided it is circumscribed, and carefully managed byCLG. However, our experience in working with stakeholder groups on NPPF guidance is that it canbe difficult to be concise, because each stakeholder feels that its own points must be seen to beincluded in detail, even if already well-covered in the NPPF and/or lower-level guidance.

We think however that this would work well if there were a direct instruction from Government (a)that this guidance should be no longer than a specific number of pages, which would concentratestakeholders’ minds on brevity, and (b) that it needs endorsement from all relevant categories ofstakeholders.

(ii) Guidance being drawn up by CLG

We do not think that CLG should draw up and publish guidance without any consultation, partlybecause that would cause resentment, and more importantly because CLG without help fromstakeholders is unlikely to be able to draft optimal guidance.

If Government were to adopt this approach, however, we think there should be a simple three-stage process:

1. CLG drafts guidance in conjunction with a Sounding Board of key stakeholders. Thisshould be small and made up mainly of representatives of those directly involved in theplan-making and/or development management process. (For rural dwellings subject tooccupancy conditions, for example, the Rural Coalition stakeholders would be an idealgrouping).

2. There is a public consultation on this draft. There should not be much controversy.

3. The draft is reviewed and amended if necessary, with the Sounding Board, and a finalversion published. It is important again that this is seen to have widespread stakeholdersupport from all different categories of stakeholder.

What are the implications for resourcing within CLG?

Even if CLG is not actually writing the guidance, it is important that CLG staff levels are sufficient tomaintain the new system of guidance to support and underpin the NPPF.


(f) Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than CLG and bodies such as theEnvironment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated?

Yes, in a consistent way.

How should this be carried out?

Roughly as in (e) above.

(g) How will a “rolling suite” of guidance as envisaged by the Group Report operate? For example, as thesite will be “live” with continuous amendment how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time itwas used?

By the date stamp on the particular document used by a practitioner/layman. If a document is under reviewa “health warning” should be posted on the particular document to alert the reader that they may need to revisitthe updated document. A document under review should have printed on it a date by when the review and re-publication will be completed.

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Heritage Alliance

About the Alliance

The Heritage Alliance promotes the interests of the independent heritage movement. It brings together some90 heritage bodies ranging from specialist advisers, practitioners and managers, volunteers and owners tonational funders and organisations leading regeneration and access projects. They are supported in turn bythousands of local groups and over five million members with a huge volunteer input at all levels. Togetherthese members own, manage and care for the vast majority of England’s heritage. Their specialist knowledgeand expertise is a valuable national resource, much of which is contributed on a voluntary basis for publicbenefit.

The Alliance broadly welcomes the recommendations of the Taylor Review. We have long supported theGovernment’s campaign to make the planning system easier for local authorities, professionals, owners andcommunity groups to use. Conserving our heritage in order to maximise the economic, environmental andsocial returns is part of a forward-looking planning system. A plethora of confusing and contradictory measuresis unnecessary and unhelpful and their selective cancellation or reform should be supported.

In particular, Lord Taylor’s recommendation that specific heritage protection guidelines be drafted by theHistoric Environment Forum is very welcome; this is an excellent chance to have guidelines put in place bythose who daily engage with the challenges that face the historic environment. However, concerns have beenraised about equal engagement and coordination of other planning guidance in different sectors. Though theAlliance is pleased that the heritage sector was singled out for particular mention, many other specialisedpolicy areas require complex and considered guidance—for example, waste management and energy. Will theyreceive similar expert attention? Do they have similar bodies to the Historic Environment Forum to developtheir guidance? What steps will be taken to ensure consistency in the drafting of sectoral guidance?

In terms of cancellation and replacement, there are crucial points which require clarification. We would liketo see confirmation of the Notification to National Amenity Societies Direction 2005 (see Annex C Document71) as soon as possible.

The second concerns the Protection and Management of World Heritage Sites in England: English HeritageGuidance Note to Circular for England on the Protection of World Heritage Sites (2009)—recommended forcancellation (see Annex A Document 39 and Annex C Document 41). The Review advises that the circular07/2009 act as interim guidance until an updated version is put in place, but recognises that the lack of adefinite timescale on this could lead to outdated guidance being used for longer than necessary and promptconcern from UNESCO. The Alliance agrees with this assessment of the situation and urges the Governmentto act promptly to publish replacement guidance.

This particular case indicates a broader issue with the reforms. Though target dates for reforms are in placefor changes within DCLG—and encourage commendably swift action—there is not a similar timescale in placefor the drafting of sector-specific guidance. Though naturally the impulse will be to resolve this as soon aspossible, a lack of definite timetable could lead to other issues being prioritised and the process draggingon unnecessarily.

In setting up this two-tier framework, consideration should be given to who precisely the revised guidanceis aimed at and at what level it becomes detailed, sector-led “best practice” rather than Government-endorsedguidance on the single-site resource. Guidance to replace PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment: HistoricEnvironment Practice Guide) can be assumed to be Government-mandated and included on the single-siteresource, but would this require subsidiary best practice guidance from Historic Environment Forum?


Moreover, in terms of court and tribunal appearances would sector-drafted best practice guidance be accordedless weight than Government guidance on the single-site resource?

Consideration should also be given to the “house style” of the resource, given the input from differentGovernment departments and external bodies. Language must be drafted in such a manner as to be accessibleto those in community groups, independent bodies and citizens as well as those within local government. Easeof use is particularly important considering the rapidly declining number of historic environment specialists inLocal Authorities with the consequent loss of their experience to guide others through the process.

Finally, a crucial issue is the management of the single-site resource. This review exercise has demonstratedthe importance of continually checking and updating guidance, giving citizens and those in local governmentthe most up-to-date information possible. This will require dedicated, active data management on the part ofDCLG and a clear signposting of any changes made. Given the drive to reduce expenditure in Governmentdepartments (particularly in relation to staffing), will adequate manpower and financial support be available toresource the site properly?

The Alliance welcomes the Review Group’s recommendations that information be readily printable and date-stamped and that other departments (such as DCMS) have the opportunity to contribute guidance to the site.However, the Committee is right to raise the issue of the “rolling suite of guidance”. What provisions will beput in place to update Government-level guidance on-site? Will the updating of sector-specific, best practiceguidance be left to the discretion of the relevant sectors? Will reviews take place after set periods or only afterchanges to relevant areas of law?

As a long-standing member of the Historic Environment Forum, the Alliance looks forward to workingclosely with CLG and other relevant bodies to draft authoritative and accessible guidance for the protection ofour valuable historic environment.

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Residential Landlords Association

About the Residential Landlords Association (RLA)

1. The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) is a national landlords association operating in Englandand Wales. We have over 16,000 members. Our members own or control over 150,000 units of accommodation.Primarily our members are landlords in their own right but a number are managing and letting agents, someof whom are also landlords. Our members operate in all sub-sectors of the Private Rented Sector (PRS).Properties are rented out to families, working people, young professionals, the elderly, students and benefitcustomers.

Introduction

2. This submission is confined to the operation of planning law and guidance in respect of one aspect onlynamely houses in multiple occupation (shared houses and bedsits), including the operation of Article 4Directions restricting permitted development rights.

3. During 2010 significant changes were made to the Use Classes Order and permitted development rightsin relation to houses in multiple occupation with the introduction of a new Use Class (Class C4) for smallershared houses (with usually up to six residents).

4. As a representative trade body for landlords who control and manage HMOs we have two prime areas ofconcern. Firstly, the necessity for clear guidance regarding what is a complex area of planning law which isdeveloping quickly but where there is currently limited knowledge, especially as many questions remainunanswered. This is because they await decision by the Planning Inspectorate or even potentially the Courts.

5. Secondly, our other area of concern is to ensure that as part of the process for the preparation ofdevelopment plans there are robust assessments of the need/demand for HMO accommodation alongside othertypes of accommodation.

6. Of particular importance is the fact that HMO accommodation provides cheaper accommodation andprovides accommodation especially for the young, including young sharers. Occupants include students, youngprofessionals, working people and benefit claimants. Furthermore, as a result of changes to the singleaccommodation rate rules for local housing allowance a single claimant to age 35 is now only entitled to thelower single accommodation rate. The age of 35 has been introduced in place of age 25. It is thereforeanticipated that there is a greater demand for this kind of accommodation on the part of benefit claimants underthe age of 35 who no longer qualify for higher rates of allowance for their accommodation.


Questions and issues

7. The Association would wish to see two issues put to the Minister:

(1) Does the Minister agree with the Taylor recommendation that high priority should be givento updating the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and Strategic Housing LandAvailability Assessment (SHLAA) Guidance in order to effectively underpin theimplementation of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)? Further, does the Ministeraccept that this new Guidance should stress the requirement to assess the need/demand forhousing for all sections of the population, including houses in multiple occupation, such asshared houses and bedsit type accommodation?

(2) Would the Minister accept that, notwithstanding the Taylor recommendation, specific planningguidance should be retained in relation to houses in multiple occupation because significantchanges have only recently been introduced and their full impact has not yet worked through,as well as the fact that existing statutory requirements are to be found from a number ofdiffering sources. Further, Article 4 Directions play a significant part in determining what is theapplicable planning law on an area by area basiss and therefore does the Minister agree thatbecause different requirements apply in different areas guidance is also important to helpeveryone concerned to understand the relevant legislation?

Background

8. During the course of 2010 significant changes were mad relating to small HMOs (normally up to sixoccupants in number) and because of the change in Government the relevant legislation was changed twice ina short space of time. Use Class C3 (single dwellings) used to include private rented sector shared housesoccupied by up to six as a single household. These have now been transferred to a new Use Class (Use ClassC4) which incorporates small shared houses and bedsits (up to six in number). Larger HMOs remain a suigeneris class as before. There are permitted development rights for material changes of use between ClassesC3 and C4. However, local planning authorities can disapply permitted development rights and over 30 havenow done so in respect of changes of use from single/family houses to use as a small HMO (shared house orbedsit) within Use Class C4. These changes have been controversial and there is a large degree of hostility onthe part of local residents to shared houses in their areas, especially those occupied by students, but also thoseoccupied by migrant workers and unemployed people. This has led to the introduction of these various Article4 Directions. These are viewed by landlords as a serious threat to the right of choice for tenants as to wherethey can live as well as interfering in the effective operation of local housing markets.

Views on Matters to be put to the Minister

9. Question 1—Generally we feel that the review has a good grasp of the issues it faced. It is, however, verydifficult to comment on which current guidance should be discarded without a detailed review. We have,however, highlighted above one area where we think the review has gone too far in relation to a specific topicwhich greatly concerns many of our own members, namely HMOs We do not believe that the review couldhave gone any further without necessarily removing useful guidance. We have concerns about some aspects ofthe Taylor approach:

(1) Whilst this may be no bad thing it needs to be recognised that inevitably we will end up witha series akin to the old Planning Policy Statements (now superseded by NPPF) which will setunder NPPF and supplement it dealing with various topics.

(2) Rightly the Review identifies the complexity of the legal drafting as a problem

(3) There may be nothing wrong in a culture of waiting to see what Government spells out inguidance. Otherwise you have all the individual local planning authorities doing their own thinginvolving a lot of duplicated and wasted resources.

(4) Guidance is always useful as it gives an overview and can add in detail to the regulationespecially as so much of planning is centred around policy.

(5) Guidance helps with a more uniform approach

(6) The inability of the Government to update statutory instruments on a continuous basis is a realproblem as so much of planning law is incorporated in secondary legislation.

(7) We endorse the need to keep the new guidance up to date.

Question 2—We agree the priorities listed in paragraph 18 of the Review’s Report. In particular, as indicatedabove, we highlight the need for proper guidance in relation to SHMAs and SHLAAs and believe that thisshould take priority over the cleansing process for existing guidance because this work is vital for the effectiveimplementation of NPPF. We feel that a timescale of 9 to 12 months would be appropriate. After that attentionneeds to be turned to cancellation and consolidation.

Question 3—as indicated in our proposed question to the Minister we believe that specific guidance inrelation to HMOs should be retained. This is a complex area which has recently undergone major change. Wedisagree with the Taylor view that it is now consolidated as part of the existing legislation. This is certainly


not the case. There are many unresolved issues. It is also a topic which many people will not encountervery often.

Question 4—whilst we agree that the work need to be carried out speedily we feel that the proposed timescaleas recommended by the review are not realistically achievable.

Question 5—This concerns us. Resources at CLG have been cut back significantly. We doubt that there isthe capacity for the foot and hand reform suggested.

Question 6—the guidance from the Environment Agency and PINs needs to be updated as well alongsideupdating planning guidance.

Question 7—An updated website opening on an updated basis is feasible. Each document should state whenit was last updated. This will make it clear that it is current when consulted. The difficulty comes in trackingback to previous versions as this may be required. It would therefore be useful to include an ongoing briefsummary of changes and ensure access to archived material was available.

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Town and Country Planning Association

1. About the TCPA

Founded in 1899, the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) is the UK’s oldest independentcharity focused on planning and sustainable development. Through our work over the last century we haveimproved both the art and science of planning in the UK and abroad. The TCPA puts social justice and theenvironment at the heart of policy debate and seeks to inspire Government, industry and campaigners to takea fresh perspective on major issues, including planning policy, housing, regeneration and climate change. Ourobjectives are to:

— Secure a decent, well designed home for everyone, in a human-scale environment combiningthe best features of town and country.

— Empower people and communities to influence decisions that affect them.

— Improve the planning system in accordance with the principles of sustainable development.

2. Summary of TCPA Response

The TCPA welcomes the review of planning guidance as a valuable contribution to identifying an effectiveand transparent policy and practice framework for spatial planning. The TCPA strongly supports reformmeasures which increase the efficiency and fairness of the process and which help shape outcomes that deliverlong term sustainable development for our nation. The Association does have some specific concerns aboutthe role of cross-sector planning guidance and the future of important policy on equalities, disability andcommunity empowerment.

3. The TCPA Response to the Consultation

The Association has engaged closely in the planning reform process and has been a lead partner in thepreparation of cross sector guidance on health, green infrastructure and climate change. This experienceprovides a key insight into the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches in the context of a reduction inthe role of central government in policy formulation. Our experience of training both planners and councillorshas taught us the value of clear and precise guidance which is relevant to real decision making. There is aparticular need for such guidance in areas such as equalities and climate change, where new skills and conceptsare now needed amongst practitioners.

The TCPA supports the Taylor Review’s recommendations for an effective guidance document and theremoval of out of date or unnecessary policy and practice material. The Review’s commitment to the “activemanagement” of resources is very welcome and will ensure there is the opportunity for regular review of therelevance of technical guidance.

We strongly support the move to a single web based consolidated resource which can demonstrate a coherentnarrative of guidance documents. We particularly welcome the recommendation that guidance can becommunicated in shorter and simpler ways while retaining key messages. We look forward to closelycooperating with Government on preparation and dissemination of these new resources.

While supporting the overall objectives of the Review the TCPA does have reservations about some aspectsof the analysis and the possible outcomes. For example, the review suggests that Government should, as amatter of policy, have a lesser role in the production of planning guidance. We do not believe that there shouldbe a presumption for government to produce more or less guidance but the test should be pragmatic and thatGovernment should set policy wherever it is necessary to the efficient and fair operation of planning. In manycases guidance on key aspects of the planning process is much more cost effectively dealt with by Government.


This is because such guidance is a single authoritative source of advice. It has a clear status in case law andtherefore cuts through a great deal of potential duplication and argument on the ground.

The review places significant emphasis on cross-sector guidance filling the gap left by Government and inAnnex A (Document 48) states that even the private sector could play a role in offering guidance. The TCPA’sexperience of the development of cross-sector guidance shows that while it has key strengths in terms ofconsensus building and collaboration; it also has key weaknesses, not least its cost and its uncertain legal andpolicy status. While the Planning for Climate Change guide involved more than 50 cross-sector organisationsand was widely welcomed as supporting the Government agenda it received no form of Governmentendorsement. As a result while it is material to planning decisions and useful to practitioners, it has no particularweight in planning law above any other material consideration. It is useful in background policy formulationbut its weight in decisions on plans and applications will have to be worked out on a case by case basis.Documents produced by the private sector would be subject to even more intense dispute particularly if theyoffered approaches or products which supported their commercial interest.

Looking ahead this “informal” guidance sector is already becoming crowded with, in some cases, competingresources. Multiple guidance on viability testing is one example of this problem. In the medium term thisinformal sector is likely to lead to a much greater volume of material than currently produced by Government.The crucial point is that only some form of official endorsement of guidance documents can resolve this issue.PINs have suggested informally that they will use a test to judge the weight to be given such guidance whichincludes the breath and number of endorsements. This is complex in itself and open to challenge sincepopularity may not equal accuracy or effectiveness.

An awards system suggested by the Review is unlikely to resolve this but the LGA could help bycoordinating guidance, although this would be resource intensive. Government could filter guidance in anumber of ways by linking or not linking documents to its own consolidated web page or by giving PAS agreater role. However, to deal with the issue of legal status and to keep the idea of capturing cross-sectorexpertise, the Government needs to develop an effective partnership agreement in which it defines the need forguidance, works collaboratively to produce it and badges it as Government endorsed. This would also ensurethat the wider public, rather than just professional organisations, had an opportunity to comment.

It is also important to note to some extent the very different role and function of the differing guidancedocuments. The assessments of the value of circulars, for example, needs to be very different to that of bestpractice guides. The direct interpretation of law in circulars is in one sense repetitious because the primarystatute exists for reference. However, a great deal more delay will be introduced to planning if practitionersare asked to make their own assessments of primary legislation and the case law which surrounds it. There isa strong case for the clear distinction of the function of planning guidance under a clear typology thatdistinguishes legal interpretation from, for example, departmental policy.

We also have concerns that the Review recommends the removal of important guidance without a clear routemap for incorporating these principles in new resources. This is a key concern in the balance of materialbetween the 4 annexes which form the bulk of output of the Review. In particular, the balance between AnnexB where material is recommended for cancellation but relevant material should be incorporated elsewhere, andAnnex C where material may be in need of update but will be kept until replaced. The balance between thesetwo annexes appears, in some cases, is not always clear. . There is a strong and unwelcome emphasis in AnnexB on documents which related to community participation, design, equalities and disability.4 It is unclearfrom the review what the precise policy vehicle would be used to take forward these policies. For example,none feature in Para 18 of the Review report in terms of priorities for updating guidance and none feature inAnnex D on new guidance.

In the meantime the Review recommends a “Cancel for Now” approach while flagging advice in other futureguidance. The Association believes there needs to be a more fulsome approach for such sensitive and importantissues. It risks the perception that they are regarded as of lesser significance than documents listed in AnnexC. In many cases the Review briefly concludes that the principles contained in this guidance have been“mainstreamed” in planning. The TCPA does not believe that this is the case in relation to equalities, diversityand disability in the same way that planning service continues to lack skills in financial appraisal or energyplanning.

Annex C is overwhelmingly and understandably dominated by process guidance on issues which make thesystem work. As a result there is real risk that the review removes or creates uncertainty about important issuesrelating to planning outcomes like diversity, while reinforcing the nuts and bolts of planning practice. Thismay simply reinforce the impression of planning as structure without a purpose. There is strong case formoving some key material from Annex B to Annex C, and a greater need for clarity on where this issue willbe located in a new consolidated planning guidance.4 See Annex b documents 17,19,21,22.


4. Conclusion

The TCPA welcomes the overall objectives of the Taylor Review but is concerned principally about themechanics of how informal cross-sector guidance will work and about the future of a number of key policyareas which should not be removed until clear and concise replacements are adopted.

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Royal Town Planning Institute

Introduction

The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) has over 23,000 members who work in the public, private,voluntary and education sectors. It is a charity whose purpose is to develop the art and science of town planningfor the benefit of the public. The RTPI develops and shapes policy affecting the built environment, works toraise professional standards and supports members through continuous education, practice advice, trainingand development.

We run Planning Aid England (PAE) which supports communities and individuals through a locally basednetwork of over 1,100 volunteers. PAE offers free, independent and professional advice on planning issues(primarily though its Advice Line), and empowers local communities to engage with the planning process andinfluence decisions that affect their local area.

Summary

We welcome the Taylor Review report and suggest that the Minister is asked two key questions at this stage.

Questions to be put to the Minister

We would suggest that the following questions are put to the Minister:

1. Does the Minister agree that there is a role for Government in endorsing a (limited) amount of planningguidance?

2. What progress has been made in identifying the resources needed to undertake such of the Taylor reviewrecommendations as might be agreed by Government?

CLG Committee Questions and Answers


Yes. We wholeheartedly support the decision to undertake a holistic review of planning guidance, where allexisting guidance is considered as a body of work, rather than the ad hoc approach that review of individualpieces of guidance allows. As a profession whose role it is to digest a wide variety of expert opinion but alsodo so in a timely and efficient manner we are especially concerned to see rationalisation of planning guidance.We agree with Taylor that is necessary to make a clear distinction between government endorsed planning“guidance” (which should be followed) on the one hand, and what is “good practice” on the other. Topicscovered by “guidance” should be strictly limited but should include all areas where clear methodologies needto be established from the outset to reduce time spent in future debates on process.


We agree largely with the priorities set. The Review has taken on board the list of essential guidance neededto establish clear methodologies that RTPI along with five other leading planning stakeholders identified in aletter to Greg Clark in May 2012. The Review has agreed with our initial recommendations and given priority toStrategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)flooding and viability. The RTPI has been made aware through our members that the implementation of theDuty to Co-operate that is central to the NPPF requires additional guidance to be effective. The lack of guidanceon the Duty, coupled with out of date SHMA guidance, threatens housing delivery, including in major growthareas. Therefore we argue that new guidance should take priority over cancellation and consolidation.


The Review has been extremely thorough in the scope it has taken. However we argue that new light touchguidance is required on employment land requirements as the existing guidance is too complex and doesn’ttake account of long term shifts in market requirements. Clarity is also needed on the methodology used forretail impact assessment in order to avoid confusion and delay, especially in view of the rapid changes in theretail sector. Continued guidance is also required on enforcement, and on minerals planning that takes intoaccount the impact of the Duty to Cooperate. New guidance is also required on how Inspectors will test for


soundness of local plans, and a step by step guide for participants on the way examinations are conductedwould be valuable.


The timetable recommended by the Review Group is certainly challenging. However, the NPPF will havebeen in place for nearly a year by the time the DCLG consultation on the Taylor Report closes and furtherdelay should be avoided if at all possible, especially on matters impinging on housing delivery. Either additionalresources will be required by DCLG to meet the deadline or the Department will need to prioritise the reviewwork.


We welcome the Taylor Review’s view that there are a (limited) number of topics where Governmentinvolvement is essential if we are to avoid competing methodologies being developed, and to avoid time beingwasted on evaluating their relative merits in each local plan examination and planning applicationdetermination.

It is widely recognised both that DCLG does not have the staff resources to undertake this review workalone, and also that working collaboratively with the wider planning community will enable DCLG to drawon a wider range of expertise. Following a meeting with 18 planning organisations on the future of planningguidance the RTPI wrote to Greg Clark in December 2011 offering work with DCLG on producing guidance,and these offers of assistance should be accepted. However, DCLG will need to be aware that some less wellresourced planning stakeholders are stretched in terms of resources and commitments, but still have a vital rolein informing the review and a clear, timed programme of work will need to be developed.


Yes. There is a great deal of guidance from other Government departments and agencies that has a significantrole in the operation of the planning system and this should also be revised and consolidated. We would alsolike to seek clarity on matters which are true “guidance” requiring Government involvement and what arematters of good practice. Ideally we would like to ultimately see relevant guidance from other Governmentdepartments and bodies included in the planning practice “gateway” website to avoid any confusion as to thestatus it holds. However, the same rules that have been applied to the review of DCLG guidance should beused to ensure that guidance from Departments like Defra and DfT does not contradict planning guidance orplace unnecessary extra burdens on the system.

It should also be borne in mind that a some guidance eg on the environment has European Directives as itssource. Consideration will need to be given matters concerning devolved nations. For example the EnvironmentAgency covers England and Wales.

The Review recommends that PINS guidance is incorporated into the new single guidance resource, and theRTPI supports this recommendation.


Clear referencing of the title, version number and date of issue should be clearly displayed on each piece ofguidance. Then when a particular version of a piece of guidance needs to be referred to it can be done soquickly and clearly, without the need to quote long passages of text. A systematic process for archiving out ofdate guidance (with a cancellation date) should be established so that in the limited number of cases where theinformation is required for a legal challenge the information is easily available. Archive material should alwaysclearly be identified as such and be stored separately, but freely accessible online.

Consideration should be given to the issue of publicising draft Government guidance on priority topics.Consideration should also be given to identifying what weight should be given to draft guidance. (We do notconsider this will be too extensive an operation since the number of topics on the government guidance websiteshould be strictly limited.)

We do not support the Taylor recommendation that the website should “signpost” organisations providingbest practice outside the purview of government planning guidance. This would require DCLG to devoteconsiderable resources to adjudging which organisations and practice advice merited signposting. This is nota good use of resources. Furthermore the inclusion of signposts risks being seen as a kind of low levelGovernment endorsement.

January 2012


Written evidence submitted by English Heritage

1. Summary

1.1 English Heritage welcomes the Review of Planning Practice Guidance in simplifying and clarifying theguidance available for all who engage with the planning system and its commitment to concise, up-to-date,proportionate, accessible and clear guidance, available from national government and local government andfrom the historic environment sector, where appropriate. English Heritage (EH) has been working with theHistoric Environment Forum (HEF), which includes bodies from the historic environment sector at its widestincluding development interests, in the development of guidance to support the heritage section of the NationalPlanning Policy Framework (NPPF) by replacing the Historic Environment Practice Guide to the previous PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment). The HEF and EH have therefore discussed the material for targetedguidance, the levels at which such guidance should sit and the relationship between Government guidance,sector guidance and technical guidance.

1.2 The Review Group also recommends the revision of the World Heritage Site circular (Circular 07/2009)and consolidation of the process material which is currently contained in Circulars 08/2009, 09/2005 and 01/2001; both pieces of work should enable much more concise statements to be issued. EH is currently alsocarrying out a thorough review of its own guidance to ensure that it too is necessary, concise, up-to-date,proportionate and clear.

2. Background

2.1 The Historic Environment Forum, assisted by English Heritage, has been considering guidance to supportthe heritage chapter of the NPPF since it was first published in draft, which could replace the PPS 5 PracticeGuide. It is well able to do this as it is the high level cross-sectoral committee which brings together chiefexecutives and policy officers from public and non-government heritage bodies to strengthen advocacy workand to co-ordinate initiatives of this kind. The drafting group takes in professional bodies, such as the Institutefor Archaeology and the Institute of Historic Building Conservation and related bodies such as the JointCommittee of Amenity Societies, the Council for British Archaeology and the Association of LocalGovernment Archaeological Officers; owners’ and development groups, including the British PropertyFederation, the Country Land and Business Association and the Historic Houses Association; and other groupsincluding the National Trust, the Historic Towns Forum and Civic Voice.

2.2 In the absence of a clear steer from Government as to the form which guidance should take, it has notbeen possible to finalise the drafting group’s suggested guidance but EH is very glad to see that the suggestedapproach of sector-wide development of guidance has been endorsed by the Review Group in considering theproposed replacement of the Historic Environment Practice Guide to the previous PPS 5 (Planning for theHistoric Environment) (Annex C: document 31).

2.3 Any guidance issued by the HEF needs to take account of guidance in the Government’s on-line PlanningPractice Guidance suite, and would itself act as headlines to a small number of technical guidance notes,developed by English Heritage, professional or other sector bodies, and agreed by the HEF. The guidancewould thus form a compact set of guidance notes, agreed sector-wide, at three levels: government planningpractice guidance on a small number of vital issues; a concise sectoral planning practice guide which expandson those and other matters; and practical guidance, including case studies.

2.4 As the Review Group suggests, there is useful material in the World Heritage Site circular (Circular 07/2009) and the accompanying EH guidance and we would strongly support the retention of a statement on therelationship between the planning system and World Heritage Sites. Likewise, Circulars 01/2001, 09/2005 and08/2009 also contain important material, particularly in terms of the directions for consultation by localplanning authorities of applications for planning permission and listed building consent affecting the historicenvironment. As in the case of the World Heritage Sites Circular, consolidation should enable much moreconcise statements to be issued.

3. Questions and Issues

3.1 How will the various levels of guidance work together?

3.1.1 The Report seems to suggest three levels of guidance:

— the Government’s on-line Planning Practice Guidance suite;

— sectoral guidance to replace the PPS 5 Practice Guide; and

— technical guidance, which may include case studies.

3.1.2 English Heritage supports this general approach. Given the lack of detail on levels of guidance, it isdifficult to comment further at this stage. Furthermore, due to the uncertainties pending the publication of thereview, the constituent bodies of the HEF have not decided what their conclusions on the detail of the guidancewould be. Having said that, historic environment guidance would be needed on both the content of local plansand on development management.


3.2 How will the Government’s on-line Planning Practice Guidance suite be generated?

3.2.2 It is important, given the role of the Historic Environment Forum and English Heritage in developingnew historic environment guidance, that the HEF and EH should provide the raw material to government, tobe checked for conformity with the NPPF by DCLG and then worked up for publication on-line. EH willshortly be providing DCLG with a list of core topics which need to be covered in the Government’s guidanceresource. This would ensure that there is read-across between the two, so that contradictions can be discounted.

4. Committee questions

4.1 Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changesneed to be made?

4.1.1 English Heritage agrees with the general line taken by the Review Group, though care will be neededto ensure that useful material is not lost during the development of new and replacement guidance. We wouldalso support the Review Group’s suggestion of a second formal consultation at the point that the new web-based guidance resource goes live, and also of the new sector-derived practice guidance. All new orsignificantly revised guidance should be subject to consultation to allow consensus to be built.

4.2 Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescaleshould be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

4.2.1 Alongside the revision of the PPS 5 Practice Guide, the proposed new guidance (given in Annex D ofthe Review Report) covers the main areas necessary.

4.3 Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

4.3.1 English Heritage assumes that consideration will be given to new guidance on developmentmanagement as it is affected by legal changes following change in statute. The current Enterprise andRegulatory Reform Bill is, for instance, proposing changes to the law surrounding listed buildings andconservation areas and it will be useful to give guidance on these changes. These will be covered in the list ofcore topics for the Government’s guidance resource which EH is developing for DCLG.

4.4 Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

4.4.1 The timetable is tight and will depend on the resource available for its execution but a more measureddiscussion to build greater consensus would be useful.

4.5 Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

4.5.1 This is a matter for government, though both EH and, we assume, the HEF, would recommend thatthe sector assists with the development of relevant new guidance, as the Review Group suggests.

4.6 Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as theEnvironment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this becarried out?

4.6.1 Where appropriate, other departments can and should contribute (for instance, the Department forCulture, Media and Sport has responsibility for listing and scheduling and the consent regime for scheduledancient monuments). It is, however, most important that all planning guidance should be clearly linked to andaligned with the NPPF and its subsidiary guidance. Planning Inspectorate guidance should therefore berestricted, as it is currently, to guidance about the process of appealing and inquiries rather than offering aseparate commentary on the NPPF.

4.7 How will a “rolling suite of guidance” as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as thesite will be “live” with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time itwas used?

4.7.1 Version control to on-line documents can be a problem, if changes are too frequent; there would beproblems at a public inquiry, for instance, if the parties were using different versions of the guidance. It mighttherefore be better to carry out changes to the guidance cyclically, with urgent changes, such as those causedby legal rulings, restricted as far as possible and flagged appropriately. It is most important that the status ofon-line guidance is clear.

January 2013


Written evidence submitted by the Planning Officers Society

This response is made on behalf of the Planning Officers Society (POS).

The Society represents senior professionals and managers of planning functions in the English LocalAuthorities. We are rightly styled as the credible voice of public sector planning.

We set out to:

— Enable public sector planners to work together with Government and partners.

— Be a strong and united voice for public sector planners supporting and shaping planning policyand practice in local communities.

— Be a preferred point of contact for public sector planners where they can access learning,support and networking opportunities.

— Find common ground with other disciplines, organisations and the media to improve theplanning process, policy and implementation.

— Broaden our membership and create a strong cohort of young planners, representative of theethnic and gender diversity of the UK.

The Society’s aim is to make planning more effective in delivering sustainable development to support thewell-being of our communities.

POS welcomes the overall conclusions and recommendations made by Lord Taylor in the Review of PlanningPractice Guidance. We strongly believe that a central DCLG endorsed on-line repository for all planningguidance is critical and that it must be easily and freely accessible, succinct and kept up-to-date. We believethat giving the responsibility for maintaining and managing to the DCLG Chief Planner is correct but we areconcerned that the task or reviewing and consolidating existing guidance may not be practicable within DCLG’scurrent resources. We therefore urge that appropriate public and private sector practitioner representatives beinvited to assist DCLG and confirm that POS is ready and keen to participate.

Our responses to the seven matters raised by the Committee are as follows:

(a) Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changesneed to be made?

The Review Group has identified and listed the bewildering range and complexity of existing Planningguidance and has correctly concluded that the current system is unmanageable and unfit for purpose. Weconsider that the Group’s proposals for reducing and consolidating guidance strike an appropriate balancebetween the need for guidance that is necessary to support effective planning and for the suite of documentsthat contain that guidance to be accessible, succinct and capable of being managed to keep them up-to-date.

(b) Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescaleshould be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

We agree with the areas identified as priorities for new guidance in paragraph 18 of the Review Group’sreport but we suggest that the following should be added:

— An agreed methodology for calculating a five year housing land supply.

— A methodology for calculating employment land requirements.

— More guidance on enforcement to supplement the single paragraph in the NPPF.

— Updated guidance on the tests of soundness for local plans.

— A methodology for retail impact assessment taking account of the economic downturn and thePortas Review recommendations.

— Further guidance on CIL to deal with issues raised by the DCLG CIL Working Group.

The production of new guidance for the priority areas should take priority over the consolidation of existingguidance but this need not delay the deletion of guidance recommended for cancellation in Annex A of theReview Group’s report.


See our response to question B above. We also consider that there is relevant and necessary guidance (forexample on Green Belts) in some of the PPGs and PPSs that were cancelled when the NPPF was published.We will identify the relevant material in our detailed response to the DCLG consultation. This guidance shouldbe “saved” in the way suggested in our answer to question D below for the guidance in Annex B of the ReviewGroup’s report and eventually be incorporated into revised guidance.

We support the suggestion made by the Local Government Association that the Government should create adevelopment management policy framework, which could bring together policy on development managementin one place and remove the need for policy in separate guidance notes.



We would be delighted if the Review Group’s recommendation that a comprehensive and up-to-date web-based guidance resource should be in place by July 2013 could be achieved. However, we doubt that this willbe possible, given DCLG’s reduced in-house capability. Unless more capacity can be provided, we believe thatthere should be a more realistic, phased timetable and that DCLG should involve public and private sectorrepresentatives in the process of consolidation and drafting of guidance for a web-based resource.

We do however believe that it is essential that the new web-based resource is in place as soon as possibleand that its establishment need not wait for the completion of the process of consolidation. The website couldand should be established by July 2013, initially containing the new priority guidance referred to in the responseto question B above. Other guidance could be added as the process of consolidation and revision proceeds,once each document has been signed-off by the DCLG Chief Planner.

We also believe that existing guidance that contains “relevant material”, as listed in Annex B of the ReviewGroup’s report, should not be deleted until that relevant material has been abstracted and that the materialshould be “saved” and placed on the website until it is superseded by revised guidance. This highlights theneed for a clear process for reviewing and revising the existing guidance expeditiously and with public andprivate sector practitioner participation. POS is both willing and keen to contribute to the process of reviewand consolidation.

(e) Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

See response to question D above. We consider that it is essential that the consolidation and production ofnew guidance involves relevant representatives from public and private sector practitioners. This will not onlysupplement the limited in-house resources available to DCLG but will ensure that practical experience fromusers of the planning system is brought to bear. This should result in the new guidance being relevant andnecessary to support effective planning.

Designing the web-based resource is likely to be a task best suited to a professional web-design company,to a brief produced by DCLG with public and private sector practitioner input.

(f) Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as theEnvironment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this becarried out?

We agree with the Review Group’s recommendation that planning-related guidance produced by otherGovernment departments should only constitute formal Planning guidance once it is admitted to the proposedwebsite. It follows that such guidance should follow the same consolidation and review process as DCLG’sown guidance. Again, we suggest that this should be carried out to a phased, prioritised timetable and with theinvolvement of relevant public and private sector representatives.

(g) How will a “rolling suite of guidance” as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as thesite will be “live” with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time itwas used?

When each document is signed-off by the DCLG Chief Planner and added to the website, it should have adate of issue. When amendments to the document have been signed-off by the Chief Planner, they should beadded to the website, with a revision number, date and brief reasons for the revisions (eg new primarylegislation or a revision to the NPPF). A further refinement would be for each page of the document to includeboth the date of original issue and the date and revision number of any amendments affecting the content ofthat page. This procedure is broadly comparable to that used for revisions to several other sources of Planninginformation, notably the Encyclopedia of Planning Law and Practice and Development Control Practice. Boththese documents are regularly updated and although they were first published in hard copy, loose-leaf format,both are now available electronically.

The new web-based resource will be the only definitive source of official Government planning guidance. Itis therefore essential that access to the site is freely available. Placing the information behind a pay wall wouldunfairly discriminate against voluntary groups and individuals with limited budgets.

January 2013


Written evidence submitted by the British Property Federation

Introduction

1. The British Property Federation (BPF) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Communitiesand Local Government Select Committee on the Government’s Review of Planning Practice Guidance.

2. The BPF is the voice of property in the UK, representing companies owning, managing and investing inproperty. This includes a broad range of businesses—commercial property owners, the financial institutionsand pension funds, corporate landlords, local private landlords—as well as all those professions that supportthe industry.

3. We are very supportive of the review led by Lord Taylor, and have sought to engage constructively in thereview process, particularly through a roundtable with the review team held during the course of the review.We fully support the recommendations made by the review.

4. We are, however, a little concerned at the demands that the recommendations will place on officials atthe Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), as the time scales are rather short. In anideal world, we would like to see the timescales suggested in the review adhered to in order to expedite theprocess. In reality, however, it probably makes sense to spend slightly longer on the creation of the portal inorder to get its content and its “mechanics” right first time.


5. We agree that the Review Group has gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance. We feel itis crucial that the “golden nuggets” of guidance that are considered particularly important by the everydayusers of the planning system are maintained and that no gaps are left in the system.

6. The Review recommends that regulations and Statutory Instruments should be written clearly so as tominimise the need for explanatory guidance, unless there are particularly complex requirements. We agree withthis, but there will sometimes be a need for additional clarification. For instance, Annex C, no.51 states thatnew advice is needed to accompany the 2012 Fee Regulations. These Regulations are very recent, and are notparticularly easy to understand. This is a clear example of a situation in which Circulars are useful.

7. We entirely agree with the recommendations that guides must be “much shorter” than formerly. It isimportant that this must not be the sole objective. For guidance to remain as useful as it is now, retaining theclarity of its content must be the most important criterion.

8. We agree with the recommendations in Annex A—that Chief Planner letters are to be cancelled. We donot consider that in future, such letters should be used as they are not the most transparent way of conveyingpolicy/legislative change to all users of the planning system.

Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance?

9. We agree with the priorities identified by the Review Group.

What priority and timescale should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existingguidance?

10. We agree with the Review Group in that the greatest priority is the creation of the new website and asingle coherent suite of guidance. At the same time, the guidance for the areas listed in the Review should beworked on so that they can be implemented as swiftly as possible.


11. We have concerns that a number of key pieces of guidance have been left off the list for a variety ofdifferent reasons. When PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Development was adopted at the end of2009, it replaced a number of other PPGs and PPSs including PPG5: Simplified Planning Zones. In deletingthe PPG on Simplified Planning Zones, it was stated that the guidance in it would be replaced by Good PracticeGuidance. This never happened as the work of DCLG turned towards the wholesale replacement of PPGs andPPSs with the National Planning Policy Framework.

12. We would suggest that an updated Good Practice Guide on the creation and renewal of existing SPZswould be one such piece of guidance that should be included in the revised guidance set, as SPZs remainpart of the principal Act and in our view are a useful planning tool that can deliver economic growth andjob creation.

13. We strongly disagree that the recommendation that the 2006 “Good Practice Guide on Planning andTourism” (Annex A, no.56) is cancelled. It is a very useful document that advises sensibly on tourismdevelopments and many practitioners constantly refer to it. It is especially useful in situations where LAs donot acknowledge the value and importance of enhancing and supporting tourism development—nor the value


of the visitor economy to their local (and wider) economies—when formulating local plan policies and makingdecisions on applications.

14. We also disagree that “Making the planning system accessible to everyone: good practice guidance onaccess to and charging for planning information” (Annex A, no. 70) should be cancelled. Many BPF membersfrequently refer to this document when faced with LAs that overcharge for providing copies of material suchas decision notices. We also feel that some of the updated guidance covering the same material should beretained—perhaps on the Planning Portal, alongside planning application notes and other related documents.

15. Compulsory purchase order (CPO) legislation is complex, and few developers, local authorities or landowners, have experience of it on a regular basis. It would seem sensible if some of the updates of the CPOcirculars, and the other CPO booklets that also provide wider guidance (as referred to in Annex C, nos. 32,and 77 to 80) are maintained and consolidated.

16. Annex C, no.97 is confusing as it refers to retaining and reviewing DoE Circular 10/95. But followinga recent decision of the Court of Appeal, paragraphs 2 (1)(a) to (d) of the Town and Country Planning(Demolition—Description of Buildings) Direction 1995, contained in the Circular, have already been quashed.We suggest that it would be safer to cancel it now and refer to the Planning Portal where the information ondemolition is already up to date.

17. We are keen that the suggested guidance on viability enshrines the recommendation of the MontagueReview that Government provide advice to local authorities on how to deal with build-to-let developments.

18. We are glad to see that the Review Group recommends updating the Strategic Housing MarketAssessment (SHMA) guidance. We would urge the inclusion of a wider scope in order to address all types ofneed/demand including HMO accommodation.

19. Finally, in Annex C, items no. 10 and 11, the “Greater Flexibility” guidance should be brought up todate and retained. This explains useful but relatively complex procedures that are vital in the current economyfor developers and applicants.


20. In an ideal world, we would like to see the timescales suggested in the review adhered to in order toexpedite the process. In reality, however, it probably makes sense to spend slightly longer on the creation ofthe portal in order to get its content and its “mechanics” right first time.


21. If existing guidance that is to be retained is to be comprehensively redrafted (rather than amended), thiswill make for a particularly labour intensive project. We have concerns over the resourcing of this work,particularly labour intensive project. We have concerns over the resourcing of this work, particularly with adeadline of July this year. We would urge DCLG to make good use of the many organisations with whom theyalready have good relations to assist in the creation/signing-off of such guidance.

Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as theEnvironment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this becarried out?

22. Guidance from other departments and bodies should be consolidated and made current as soon aspossible, in line with the Review’s recommendation for DCLG’s timetable.

How will a “rolling suite of guidance” as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as the sitewill be “live” with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it wasused?

23. As suggested in the review, the guidance site should include a function whereby the guidance can beprinted with a date stamp to make clear what guidance applies/is being used. There will be an inevitable periodduring which all within, and those using the planning sector will have to get used to the new system; however,it is already a system that is used with some success in other areas.

January 2013


Written evidence submitted by Living Streets

1. About Living Streets

We are the national charity that stands up for pedestrians. With our supporters we work to create safe,attractive and enjoyable streets, where people want to walk. We work with professionals and politicians tomake sure every community can enjoy vibrant streets and public spaces. We started life in 1929 as thePedestrians Association and have been the national voice for pedestrians throughout our history. In the earlyyears, our campaigning led to the introduction of the driving test, pedestrian crossings and 30mph speed limits.Since then our ambition has grown. Today we influence decision makers nationally and locally, run successfulprojects to encourage people to walk and provide specialist consultancy services to help reduce congestionand carbon emissions, improve public health, and make sure every community can enjoy vibrant streets andpublic spaces.

2. Key Messages:

— We agree with the Taylor Review’s recommendation regarding the need for concise up todate guidance.

— Practitioners should be responsible for giving advice and providing up to date resources,however, we question whether the potential users of such resources (the public, planners, thethird sector) would use them if they had to pay for their use.

— We support the idea of Government sponsorship for best practice awards—for example tosupport active travel modes such as walking.

— The timescale proposed for revising planning guidance is unfeasible if the revised guidance isto achieve the aims of the Taylor Review.

3. Living Streets agree with the Taylor Review’s recommendation regarding the need for clear, up-to-date,coherent and easily accessible planning practice guidance which is a web-based, live resource, hosted on asingle site as a coherent up-to-date guidance suite (Recommendations 1 & 2). This is in addition to the guidancesignposting best practice guidance (Recommendation 8).

4. We note and agree with the comment by the Taylor Review that given many organisations provide thiskind of best practice case study advice it is not obvious why the Government should retain or in future producethis material, and that this should instead be sector led. However, there is a key role for Government to supportthe development of such best practice guidance in terms of the value given to such best practice guidance byusers and its utilisation by the public, planners and the third sector.

5. Furthermore, we question whether the users of best practice resources (the public, planners, third sector)would use such resources if they had to pay for their use. For example, Manual for Streets is freely availableon the Department for Transport website for free whilst Manual for Streets 2 is available from the ChartedInstitute of Highways and Transportation website for a charge.

6. We support the Taylor Review’s proposal of DCLG encouraging or sponsoring best practice awards. Thisshould be expanded beyond DCLG to include other government departments such as the Department forTransport—for example to support active travel modes such as walking. This would support recommendation8—that there should be a cross-Government approach to the development of guidance.

7. The timescale proposed in recommendation 10 regarding guidance documents is extremely challengingset against the context of significant cuts in resource at DCLG and stakeholders such as local authorities andthird sector organisations. It is important that the timescale is sufficiently challenging but lengthy enough toensure meaningful consultation can take place regarding existing guidance. This is in addition to givingsufficient time for partnerships between government departments and third sector organisations to reviewexisting best practice guidance to ensure they achieve the high standards called for by the Taylor Review.

8. We welcome the recommendation that Manual for Streets (Annex C -63) is retained for the time beingbut reviewed. However, we believe that this guidance needs to be linked with Manual for Streets 2 which isnot covered by the Taylor Review in order to create one new set of best practice guidance. Furthermore, weare concerned by the comment asking what within the document is planning advice and what can be providedelsewhere. Manual for Streets is key to designing better streets which meets the needs of users, are wellconnected and help to strengthen communities they serve. In particular it highlights the importance of atransport hierarchy which prioritises pedestrians. Manual for Streets concerns planning and wider approachesto sustainable transport and was developed by a wide group of stakeholders including Department for Transport,other government departments, third sector organisations such as Living Streets and local authorities. Therefore,highlighting our concerns regarding the timescales recommended in paragraph 10 of the Taylor Review.

January 2013


Written evidence submitted by the Spatial Planning and Health Group

1. The Spatial Planning and Health Group (SPAHG www.spahg.org.uk) is a group of planning and healthexperts: academics, practitioners and community representatives, seeking to improve public health through thepositive use of spatial planning. The group aims to study, promote and disseminate knowledge on therelationship between spatial planning and health, and to promote policies and action based upon evidence.

2. Members of SPAHG first convened as part of NICE’s Spatial Planning and Health ProgrammeDevelopment Group. At the conclusion of that research in November 2010, SPAHG was formed to take forwardthe work of developing and implementing key themes and actions.

3. SPAHG published “Steps to Healthy Planning: Proposals for Action” in June 2011, which is available todownload—www.spahg.org.uk/?page_id=194

4. SPAHQ has responded to question 3 and question 6.



5. There are two essential topics missing from the list under recommendation 18 and Annex D. These are:

— The role of planning in supporting and promoting health and wellbeing.

— The application of the concept of sustainable development in plan-making and developmentmanagement.

(a) The role of planning in supporting and promoting health and wellbeing

6. The aim of creating “healthy places to grow up and grow old in” was set out in the Government’s publichealth white paper, ‘Healthy People, Healthy Lives’ (November 2010) and was echoed in the National PlanningPolicy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF included a number of new references in relation to planning and healththat would benefit from further guidance:

— The definition of sustainable development contains an explicit reference to “supporting strong,vibrant and healthy communities” and to “health, social and cultural wellbeing” as part of thesocial role of planning (para 7).

— The final Core Planning Principle (para 17) refers to planning taking account of “local strategiesto improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all”

— There is an explicit reference to working with public health leads and health organisations andtaking account of the health status and needs of the local population and the barriers toimproving health and wellbeing (para 171).

— Underpinning the chapter on “Promoting healthy communities” (paras 69–78, pages 17–19) isthe role of the planning system in promoting healthy lifestyles. As the public health whitepaper, ‘Healthy People, Healthy Lives’ (November 2010) puts it “Create an environment thatsupports people in making healthy choices, and that makes these choices easier” (para 3.62)and “Active travel (walking and cycling) and physical activity need to become the norm incommunities” (para 3.32).

7. NPPF was published before the Health and Social Care bill became an act. Therefore it could not referspecifically to Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies, Health and Wellbeing Boards, Clinical CommissioningGroups, NHS Commissioning Board, Health Watch, Public Health England and the transfer of public healthresponsibilities to the local government and appointment of joint Directors of Public Health. This can berectified in new planning guidance

8. The scope of new guidance on planning and health should include:

(a) The relationship between the Local and neighbourhood plans and the joint health and wellbeingstrategy and how to take account of “local strategies to improve health, social and culturalwellbeing for all”

(b) Who the “public health leads and health organisations” are and their interest and relationshipwith the planning system, in both single and two-tier areas.

(c) Who is the statutory consultee on health following the demise of primary care trusts and theHealthy Protection Agency? Guidance is needed on whether the consultee is to be Public HealthEngland; the Health and Wellbeing Boards; Clinical Commissiong Groups: or the Director ofPublic Health. It is also needed on their obligation as a consultee to respond to local planningauthoriites and private sector planners.

(d) The relationship with the pollution control and health protection regimes

(e) How to treat health and wellbeing within both Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)/Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and environmental impact assessment (EIA) particularly once theEIA directive is revised and guidance on the use of health impact assessments when an EIA isnot required.


(f) Consideration of health and wellbeing in Design and Access Statements and by Design Review(para 62 of NPPF)

(g) The use of Section 105 and Community Infrastrucutre Levy to deliver local health servicefacilities and public health interventions at neighbourhood, ward or parish level that have beenidentified through the joint health and wellbeing strategy process.The barriers to improving health and wellbeing that can be addressed through the planningsystem

(h) Planning for health facilities, such as hospitals, health centres and GP surgeries and how theycan support local town centre and wider planning and regeneration policies

(i) How to put the aim of creating healthy places to grow up and grow old in and environmentsthat support people in making healthy choices, and that makes these choices easier into practicein local plans, neighbourhood plans and development management.

(j) Taking forward relevant recommendations in the Department of Health’s Call for Action onObesity (October 2011), “Fair Society, Healthy Lives” (The Marmot Review February 2010)and NICE public health guidance5.

(b) The Practical Application of Sustainable Development in Planning Decisions

9. The concept of sustainable development is in urgent need of practical guidance given that it is central tothe NPPF and is open to differing interpretation by planners, inspectors, developers and local communities.

10. The NPPF provides a definition of sustainable development and refers to the five guiding principles ofthe UK Sustainable Development Strategy “Securing the Future”, one of which is ‘ensuring a strong, healthyand just society’.

11. What is now needed is practical guidance on how this is put into practice when dealing with a planningapplication or producing a local or neighbourhood plan. For a presumption in favour of sustainable developmentmust also mean a presumption against unsustainable development.

12. A starting point could to give advice on the four aspects to any development and how they each impacton the three pillars of economic development, social development and environmental protection:

— The location of a proposed development (eg in relation to other uses and the sustainabletransport network, floor risk).

— The physical form of the development overall (eg site aspect, layout, density, public realm,access).

— The building itself (eg design, materials and construction).

— The use of the development (including who will use it and what was the previous use, it ismixed use or single use).

13. The guidance needs to make it clear that for a development to be sustainable it must be sustainable onall three pillars, not that one (eg economic development) can trump the others.

14. For example, a building may have an excellent BREEAM rating and be zero carbon, but if its locationmeans the only realistic way of getting to it is by car then it is not sustainable. Similarly, a development maybe in a city centre next to a train station but if it is uses rainforest hardwoods, has air conditioning, no greenroof and the only way upstairs is by electric lift then it is not sustainable. Neither is a gated luxury residentialdevelopment that turns its back on the communities it is located in.

C. Other Points

15. The proposed revisons of the Guide to the Strategic Environmental Asessment directive (Annex C, item70) and of Circular 02/99 on Environmental Impact Assement (Annex c, item 89) should set out clearly howhealth and wellbeing will be treated within them.

16. The timetable is ambitious. It is important that speed of implementation is not at the expense of qualityof the guidance. It is difficult to see that new guidance can be produced, including a consultation draft stage,by the end of March 2013.


17. It is essential that the Planning Guidance website provides Planning Guidance on behalf of theGovernment as a whole, not just of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).5 PH41 (Walking and cycling: local measures to promote walking and cycling as forms of travel or recreation—November 2012);

PH25 (Prevention of cardiovascular disease at population level (June 2010); PH17 (Promoting physical activity, active play andsport for pre-school and school-age children and young people in family, pre-school, school and community settings—January2009); and PH8 (Promoting and creating built or natural environments that encourage and support physical activity—January2008)


18. Planning guidance is provided by many government departments and agencies and it is vital that thisguidance, as appropriate, is also included on the Government Planning Guidance website. It is unfortunate thatthe Review did not look at the non-DCLG guidance.

19. Department of Health, Department for Transport, Department of Energy and Climate Change, Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department forCulture, Media and Sport all provide guidance relevant to planners. Some examples are:

— Department for Transport provides useful planning guidance such as: LTN 1/11 hared Space;LTN 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design; and LTN 1/04 Policy, Planning and Design for Walkingand Cycling.

— Guidance on energy infrastructure, such as closeness of overhead powerlines to different kindsof development, covered in the six energy National Policy Statements (July 2011):

EN-1 Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1)

EN-2 Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure (EN-2)

EN-3 Renewable Energy Infrastructure

EN-4 Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines

EN-5 Electricity Networks Infrastructure (EN-5)

EN-6 Nuclear Power generation

20. Similarly there are a number of government agencies (such as Environment Agency, English Heritage,Natural England, National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), Sport England and Play England) thatprovide planning advice and guidance that can be perceived as government planning guidance and should bereviewed and incorporated on the website as appropriate, such as:

— Advice on protecting agricultural land from inappropriate development—“Natural EnglandTechnical Information Note TIN049 Agricultural Land Classification: protecting the best andmost versatile agricultural land” (January 2009)

21. Before it became part of the Design Council, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment(CABE) produced a lot of useful advice and guidance that should be reviewed and incorporated on the websiteas appropriate, such as:

— “Design and Access Statements” (2006).

— “Design Review: principles and practice” (2009).

— “Future Health: sustainable places for healthy and wellbeing” (2009).

22. Non-DCLG guidance needs to be reviewed before the website can go live.

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation

CIHT is a membership organisation representing over 12,000 people who work in the highways andtransportation sector. CIHT members plan, design, build, operate and maintain best-in-class transport systemsand infrastructure, whilst respecting the imperatives of improving safety, ensuring economic competitivenessand minimising environmental impact.

CIHT welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Department for Communities & LocalGovernment (DCLG) Committee on the recently released report by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor into the revisionof Government Planning Practice Guidance.

CIHT supports the Taylor Review objectives to simplify planning policy and process, and many of theaspects included. However, we believe that transport should be integral to planning policy and developmentmanagement decision making, not viewed as a separate issue as would appear to be the case. Transport ispivotal to successful sustainable spatial planning, infrastructure growth, social inclusion, environmental targets,and economic growth.

CIHT supports efficient, co-ordinated cross-departmental working but perceive from the text a lack ofunderstanding of the need for an integrated approach to planning, transport and other areas. For example,transport, flooding and climate change are cross-departmental issues, and should be treated as such. Thereappears to be a narrowing of the guidance supporting planning process activity when it should be moreinclusive. CIHT support in principle the idea of the Chief Planner taking a lead in the process, but this mustbe in conjunction with other relevant colleagues in other Departments with an explicit objective to reachagreement on what is required.

CIHT agrees with the objectives as set out at the beginning of the report, regarding the need for review andproduction of a shorter, simpler more clearly defined suite of guidance. It is vital therefore that what remainsis sufficient to meet the needs of supporting the National Planning Policy Framework, delivering sustainabledevelopment and growth as desired by the government. It is important that is fully reflects the importance of


cross cutting issues eg climate change, implementation and equalities, and does not assume a level ofunderstanding in the sector which is not evidenced.

There is a need for all best practice guidance to be saved on the proposed web site, in a separate section,until replaced by updated guidance so that those elements that are still relevant remain in the interim.

Communities and Local Government Committee Inquiry into Taylor Review

References to the documents in line for review are referred to with the following Document (x) followedby the number in brackets.

1 Question 1—Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, whatchanges need to be made?

1.1 CIHT believes that the review group have gone far enough in reducing and consolidating the guidance.However, please see comments on detailed proposals below and as explained above we have some concernsabout the understanding of inter-relations of planning to some other areas and level of quality in the field. Wedo not accept the cancellation of the following before they are effectively replaced.

1.2 Documents under Annex A:

1.2.1 Document (18) Pre-Application consultation with communities: a basic guide (2011)—Outdated, nolonger necessary, can be cancelled. Not all relevant parties understand this process so it needs to be replacedwith succinct guidance.

1.2.2 Document (50) DfT Circular 02/2007- Planning and the Strategic Road Network—Can be cancelledas planning guidance as out of date. This has been recently referred to in the new Highways Agency DocumentSupporting Development and Facilitating Growth published in December 2012. Is it already superseded? If soby what?

1.2.3 Document (87) PPG13: A guide to Better Practice—out of date replaced by NPPF—There is a needto ensure that key elements of PPG13 best practice go into the newly updated guidance on sustainable transport.

1.3 Documents under Annex B:

1.3.1 CIHT are concerned about the timescale set out between now and the production of new documentsto replace existing documents (July 2013 proposed). We agree that production of new documents should becarried out as quickly as possible, however, why is there a necessity to delete these before they are replacedas many aspects of them remain relevant and useful to planners? A list of those that should be retained untilsuperseded is below.

1.3.2 Various documents in Annex B are attributed with the comment “and these aspects are now consideredto be understood and mainstreamed in planning work”. It is not clear what the evidence is for this and oftenin our view this is not the case. eg Document (22) town centre design & Document (24) Urban design

1.3.3 Document (2) Good Practice Guidelines: Delivering Travel Plans through the Planning Process (2009)Guidance needed on this issue but should be streamlined. Cancel existing advice and prepare new guidance.Document (3) 2009 Good Practice Guidelines: Delivering Travel Plans through the Planning Process—Summary Document (2009) Guidance needed on this issue but should be streamlined. Cancel existing adviceand prepare new guidance. CIHT acknowledge that these documents need to be re-written and we are pleasedthere is recognition that guidance is required on travel planning. Demand management and reducing the needto travel also need to feature within any re-write. However, these two pieces of guidance need to be placed inAnnex C, to be replaced before being cancelled so as not to create a vacuum. They should be treated in thesame way as Document (54) in Annex C—2007 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments PracticeGuidance (2007) Out-of-date, but removal now would create a vacuum on a key policy area. Important to setout a standardised central methodology. Priority to be updated. These documents represent a process that iscontinually relevant within the planning system and is not covered elsewhere so remains critical tosustainable development.

1.3.4 Document (7) Implementing Planning Performance Agreements (2008)—This document should bereplaced but needs to appear in Annex C—any update needs to include a clear reference to transport. Document(9) Guidance on Transport Assessment (2007)—Agree that this document should be replaced but needs toappear in Annex C—This guidance could be linked to the re-write of Document (2) Good Practice Guidelines:Delivering Travel Plans through the Planning Process (2009). The depositing of all the above items in AnnexB appears to demonstrate that there is a failure to recognise and understand the importance and links betweentransport and planning. A different approach has been taken by the review towards other subjects such asheritage, flooding, housing etc. Transport and Planning has to be integrated; effective, sustainable transport iscritical and fundamental to the delivery of short and long-term viable economic growth of the country. (Pleasefind attached CIHT key principles of effectively integrating planning and transport within the NPPF)


1.4 Documents under Annex C:

1.4.1 Document (26) CIL Statutory Guidance: Charge setting and charging schedule procedures (2010).Revised and updated guidance published in December 2012. This former guidance retained as part oftransitional measures, but now superseded by revised guidance. If this superseded why is it being retained?

1.4.2 Document (63) Manual for Streets (2007): Some good advice, but not needed in this format. Keep fornow, but review what is planning advice, and what is outside planning and can be provided elsewhere. CIHTare pleased that MfS is to be kept until it can be replaced. However, we are concerned by the statement “whatis planning advice, and what is outside planning and can be provided elsewhere”. The report appears to failto recognise the essential part that well designed streets play in delivering good places that meet the criteriaset out in the NPPF. The positive function of MfS is that it addresses this subject for both planners andengineers. There is a concern that this could be lost in any redraft. It is also of concern that no reference ismade of the follow-on document MfS 2 which supersedes and updates some of MfS 1. It will be essential thatany review builds on this work notwithstanding that it was not a Government document.

1.5 Documents under Annex D:

1.5.1 CIHT agree with the need for the proposed areas of new guidance but would request that in the contextof 3, 4 and 8 the issue of transport should be included. We also suggest that guidance is required on CIL andInfrastructure Delivery Plans both of which should relate to sustainable transport and active travel.

2 Question 2: Has the Review Group indentified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priorityand timescales should be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

2.1 Overall yes but see detailed comments in Question 1

3 Question 3: Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

3.1 Supporting Development and Facilitating Growth [see 1.2.2 above].

4 Question 4: Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

4.1 The timetable suggested is desirable but not realistic (July 2013). To be able to rewrite quality effectiveguidance that reflects current best practice and is supported by the industry will take time. Where will resourcescome from, who will produce the documentation? There is a lack of capacity and some expertise in thedepartment and part of the private sector to deliver something of this scale in such a short time.

4.2 CIHT agree that production of new documents should be carried out as quickly as possible, however,why is there a necessity to cancel, eg Good Practice Guidelines: Delivering Travel Plans through the PlanningProcess (2009) before they are replaced if aspects of them remain relevant and useful to planners? TheGuidance on Transport Assessment 2007 from the DfT should be revised together with this good practicedocument. Both are critical to effective planning but neither should be dropped until replaced.

4.3 It took many years to get the current guidelines produced and although we agree they can be streamlined,leaving the profession with nothing to base Transport Assessments and Travel Plans on is unhelpful and woulddo nothing to prevent poor quality reports and unsustainable transport outcomes from being produced. TravelPlans are particularly complex instruments and are commonly secured through Section 106 Agreementsfollowing and as part of transport assessments.

5 Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within DCLG?

5.1 CIHT believe that Government will struggle to produce best practice guidance that is continually up todate. But could other bodies undertake this in terms of resource? If the Government wants the sector to pickup the consolidation and production of new guidance, will they advocate the professional institutions playinga role and would they support/fund the necessary work? Keeping case studies up to date takes time, effort andsome expense. CIHT as a hub for cross sector disciplines would be willing to coordinate a group to look atthe feasibility of such a project.

5.2 The introduction of a web-based resource is important step forward that the CIHT supports in principle.It would bring together the most useful advice for planning and planners, and associated disciplines eg transportplanners. Production and continued maintenance of a web-based facility would have considerable ongoingresourcing implications for the DCLG, whether in-house or based with a professional institution. Having allguidance in one place will be useful, however, there will be a need to ensure effective ownership of the guidanceby other departments/organisations. They need to be an integral part of the process not just a consultee.


6 Question 6—Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other that DCLG and bodies suchas the Environment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this becarried out?

6.1 Having a suite of up to date, consolidated guidance across all departments is essential. If a review intoother departments and agencies guidance highlights a need for revision then it should be carried out. Theprocess that DCLG has carried out has been a useful one, however lessons can be taken from the TaylorReview; wider more realistic timeframes and increased consultation with professional bodies would improvethe process. It will be essential that DCLG captures the wider inter-relationships with other departments egDfT, DECC, etc and there is ownership across departments of the approach and outcomes.

7 Question 7 How will a “rolling suite of guidance” as envisaged in the Group report operate? For example,as the site will be “live” with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at thetime it was used?

7.1 Good questions with which we agree. The practical delivery of this should be solved through using asuitable on-line document alert system that highlight when and where documents have been amended, updated,superseded with version control. All documents will need clearly dating. However, it will be important not tolose earlier documents but retain an effective archive.

7.2 Alternatively instead of a continuous amendment system, a set timetable of when revisions/updates aregoing to be made will give the user guidance on potential changes to the guidance documents.

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Design Council

Background

1. The Design Council is an enterprising charity that enables people to use design to stimulate innovation inbusiness, tackle complex social issues, drive public service efficiency and improve the built environment. Overthe last eleven years the Cabe team has strengthened capacity and offered expert advice on national planningpolicy to ensure that good quality, well-designed places are secured through the planning system.

2. The breadth of our knowledge and experience is reflected in our diverse and rich portfolio of work, whichover the last two years has included the London 2012 Olympic Games, Crossrail and neighbourhood planningsupport. Our expertise is also recognised internationally, and over the last year we have supported Albania,Australia, Brazil, France, Japan, Malta, South Korea amongst others. The Design Council is supported by theDepartment for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Communities and Local Governmentand generates income through programmes, services and private funding partnerships.

Introduction

3. Good planning is fundamental to the production and maintenance of well-designed good quality places.Good design goes beyond the visual or aesthetic quality of a building, it creates conditions for a well-plannedbuilt environment that contributes to a strong, competitive economy, creates vibrant healthy communities andprotects and enhances the natural, built and historic environment.

4. The Design Council welcomes the opportunity to inform the review of planning practice guidance. Webelieve this provides an opportunity to set out a clear, consistent framework that will assist communities; localauthorities and developers deliver well-designed, good quality places through the planning system.

5. The Review is also an opportunity to create guidance that helps meet policy objectives set out in theNational Planning Policy Framework in practice to deliver good design and quality places. This is also themoment to pick up the challenge laid down by the former planning minister Greg Clark that “Our standardsof design can be so much higher. We are a nation renowned worldwide for creative excellence, yet, at home,confidence in development itself has been eroded by the too frequent experience of mediocrity. As part of thiswe believe we can provide an appropriate source of independent advice to support the delivery of this agenda.

We have identified three key areas where we think the review could be strengthened to ensure the newplanning practice guidance system supports the delivery of good quality places:

Strategic Planning and Place-Making

6. The creation of guidance that promotes the delivery of good quality places should be a key consideration.Whilst the NPPF goes a long way to support the delivery of good quality places in policy it is essential thatthese ambitions are met in delivery through guidance. The Design Council recommends that key guidanceis put in place on plan making that sets out a framework to deliver better places and gives confidence todecision-makers.


7. Credible plans are key. Clear, coherent and comprehensive plans should set the agenda for an area, expressaspirations, be proactive and be positive about the future of a place, clearly stating how this will be achieved.It is therefore essential that Government produces plan making guidance at all levels.

8. Whilst the Review rightly recommends that Government produces guidance on Neighbourhood Planningit should also produce guidance for local authorities on how to create a credible Local Plan. The DesignCouncil therefore recommends core guidance relating to Local and Neighbourhood Plans is put in place.

9. In addition, given the increased planning powers and importance placed on Local Enterprise Partnerships(LEPs), appropriate guidance should also be put in place to support cross-boundary place-making.

Design Guidance

10. The NPPF recognises the role of design in planning to achieve sustainable development and better placesfor all. Whilst the NPPF goes a long way to encourage the principles of good design it is essential that practicalguidance is produced to deliver this on the ground.

11. To ensure that design has appropriate consideration we believe it is necessary for there to be GovernmentPlanning Practice Guidance on design. A useful starting point for this new guidance would be our DesignWayfinder that sets out high level design principles and sign-posts key industry-led guidance.

12. We agree that industry is best placed to produce and update best practice guidance. The Design Councilwill support the creation and of this guidance and appropriate updates.

The Review—Approach and Priorities

13. We welcome the continued democratisation of the planning system through the creation of a centralisedportal accessible to all. To provide clarity to all users and parties involved in the review we recommend thatthere is a clear transition period with a detailed timetable set out.

14. Annex’s A, B and C set out proposals for guidance: to be cancelled; recommended for cancellation (withany relevant material should incorporated into revised guidance) and to be retained until replaced by revisedguidance. Further clarification around these comments is necessary to ensure an informed response on therecommendations. Indeed, we would recommend that no guidance should be cancelled without dueconsideration following further information being provided.

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Historic Houses Association

1. The Historic Houses Association represents Britain’s historic houses, castles and gardens in privateownership. There are 1,500 HHA properties throughout the UK of which about a third are open to the public.The HHA estimates that approximately two-thirds of the built heritage is privately owned and maintained.Between them HHA members represent, collectively, one of the greatest “ownerships” of listed buildings inBritain: both I and II* properties as well as of Grade II properties, many being ancillary buildings. The HHAwelcomes 13 million visitors each year and one in five of all HHA properties offers educational visits—thereare more than 300,000 such visits annually.

2. The beneficial effect that public visiting to these places has on the wider economy is estimated at anadditional £1.6 billion, from inbound tourists alone. Over 30,000 people are directly employed by HHAmembers or are employed in businesses in their grounds.

3. The costs of maintaining Britain’s private houses, castles and gardens are significant and expenditure byprivate owners in looking after England’s historic environment is substantial. HHA owners spend £140 millionper year (HHA Survey, 2009), but the backlog of urgent repairs at HHA member houses totals over £390million, an increase of £130 million on the figure six years earlier. Only a small fraction of the costs of majorrepairs to privately owned historic houses is funded by public grant. Therefore, ensuring the economic viabilityof historic houses is of great importance.

4. Britain’s historic houses are an important resource, benefiting the entire nation. 80% of internationalvisitors say that their principal reason for visiting Britain is connected to heritage and culture. Historic housesprovide character, distinctiveness and a sense of place and help create pride in where people live. 87% ofBritish people think that the historic environment plays an important part in the cultural life of the country.

5. In its response to the National Planning Policy Framework consultation, the HHA made it clear that aPractice Guide, drawn up by English Heritage in consultation with the Historic Environment Forum, will beof particular importance, because it will offer more detailed guidance to local authorities and the PlanningInspectorate on the historic environment, where the NPPF is too broad or too vague. Such a Practice Guidemust therefore be given a prominence, status and authority appropriate to its importance.

6. Responses to the Committee’s questions:


(i) Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changesneed to be made?

Since the National Planning Policy Framework has been reduced from more than 1,000 pages to around 50there has inevitably been a significant reduction in the level of detail. The historic environment section hasbeen reduced from the substantial guidance document PPS5 to little over three pages. The HHA believes it isessential that the owners of listed buildings have sufficient guidance available to them, in order to makeinformed decisions about their properties, to ensure their economic viability and thereby their conservation.The conservation of listed buildings is a specialist field and will not necessarily benefit from additionalconsolidation, nor should guidance be further reduced. While the Taylor Review states that “guidance shouldbe cut to that which is essential”, it does not identify how decisions about what is “essential” are to be taken.

(ii) Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescaleshould be given over to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

The Taylor Review correctly identifies the lack of coherence and clarity in much of the current guidance,but improvement cannot be achieved solely by a radical reduction in the amount of guidance. Given the lackof detail in the NPPF itself, the practice guide for the historic environment, for example, needs to be evenmore clear and definitive. The suggestion that guidance should not be “lengthy texts but prompts, essentialinformation required or recommended processes”, leaves the possibility that there may ultimately be insufficientinformation for owners or planners to make informed decisions. The proposal to withdraw the PPS5 PracticeGuide in July 2013 should only be implemented if an adequate replacement, supported by English Heritageand the Historic Environment Forum, has been produced.

(iii) Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

None, as far as we are aware.

(iv) Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

The timetable in respect of planning guidance on the historic environment will be realistic if the practiceguide produced by English Heritage and the Historic Environment Forum is accepted and published in time toreplace the current PPS5 practice guide. The owners of historic properties and those making decisions aboutthem require clear and authoritative guidance.

(v) Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

While DCLG will presumably be responsible for drawing together the various strands of guidance, EnglishHeritage should be the principal source of specialist advice on planning and the historic environment.

(vi) Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as theEnvironment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this becarried out?

It makes sense to have a coherent and consistent body of practice guidance, published and managed centrallyby DCLG. However, specialist bodies, such as English Heritage in the case of the historic environment, mustbe responsible for revisions to practice guidance.

(vii) How will a rolling suite of guidance as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as thesite will be live with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it wasused?

It is very important that it is entirely clear which guidance is current, for those who use the site. The ideaof a “rolling suite of guidance” implies continuous, or at least regular change, whereas changes should ratherbe occasional, or even exceptional. It should be mandatory for any amendments to the guidance to be clearlyidentified and dated. Amendments to areas of specialist guidance should only be made at the express wish ofa specialist agency, which in the case of the historic environment would be English Heritage.

January 2013


Written evidence submitted by the UK Green Building Council

Executive Summary

1. UK-GBC supports the Government’s aim to streamline planning guidance and we broadly welcome therecommendations outlined in Lord Taylor’s report.

2. We welcome proposals to create a new online portal for planning guidance. We believe that adequateresources should be provided to set up and maintain the proposed new website, and ensure a smooth transitionfrom current arrangements.

3. We agree with the list of new/updated guidance to be produced as a priority. We would reiterate that theguidance produced must reflect the principles in the NPPF regarding sustainable development and be subjectto further consultation.

4. The Taylor Review suggests that the new Government website for planning practice guidance shouldprovide a signpost to, but should not endorse guidance produced by others. If Government follows thisrecommendation it should clarify what status and weight should be given to third party guidance.

Introduction to UK-GBC

5. The UK Green Building Council (UK-GBC) is a membership organisation campaigning for a sustainablebuilt environment—one that minimises negative environmental impacts while maximising benefits for peopleeverywhere. Our mission is to radically improve the sustainability of the built environment, by transformingthe way it is planned, designed, constructed, maintained and operated.

Key Issues

6. UK-GBC supports the Government’s aim to streamline planning guidance and we broadly welcome therecommendations outlined in Lord Taylor’s report.

7. We welcome proposals to create a new online portal for planning guidance. We believe that adequateresources should be provided to set up and maintain the proposed new website. A seamless transition to thenew system will be critical to its credibility.

8. UK-GBC is carrying out a similar programme of work building an online platform—Pinpoint6—signposting industry to the best possible resources and education courses on sustainability in the builtenvironment across the building lifecycle and we would be pleased to share our knowledge with thosedeveloping this resource. Pinpoint is UK-GBC’s answer to the sheer volume of information on sustainablebuilding in the same way this online resource seeks to streamline planning guidance; it will provide asustainability search function and allow users to apply further filters based on the part of the building lifecyclethey are working on, the type of resources they are looking for and more. Pinpoint will also encourage usersto review resources and education courses themselves, helping others to see what tools, guidance and casestudies would be most relevant for them. We note that the new guidance website will signpost to best practiceand case studies and would suggest that Pinpoint is used as one of those sources users are directed to.

9. UK-GBC has some concerns about the amount of work scheduled to take place before July 2013 andbelieve that the process must be adequately resourced in order to ensure that robust outputs are produced.

10. We agree with the list of new/updated Government guidance to be produced as a priority, particularlyrelating to biodiversity, climate change and renewable energy, flooding, environmental impact assessments,sustainability appraisals and viability. We would reiterate that the guidance produced must reflect all of theprinciples in the NPPF regarding sustainable development namely “living within the planet’s environmentlimits; ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; achieving a sustainable economy; promoting goodgovernance; and using sound science responsibly.” We also believe this guidance should be subject to furtherconsultation.

11. The Taylor Review suggests that the new Government website for planning practice guidance shouldprovide a signpost to, but should not endorse, guidance produced by others. If Government follows thisrecommendation it should clarify what status and weight should be given to such guidance in the planningprocess, and also what will happen if different groups produce conflicting guidance.

12. A number of cross-sector examples of good practice guidance have already been published. The subjectscovered include: planning for climate change; biodiversity and green infrastructure; sustainable design andconstruction, and these should be used a starting point for the production of guidance in the priority areasoutlined in the Taylor Review.

Suggested Questions for the Minister

1. How will the new online system relate to the Planning Portal? How will the transition between systemsbe managed?6 www.ukgbc.org/pinpoint


2. Does the Minister intend to follow the advice of the Taylor Review and produce new/updated guidanceon key areas such as climate change? If so how will this be created—will this be open to consultation?

3. How and by whom will best practice be moderated? How will different sectors be encouraged to providethis and what will the process be? What happens if different groups produce conflicting guidance?

4. Will officials at CLG have the necessary capacity and resource to carry out the initial revised guidancework before July 2013 as recommended by the Taylor Review?

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Theatres Trust

Response from The Theatres Trust: Executive Summary— The Theatres Trust generally supports the conclusions and recommendations of the Review.

However, we are disappointed that has been no consultation with the cultural or arts sectors.

— Given that culture is a new core planning principle, why was the cultural sector not representedor its views sought as part of the Review?

— Given that culture is a new core planning principle, does the Minister not see it as a clearpriority for new and updated guidance?

— The Theatres Trust does believe that there are items that should be included. We believe thatculture and cultural wellbeing should be a separate Policy area which requires guidance.

— Guidance is needed as culture and cultural wellbeing is new core planning principle within theNPPF and it would support effective preparation of local plans and delivery of policy withinthe NPPF.

— One of the 12 Core Planning Principles in the NPPF is to “take account of and support localstrategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficientcommunity and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.” However, there iscurrently no good practice guidance on planning for culture and cultural well-being.

— There is also no existing guidance on shared facilities and guarding against loss (such as assettransfer). Similarly, there is no guidance on the provision of community and culturalinfrastructure and other local facilities.

— Our major concern is that at a national and local level, planners may overlook the need toconsider the contribution culture and cultural wellbeing makes to the vibrancy of regionalcommunities and local centres within their respective local plans.

— There is no guidance on how to establish what cultural infrastructure should be considered,given catchments and population size and duty to co-operate.

— The Theatres Trust would like to assist in producing new guidance. We are clear that newguidance in the area of cultural planning is essential and adds real value in terms of planningpractice.

— We lead the Culture in Planning Alliance (CiPA), a group of cultural and arts organisationswho work in cultural planning, and could bring this group together to assist with this work.

— Arrangements for Handling Heritage Applications—Notification and Directions by theSecretary of State: Currently our statutory powers do not extend to listed theatres and thereforeare not able to totally fulfil our role as set up by Act of Parliament in 1976. The Trust was tobe included as a statutory consultee on all matters relating to theatres across the proposedHeritage Protection Bill. This was in accordance with The Theatres Trust’s role as a statutoryconsultee and the ambition of the Bill to align heritage protection to the planning system. It istherefore vital for us to be included within the guidance for this Document.

— We support the view that the five existing CIL supplementary documents can be broughttogether in a single piece of advice. The Trust would wish to comment on revised guidance astheatres are sui-generis.

RESPONSE FROM THE THEATRES TRUST

Introduction

1. Please see the Trust’s covering letter which sets out our specific area of expertise and statutory remitwithin the planning system.7

Comments

2. The Theatres Trust generally supports the conclusions and recommendations of the Review. However, weare disappointed that has been no consultation with the cultural or arts sectors either as part of the Independent7 Not printed.


Practitioner’s Group or organisations, practitioners and Government Partners who met during the course ofthe Review.

Questions and Issues to Put to the Minster

3. Given that culture is a new core planning principle, why was the cultural sector not represented or itsviews sought as part of the Review?

4. Given that culture is a new core planning principle, does the Minister not see it as a clear priority for newand updated guidance?

Specific Views on Questions the Committee Expects to Put to the Minster


5. The Theatres Trust does believe that there are items that should be included. We believe that culture andcultural wellbeing should be a separate Policy area which requires guidance and should be included andrecommended as an area (Annex D) for the preparation of new guidance. For example, The Theatres Trust isa Statutory Consultee on “development involving any land on which there is a theatre” but many localauthorities are clearly not informed sufficiently of our status and our role in cultural planning and overlooktheir obligation to consult us, and therefore are not taking full advantage of the advice and expertise we areable to offer.

6. Guidance is needed as culture and cultural wellbeing is new core planning principle within the NPPF andit would support effective preparation of local plans and delivery of policy within the NPPF. The Committeemade the following recommendation in its report on the NPPF in December 2011 “We further recommend thatthe Government clarify the policy position on town centres with respect to arts, culture and tourism uses” (157).

7. In particular, the NPPF recognises (Section 7, page 2) that there are three dimensions to support economicdevelopment, one being a social role to support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being. Section 8(page 3) states that “to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should besought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.”

8. One of the 12 Core Planning Principles in the NPPF (Section 17, page 6) is to “take account of andsupport local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient communityand cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.” However, there is currently no good practiceguidance on planning for culture and cultural well-being.

9. Section 70 in the NPPF (page 17) states that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities andservices that the community needs, planning policies and decisions should plan for the use of shared space andguard against unnecessary loss of valued facilities. Also to ensure that established facilities and services areretained and able to develop for the benefit of the community. Local planning authorities are advised at (Section156, page 37) that their local plans should set out strategic priorities to deliver the provision of health, security,community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities. However, there is no existing guidance onshared facilities and guarding against loss (such as asset transfer). Similarly, there is no guidance on theprovision of community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities.

10. Our major concern, therefore, is that at a national and local level, planners may overlook the needto consider the contribution culture and cultural wellbeing makes to the vibrancy of regionalcommunities and local centres within their respective local plans. The Trust is currently witnessingperforming arts facilities (for example, one supporting young people in productive cultural activities that detersthem from crime) which do not fall easily into existing use classes and theatres which are not statutory listed,being demolished to make way for shops, offices and housing, leisure or sports facilities, without the need forany Need or Impact Assessments. Campaigners and users are currently trying to argue the case for individualtheatre building’s to be added to lists as “assets of community value” but, even so, without guidance on properassessment there is no protection for such facilities.

11. As stated in the Arts Council England’s 2011 paper on “Supporting growth in the arts economy”, “…our best arts and cultural infrastructure (the most open theatres, connected media centres and interdisciplinaryart spaces) have become the ‘spikes’ and ‘intersections’ for creative exchange, operating at once as places (anddigital spaces) of creative business transaction, inspirational cultural experience, education, and cross-sectorinnovation”. Yet there is no guidance on how to establish what cultural infrastructure should be considered,given catchments and population size and duty to co-operate.

12. Therefore we believe culture and cultural wellbeing should be a separate Policy area and should beincluded and recommended as an area for the preparation of new guidance.


13. The Theatres Trust would like to assist in producing new guidance. We are clear that new guidance inthe area of cultural planning is essential and adds real value in terms of planning practice. We would be happy


to assist in finding solutions to contested areas such as viability, town centre first sequential tests and Needsand Impact Assessment. We support the view (page 6) that guidance should clarify “ground rules” for process,so there is clarity about approach.

14. We lead the Culture in Planning Alliance (CiPA) a group of cultural and arts organisations who work incultural planning. We promote culture and arts in planning policy, provide expert advice in our specialist areasand are a culturally informed voice which promotes and protects arts and cultural uses, activities and interestsin the planning system in England.

15. CiPA includes members from Ixia, the public art think tank; the Society of London Theatre (SOLT), theorganisation that represents London’s theatre producers, theatre owners and managers; the TheatricalManagement Association (TMA), the industry body and main support network for theatre managers in the UK;Voluntary Arts, the organisation that works with policy makers, funders and politicians to improve theenvironment for everyone participating in the arts; the Visual Arts and Galleries Association (VAGA);Audiences UK; the National Federation of Artists Studio Providers (NFASP); the Little Theatre Guild and ArtsDevelopment UK. We can facilitate the co-ordination of this group meets to produce new guidance inconsultation with DCLG. This group will also be producing best practice guides and we would be happy towork with DCLG in the future to ensure that this can be found readily and in a usable format.

Further Comments on Annexes

16. Annex A, Document 56: A Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism (2006): The Trust agrees thatthis document is out-of-date and does not add any critical advice. However, most local authorities have touristassets and do not often plan for them accordingly. New guidance on planning culture could incorporatecritical advice.

17. Annex B, Document 6: Planning for Climate Change: Practice Guidance: The Trust has experiencethrough its Ecovenue project in promoting the sustainability of cultural buildings and the reduction of carbonemissions through the provision of theatre-specific, environmental advice. We would like to assist in updatingguidance.

18. Annex C, Documents 12, 13, 26, 27 and 28 CIL: We support the view that the five existing CILsupplementary documents can be brought together in a single piece of advice. The Trust would wish tocomment on revised guidance as theatres are sui-generis. This is due to the unique nature of their use, accessrequirements, and construction. Theatres make a positive contribution to the provision of cultural infrastructurein an area and their development makes a positive net contribution to an area’s infrastructure. In the contextof the NPPF, theatres make a positive contribution towards improving health, social and cultural wellbeing forall, and make a specific contribution towards delivering sufficient community and cultural facilities and servicesto meet local needs. Theatre uses are generally unable to bear the cost of CIL for viability reasons. The TheatresTrust we would recommend either the setting of a nil rate, the application of charitable or discretionary reliefs,applying D1/D2 rates where differential rates are proposed, or recycling the charge to the theatre developmentwhere a single rate is proposed. Clear advice is needed in this area where it relates to cultural buildings.

19. Annex C, Document 38: Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach (2009): TheTheatres Trust agrees that guidance is needed on this technical area, but the most useful information iscontained in the appendices to the current document. The Theatres Trust fed into this document where it relatedto cultural need and impact. Some of this could be included in a guide for culture but the town centre elementand sequential approach should remain. Again, the Trust would wish to contribute.

20. Annex C, Documents 40, 71 and 85: Arrangements for Handling Heritage Applications—Notificationand Directions by the Secretary of State: The Trust agrees that these circulars contain directions which remainsextant, but not in a helpful format for it and that the three circulars should be replaced by new up-to-dateadvice and consolidated direction. Currently our statutory powers do not extend to listed theatres which meansthat we are not automatically notified on applications for listed building consent and therefore are not able tototally fulfil our role as set up by Act of Parliament in 1976. However recognition of our expertise in this areaby local authorities means we are considered an important consultee.

21. The Trust was to be included as a statutory consultee on all matters relating to theatres across theproposed Heritage Protection Bill. This was in accordance with The Theatres Trust’s role as a statutoryconsultee and the ambition of the Bill to align heritage protection to the planning system. The Culture, Mediaand Sport Select Committee at the time stated “Recommendation Four: [The Select Committee] recommend[s]that the Government ensures that the role of statutory consultees such as the Theatres Trust is properlyincorporated into the heritage protection reforms in addition to their existing role in the planning system.” TheDCMS released its response to recommendations from the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on theDraft Heritage Protection Bill on 20 October 2008. The Trust was referenced in on page 11, stating “31. TheGovernment has welcomed comments received from organisations that have put forward a case for their greaterinvolvement in the heritage protection system. In the case of The Theatres Trust, DCMS has been constructivelyengaged with them and we agree that there is scope for amendments to the Bill to enable The Theatres Trustto participate more fully in the heritage protection system. For example, a number of provisions will beredrafted to ensure that The Theatres Trust is capable of being included as a statutory consultee, in relation to


processes and decisions affecting theatre buildings.” It is therefore vital for us to be included within theguidance for this Document.

22. Annex D, Ref no 3: Neighbourhood Planning: In England, we are a consultee for NeighbourhoodDevelopment Orders and Community Right to Build Orders, and encourage local authorities, parish councilsand local groups to consult the Trust on Local and Neighbourhood Development Plans where they involve atheatre. We would expect to be involved with any new guidance.

23. Annex D, Ref no 8: Viability: We have no doubt that this is an area that urgently needs appropriateguidance and the test for Viability. The Theatres Trust would like to comment on any consultation.

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by Renewable UK

RenewableUK is the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries. Formedin 1978, and with over 670 corporate members, RenewableUK is the leading renewable energy trade associationin the UK. Wind has been the world’s fastest growing renewable energy source for the last seven years, andthis trend is expected to continue with falling costs of wind energy and the urgent international need to tackleCO2 emissions to prevent climate change.

1. In general terms RenewableUK strongly welcomes the idea of reforming our approach to guidance andmoving to a streamlined, easily navigable system whereby developers, private individuals and communities areable to fully engage with planning in their in area. We particularly welcome the move to limit opportunities toadd to formal guidance by means of letters, circulars and so on, which is difficult to keep up with and madeknowledge of the system the reserve of experienced practitioners. Similarly, the requirement to “live manage”the suite of guidance documents, with clear processes for introducing amendments, would stop the systemreturning to its current confused state whilst enabling Government to tackle pressing issues as they emerge.

2. We also welcome the removal of best practice, case studies and so on from planning guidance and relyon professional bodies for such information. We agree that the latter are better placed to manage and keep upto date such information. We feel that in order to avoid dispute, there may be a role for Government inendorsing- ie stronger than merely sign-posting- resources it feels are valuable in this respect. We would gladlyengage with Government and other stakeholders to examine the issue as it applies to onshore and offshorewind, wave and tidal technologies and associated infrastructure. Areas that are not specific to an industry- suchas community engagement- may benefit from a diversity of approaches across different sectors, so may be besthandled by industry-neutral bodies, such as the RTPI or TCPA.

3. We strongly support the decision to retain and update PPS 22 Companion Guide to renewable energy,which contains much useful guidance. In terms of updating the guidance, we feel that this is necessary to reflectimprovements to the relevant technologies since 2004, as well the fact that onshore wind, and increasingly othertechnologies, are no longer fringe technologies, but key players in the energy market, with an enhanced roleexpected in the future to meet energy security needs and carbon reduction targets. With this in mind, we feelthat the relevant sections of the Planning and Climate Change Practice Guidance 2008 note, which isrecommended for urgent cancellation, should be incorporated into an updated Companion Guide.

4. The energy sector’s role in meeting decarbonisation objectives, as outlined in the Climate Change Act2008, should be given eminence in planning decisions, and planning should be considered in part as a vehiclefor these aspirations, rather than a barrier. An updated guidance document could be used to spell out thesematters clearly and help ensure that there is synergy between planning and energy and climate change policies.

5. In terms of formalities, clearly the updated guidance cannot be a companion guide as the PPS itcomplemented has been revoked. We recommend that the updated guidance is considered formal standaloneguidance in line with the new system proposed by the review. We also feel that whilst Government adoptionof the guidance will ultimately be necessary, the update should be led by specialist third party stakeholdersand industry and cover pressing issues not currently accounted for elsewhere. Chief among these are:

— Proposals to introduce arbitrary separation distances between onshore turbines and dwellingson spurious grounds. This runs counter to the very principles of planning and environmentalimpact assessment in the UK, and will stifle development for political reasons. The planningsystem should not be able to be misused in this manner and it therefore something we feelshould receive urgent attention and clear steer from Government in guidance.

— Unofficial maximums to turbine heights. These are similarly reducing the amount of power thatcan be generated from onshore wind and are driven by principled and political objections onarbitrary landscape and visual grounds, rather than planning judgements on scheme specificimpacts.


— Calculation of planning fees. Onshore wind is somewhat peculiar in this respect, with red lineboundaries far exceeding the actual land take associated with development. There are numerousexample of LPAs charging developers excessive planning fees for the whole red line area,notwithstanding incomplete guidance to the contrary in Paragraph 40 of Circular 04/2008. Anupdated guidance note could be used to put the matter to bed.

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

RICS is the leading organisation of its kind in the world for professionals in property, construction, land andrelated environmental issues. As an independent and chartered organisation, RICS regulates and maintains theprofessional standards of over 91,000 qualified members (FRICS, MRICS and AssocRICS) and over 50,000trainee and student members. It regulates and promotes the work of these property professionals throughout146 countries and is governed by a Royal Charter approved by Parliament which requires it to act in thepublic interest.

RICS Comment

RICS supports the principles of the Taylor Review. The NPPF was a welcome move to reduce the complexityof the planning system, one of the major barriers to economic growth, and Government is right to now turn itsattention to the perhaps more challenging task of reducing the thousands of pages of guidance. Whilst muchguidance is woefully out of date and unnecessary, carefully targeted professional guidance will be central inensuring the delivery of a workable planning system that operates in the public interest and this is a job forthe sector.

Government guidance must be pro-actively managed to be legible, efficient and effective. Without this pro-active management, historic documents are left active building an unnecessary and outdated library of guidancewhich confuses decision making and slowing development. Lord Taylor’s Review is a welcome step to addressthis problem. As well as continually assessing which documents should and should not be retained, there mustbe a core process to maintain overall performance, regularly reviewing appropriateness of retained guidanceand anticipating reviews and requirements for new advice, so that it remains a contemporary compendiumof policies.

Government should take this opportunity to define what is and is not policy, this will give clarity as to what“weight” should be ascribed to them. For example, the NPPF is clearly “policy” but is it of equal weight to aChief Planners letter or other advice from a Government department? Signposting to non-governmentalorganisations that provide best practice examples will be helpful but it must be made clear that this best practiceis not “policy” and therefore does not attract the same weight. This should be a role for the body who takeson the pro-active management of guidance.

RICS offers responses as follows:


RICS believes that continuing with the current arrangements is not an option if the required levels ofdevelopment are to be delivered in the timescales required. RICS is of the view that it has gone just far enough,to go any further runs the risk of cutting essential guidance.


What constitutes “correct priorities” will change according to political, economic and social circumstances.What is vital is that Government responds quickly rather than undertakes a lengthy consultation process.

Government should use this opportunity to consider reform of the Compulsory Purchase and Compensationprocess. The Law Commission has previously recommended reform but no consultation or Review has yetbeen bought forward. This is a key part of delivering development but the current process is complex, lengthyand a real barrier to delivering development. RICS would welcome the Ministers view on reform.


A general review of planning obligations may provide clarity as would a clear definition of the intendeddivision between CIL and S106.


The timetable envisaged by the review is challenging but achievable if Government allocates appropriateresource and utilises industry expertise. Care must be taken to ensure that no gaps are left in the haste to


complete the review on time, this will only lead to further confusion and challenge. Government must put inplace a clear timetable and adhere to it to give clarity to industry.


This should be led by the Government, primarily DCLG. Competent bodies may have a role to play inpartnership in their particular area of expertise. For example, RICS may have a role in advising on viabilityguidance.


This is a necessary piece of work and RICS would welcome the Ministers comments about how this cross-departmental co-ordination would be achieved.


This is a good suggestion as long as clear time stamps or version numbers for each piece of guidanceare used.

January 2013

Written evidence submitted by SSE

SSE (formerly Scottish and Southern Energy) welcomes the opportunity to provide written evidence to theCommunities and Local Government Committee on the Government’s Review of Planning Practice Guidanceand the Government’s consultation proposals.

Significance of Planning Reform to the Energy Industry

As a member of EnergyUK, SSE has long worked in support of planning reform, which will assist withdelivering the £200 billion investment required by 2020. To deliver this level of infrastructure investmentindustry requires a long-term stable policy framework, and planning policy is critical to this.

About SSE

SSE is one of the UK’s leading energy companies, and is currently investing over £4million a day in thegeneration, storage, transmission, distribution and supply of gas and electricity.

Of relevance to this inquiry, SSE is the UK’s second largest electricity generator of electricity and is theleading generator of renewable electricity with over 3200MW of installed capacity. SSE also owns and operatesthe electricity transmission network in the north of Scotland and the electricity distribution networks in thenorth of Scotland and south central England.

General Comments on Planning Reform

Stable Policy Framework—Developers of energy infrastructure need a clear and stable long-term policyframework and a planning regime that is effective, fair, and gives a reasonable degree of certainty to them,affected communities and their representatives.

Streamlining of Planning Policy/Guidance—Whilst supportive of streamlining DCLG guidance,particularly Planning Policy Statements (PPSs), industry is keen to retain key areas useful for developers/localplanning authorities, such as parts of the revised PPS1 Supplement on Climate Change/PPS 22 on RenewableEnergy.

Comments on Review of Planning Practice Guidance

Q1 Has the Review Group gone far enough in reducing and consolidating guidance? If not, what changesneed to be made?

SSE appreciates that the Review Group has reviewed all the extant DCLG Guidance—more than 200documents, over 7,000 pages and agree with the attempts to reduce and consolidate guidance where possible.We believe that the main priority at this stage should be to ensure that appropriate guidance is in place, whichsupports the Government’s growth agenda particularly with regard to supporting sustainable energy objectives.If any further guidance needs to be reduced or consolidated (other than has been identified already by theReview Group), this can be done as part of any future review process.


Q2 Has the Review Group identified the correct priorities for the new guidance? What priority and timescaleshould be given to this over the cancellation and consolidation of existing guidance?

SSE particularly agrees with the Recommendation to prioritise “creating guidance to underpin the Duty toCooperate, which is central to implementation of the National Planning Policy Framework”. This should beenacted as soon as possible and given at least as much priority as to the cancellation and consolidation ofexisting guidance. We also recognise that it may be necessary to give priority to “updating Climate Changeand Renewable Energy, to bring this vital material up to date and ensure it is used effectively andproportionately.” However, we would recommend retaining the PPS22 Companion Guide in the interim (whichthe Review Group also recommends) because it includes important guidance and technical information onplanning for renewable energy.

Q3 Have any items been missed or excluded that should be included?

There is not anything that we are currently aware of.

Q4 Is the timetable recommended by the Review Group realistic?

SSE welcomes the view from the Review Group that “the need for these revisions is urgent and widelyacknowledged”. We note that it recommends that the Government should “aim to complete the immediatecancellations, and work in progress on the preparation of the website and the most urgent updating of guidanceby the first anniversary of the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework—28 March 2013.”While it is not for us to comment on whether this is realistic, this would be desirable.

Q5 Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a web-based resource? What are the implications for resourcing within the DCLG?

We note that the Review Group recommends that “the Government should take immediate steps to build oridentify a suitable [web-based resource] site.” In its Conclusions, the Review Group details that “thepresentation, processes for updating, and the range of essential material should be managed as a coherent suiteby DCLG…with a clear management line of responsibility—we suggest through the Chief Planner.” SSEwould agree that this would appear to be the most logical solution although DCLG would need to comment asto what available resource there is.

Q6 Should guidance which is the responsibility of departments other than DCLG and bodies such as theEnvironment Agency and Planning Inspectorate also be revised and consolidated? How should this becarried out?

SSE believes it is right to focus on the DCLG guidance at this stage and ensure that this is implemented assoon as possible before rolling out to guidance, which may be the responsibility of other departments. ThePlanning Inspectorate has gone through a very recent process of revising guidance (at a Nationally SignificantInfrastructure Project level) following the abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) in April2012 and therefore it is unlikely that this needs to be revisited so soon. The Triennial Review of theEnvironment Agency and Natural England is currently taking place and we would recommend that this iscompleted for considering how any guidance which is the responsibility of these bodies should be revisedor consolidated.

Q7 How will a ‘rolling suite of guidance as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as the sitewill be ‘live’ with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it wasused?

The energy industry needs a clear and stable long-term policy framework in which to operate and thereforethe process of “continuous amendment” should be limited to what is appropriate. SSE would support therecommendation that “material will need to be readily printable and date stamped (in the way many legalwebsites provide legal resources) so that anyone relying on the guidance can evidence that it was current whenused.” We understand that it is envisaged that the new web-based guidance resource, once fully established,will ensure “accountability will be in great measure achieved by the ability of users to post their comments”—allowing a ‘crowd-sourced’ check to keep it current. We assume that the comments that would be posted wouldbe private, but would welcome clarification this.

January 2013


Written evidence submitted by the Institute of Historic Building Conservation

The IHBC is pleased to be able to contribute evidence to the Inquiry. Owing to the relatively short notice inthe appeal for evidence we set out only the main threads of our view here. We shall be responding more fullyto the parallel DCLG Consultation.

1. In principle we support the proposal to replace Government planning guidance with a single structuredon-line resource.

2. We also support the proposal to leave “best practice guidance” to specialist bodies with the proviso setout in the Review that this would be signposted from the new on-line Resource.

3. We think best practice guidance needs proper recognition as such as it would carry little weight in planningcases without this. We would hope that “signposting” would do more than just imply this. It is important,particularly in appeal and other high profile cases that the planning profession understands exactly what isreckoned to be “best practice” on a given topic.

4. In order to be credible as a resource, Guidance needs to be properly consulted upon in order to ensurethat all interested parties have had an opportunity to contribute. We would hope that this would apply to thenew Resource and that the Government would endorse a protocol for the process of producing best practiceguidance.

5. We are enthusiastic about being able to contribute to the preparation of best practice guidancecollaboratively whether collaboratively with other heritage interests or otherwise perhaps as an updatedBS7913.

6. The maintenance of an on-line database of credibility is a major task involving no little resource toachieve. If this is to be the Government’s approach there needs to be a commitment to providing the resourceto support it over the long term. Support must include updating of the resource as a whole whenever new orrevised material is added including all the active links within it.

7. We are concerned at the precipitous approach to cancellation of old advice. It seems to us that theimmediate cancellation of some items in Annex A will lead to Guidance vacuums as there are quite a fewexamples in which cancellation is recommended against future replacement or absorption into other material.It is not clear from the Annexes why some material referred to in these terms is included here and not inAnnex C. We think all Guidance should be retained until adequately replaced.

8. Specifically we highlight the importance of retaining the following:

— Annex A (57) Best practice guidance on Listed Building Prosecutions. While we agree that, asbest practice guidance, this may not be a candidate for long-term retention, we think it is anessential tool to ensure LPAs deal with this sensitive area in a proper fashion. We would liketo see it moved to the Annex C list until up-to-date best practice guidance is in place and canbe signposted from the new Resource.

— Annex A (63) Manual for Streets. This is a very important document relating to the maintenanceof design standards in the public realm. The fact that it is advice to both planning and highwayauthorities (as well as developers and their designers) makes it all the more important forretention. In the long term it would, itself be suitable for conversion to an on-line facility. Wewould like to see it moved to the Annex C list until up-to-date best practice guidance is inplace and can be signposted from the new Resource.

— Annex A (65) Section 215: Best Practice Guidance. Similarly we value this and think thatenvironmental quality will be jeopardized if there is no available guidance. In particular thepolicy statements contained within this guidance need to be reiterated somewhere in the newResource. We would like to see it moved to the Annex C list until up-to-date best practiceguidance is in place and can be signposted from the new Resource.

— Annex C (40 and 71) Guidance on handling Heritage Applications. We support the retention ofthese in the list at Annex C.

9. There is one proposal in the Report that we feel we need specific advice on from relevant Authoritiesbefore coming to a recommendation on it:

— Annex A (39) Guidance on the Protection and Management of World Heritage Sites. This couldbe a candidate for inclusion in an on-line Heritage Resource in the long term. We think itrelevant Authorities may find it useful in the meantime.

January 2013


Written evidence submitted by the Local Government Association

Summary

The Planning Guidance Review is an essential phase of the implementation of the National Planning PolicyFramework (NPPF). A more coherent and focused body of guidance will support practitioners to make effectivelocal decisions and increase confidence in the planning system. We agree with the Review Group’s findingsthat guidance can play an important role but that over successive administrations it has become unwieldy,overused, and is not in its current form fit for purpose.

The Government made significant steps to streamline national planning policy in the NPPF. It must nowmove swiftly to the next phase of reducing the weight of planning guidance to secure increased stability andcertainty across the planning system for authorities, communities and applicants alike. The next stage is toundertake a similar exercise to rationalise and consolidate development management policies and planningguidance issued by government agencies. We would like to see the Government move towards a developmentmanagement policy framework which could bring together policy on development management in one placeand remove the need for policy in separate guidance notes.

The Review Group rightly identify that any future guidance should simply set the ground rules rather thanrehearsing what is set out in legislation or policy and should support locally appropriate decision making ratherthan automate it. There will need to be a corresponding change in culture and approach to planning guidanceacross government departments in the future to meet this aim and to encourage local decisions that areappropriate to local needs and priorities. It will be crucial that the Government works closely with practitionersto ensure that any updated or new guidance is fit for purpose, light touch and encourages local decision making.

We would like to see a much stronger risk based approach to planning guidance going forward. The aimshould be that local authorities take decisions based on the balance of risk locally rather than in line withcentral prescription. Every policy, regulation or legislation does not need a partner guide and we would like tosee government focus its energies on those issues where the absence of guidance might lead to duplication,additional costs, uncertainty in the planning system and reputational risks. All other support and good practiceshould be left to practitioner bodies to produce good practice, models and information in line with changingneeds.

We strongly agree with the review’s recommendation that there should be a single gateway through theoffice of the Chief Planner. This will provide much needed clarity over the status of advice, guidance andcirculars relating to planning across government. Central to this is a document control system that date stampsall guidance so practitioners can be confident that guidance is up to date. Linked to this is the importance of amanaged process for updating or cancelling documents as time passes. In order to ensure that the new systemis used effectively by practitioners the new body of online guidance and related updates and bulletins shouldbe free to access for the public, authorities and practitioners alike.


The Review Group has clearly identified that the current guidance is no longer fit for purpose and hasidentified a new approach to government guidance. That is, that guidance should be to support effective deliveryof plan making and decision taking and not to automate it, that it should be a live resource and that it shouldbe managed actively. The approach identified is sensible and should provide a framework to manage remainingplanning guidance so that it becomes a coherent and up to date package of information.

We agree that where it has been identified that guidance should remain in place that it is revised andsignificantly reduced to focus on the key issues and extracts. We are encouraged that the Government hasagreed to consult on the detail of the guidance, so it can be removed or revised to ensure that key elementsare retained and superfluous elements taken out. It will be crucial that government works closely withpractitioners to ensure that any updated or new guidance is fit for purpose, light touch and encourages localdecision making.

We would like to see a much stronger risk based approach to planning guidance going forward. We need tobreak the temptation within some departments to issue guidance on every new issue. Government should focusits energies on those issues where the absence of guidance might lead to duplication, additional costs,uncertainty in the planning system and reputational risks. All other support and good practice should be left topractitioner bodies to provide good practice, models and information.


The Review Group identify nine areas where new or updated guidance is required.8 The two new areasidentified for guidance—the Duty to Cooperate and on Viability are unmistakably key issues.8 Duty to cooperate, viability, Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, Climate

Change and Renewable Energy, Flooding, Environmental Impact Assessment, Sustainability Appraisal, Biodiversity, Prematurityand Propriety.


Significant work has been undertaken to develop advice to support viability testing for planning practitionersthrough the cross sector Local Housing Delivery Group9 led by Sir John Harman. This work has beenwell received by practitioners and any government led guidance on viability should use this report as itsstarting point.

New guidance on the Duty to Cooperate will need to be carefully considered. Councils already work togetheracross areas to plan strategically for growth. They do this not because of a duty or centrally-imposed guidancebut because of a shared recognition of the pressing needs of their areas.

The additional areas of guidance identified within the review are areas where updates to the existing guidancewould be useful to bring the material up to date and in line with the NPPF.


No items have been missed or excluded. However there is a natural next step to the work that has beencarried out. The LGA would like to see a similar process to rationalise and consolidate developmentmanagement policies and planning guidance issued by government agencies. We would like to see theGovernment move towards a development management policy framework which could bring together policyon development management in one place and remove the need for policy in separate guidance notes. AnnexA illustrates how this review might fit into the wider planning framework.


The timetable recommended by the Review Group is realistic. We recognise that this is a significant taskbut it is absolutely crucial that a new approach to guidance is embedded as quickly as possible. Clarity overthe guidance that is extant and updated will have a significant impact on confidence within the planning systemand should be prioritised accordingly by the department.

(e) Who will carry out the additional work of consolidation, producing new guidance and designing a webbased resource? What are the implications for resourcing within CLG?

The work of consolidation, production and the design of the web based resource is primarily a role forgovernment. However, practitioners will have an important role commenting and advising on the developmentof new guidance, the web resource and the functioning of the new system. The LGA would be keen to supportand input in this regard.

We do not underestimate that there is a significant immediate task to be undertaken by the department torespond to the findings of the review. We agree that the Chief Planner should have responsibility for maintainingnew guidance, ensuring it remains up to date and that it remains coherent and limited to the principles outlinedin the review—thereby guarding against the unnecessarily proliferation of planning guidance.

The review rightly identifies that in many cases guidance simply sets out what is in legislation or policy,continuing to encourage “lazy legislative thinking”. We agree that the focus should be to ensure that statute,regulations and Statutory Instruments are clearer and therefore minimise the reliance on additional guidance.This shift in focus and the corresponding reduction in time reinterpreting statute in further guidance shouldrelease capacity across government.

We feel strongly that access to the site must be free of charge for all. This should include bulletins and alertsto update on changes to guidance and advice. It is crucial to the success of the new approach that widespreadbuy in and subscription is secured across planning practitioners. A model which includes charging (howevernominal) risks partial take up of the new system.


We agree with the review’s findings that Planning Inspectorate (PINS) guidance is made transparent andincorporated into the new single coherent guidance resource. This recommendation should be extended acrossall government agencies.

We strongly endorse the proposals to establish a single gateway for signing off all government planningguidance, managed by the Chief Planner.

(g) How will a rolling suite of guidance as envisaged in the Group Report operate? For example, as the sitewill be “live” with continuous amendment, how will it be clear what guidance is current at the time it wasused?

The model proposed by the review is a pragmatic means of avoiding guidance becoming out of date andconflicted with new documents. A “live” resource will bring with it challenges and new ways of working. It9 http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/environment-planning-and-housing/-/journal_content/56/10171/3619786/ARTICLE-

TEMPLATE


increases the importance of a free service of updates to ensure that practitioners are using the most up to dateguidance when making their decisions. It also underlines the importance of an effective document managementsystem which ensures that documents and updates are date stamped so that anyone relying on the guidancecan evidence that it was current when used.

January 2013

Annex A

OUTLINE PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Level one documents—Primary documents that consist of Acts of Parliament and Regulations laid beforeParliament.

Relevant planning legislation and statutory instruments.

Level two documents—National planning policies, development management policies and ministerialdirections. Purpose to establish a national context and directions for implementation. LGA proposal for a newnational development management framework to minimise the need for policy in numerous guidancedocuments.

Planning Policy: NPPF.

Development Management Policy: National Development Management Framework.

National Infrastructure Statements.

Ministerial Directions, Procedures, Policy.

Level three documents—DCLG owned guidance as outlined in the guidance review. PINs advice andguidance and bulletins alerting practitioners to changes and updates to guidance.

DCLG planning guidance.

PINs Guidance.

Bulletins and updates.

Level four documents—Industry produced advice and best practice. Recommended training for planningofficers and elected members and CPD focused on skill development and delivery.

Best practice advice and case studies produced by professional bodies and interested organisations.

Training and professional development.

Written evidence submitted by the Campaign to Protect Rural England

Introduction

1. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence. As acharity with a branch in every county, over 200 district groups and more than 2,000 parish council members,we have considerable local and national expertise in planning policy. We were consulted by Lord Taylor ofGoss Moor during the preparation of his report, published in December 2012. CPRE supports, in principle, theconsolidation of national planning guidance recommended by Lord Taylor, and his recognition that “guidancecan be essential and adds real value in terms of planning practice”.

2. CPRE firmly believes that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) alone is insufficient to providethe detail needed to make the planning system work day to day. In particular, it is too equivocal on a numberof areas of policy that are critical in delivering important planning outcomes, such as the effective re-use ofpreviously developed land, and protection and improvement of the natural environment, particularly the widercountryside not protected by national designations. These issues should be addressed as soon as possiblethrough clearer guidance, but CPRE also believes that policies in the NPPF are likely to need substantialrevision in the longer term.

3. We made a detailed submission (reproduced in the Annexe to this evidence) to Lord Taylor in November2012. We have not responded to questions (e) or (g) in the call for evidence, as we do not have detailedevidence to offer in response to these questions.


4. CPRE believes that the Review goes too far in its focus on reducing and cancelling guidance. We set outthe changes that we think are needed in our response to subsequent questions.

5. Our experience of the planning system over many years makes it clear to us that guidance is critical tomaking the system work well. An absence of guidance could increase uncertainty and thereby encourage amore litigious system, primarily favouring well-resourced developers over local authorities and communitygroups. It is also likely to compromise the long term public interest in the development and use of land.


6. On a separate but related issue, CPRE is concerned to find that all the statements of national planningpolicy replaced by the NPPF are at the time of writing no longer publicly available on any Government website.We recommend that relevant guidance from former Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) and PlanningPolicy Statements (PPSs) should be updated and included in the new suite of Government guidance, and thatthe documents themselves should remain available as an important work of reference. Evidence shows thatofficially cancelled guidance from these documents continues to be used to inform decision making (seeparagraph 12 below).


7. We agree with Lord Taylor on many of the key priorities identified in his report, in particular that priorityshould be given to dealing with:

— Viability of development.

— Housing market and land availability studies.

— The duty for local authorities to co-operate on strategic planning.

— Environmental issues, including biodiversity protection and landscape planning.

8. CPRE has analysed a number of recent planning appeal decisions10 where the housing policies in theNPPF have been relevant factors. At present there is, in our view, an over-reliance on case by caseinterpretation, and new policy terms appear to be insufficiently defined. Examples are meeting “objectivelyassessed needs” for new housing and “deliverable” and “viable” development. Current interpretations areproblematic as they encourage a short term view of development viability. This is fuelling growing pressurefor greenfield development, arguably contrary to policies in the NPPF that seek to prioritise the redevelopmentof brownfield land.

9. We are particularly concerned that Government should produce guidance which addresses the legal contextof landscape protection and improvement, including issues such as character assessment, light and noisepollution. The current debate over Clause 8 of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill (on the rollout of broadbandinfrastructure) illustrates a general lack of clarity over the implications for planning of the “have regard” dutyfor nationally designated landscapes. The duty under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 toinvestigate complaints about specified light and noise nuisance also has implications for local planning. CPREis keen to promote best practice on these issues in the fashion that Lord Taylor recommends.

10. In CPRE’s view, greater priority should be placed on putting new guidance in place than cancelling oldguidance. We believe the Review overstates the extent to which many existing guidance documents, forexample on town centre planning, have been superseded.


11. CPRE is concerned that some important areas appear not to be seen as a priority by the review. Inparticular, the need is not clearly identified to provide planners with an understanding of the critical andfundamental links between spatial planning and transport.

12. We also have particular concerns about policies in paragraph 55 of the NPPF relating to housing for“rural workers”. Annex A to the former PPG7, which gave guidance on this issue, should be largely retained,and strengthened. This guidance has not been replaced by Annex 3 of the NPPF. Since the publication of theNPPF, however, Planning Inspectors have continued to rely on Annex A to uphold enforcement notices againstinappropriate development in the countryside.11 The Annex provides crucial detail on when it might be deemedessential for an agricultural worker to live near to their place of work. The NPPF has widened the scope ofpolicy to include all “rural workers”, an undefined term. This increases the importance of strong guidance tolocal authorities on ensuring that permanent damage to the open countryside will not result because of abuseof this policy.

13. CPRE also believes that accessible and authoritative Government guidance providing an overview ofplanning law and regulations is required, in a similar fashion to that provided for the Planning Act 2008. Thereport recommends that new guidance “should not unnecessarily restate regulations … rather these should bewritten clearly in the first place”. This recommendation, while laudable, does not address the inaccessiblelanguage of much of existing regulations. A particular example is the Town & Country Planning (GeneralPermitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO). Many new or proposed regulations are amendments to theGPDO, in turn perpetuating the inaccessibility of the original legislation. The most recent (2003) review of theGPDO for the Government highlighted as a key problem the “absence of [a] User Guidance document”.12

10 See, for example, decision letters APP/ T2405/A/11/2164413 (Blaby, Leicestershire); APP/U4230/A/11/2157433 (Salford); APP/0660/A/11/2158727 (Congleton, Cheshire); APP/L2630/A/12/2170575 (Costessey, Norfolk); and APP/J3720/A/11/2163206(Stratford upon Avon), all of which involved granting planning permission for housing in open countryside.

11 See, for example, decision letters APP/D380/C/11/2152132, APP/D3830/C/11/2152133 and APP/D3830/A/2153792 (all nearCuckfield in West Sussex).

12 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, “Review of Permitted Development Rights”, September 2003, report by NathanielLichfield & Partners and SJ Berwin Solicitors.



14. CPRE does not believe that the recommended timetable for the production of new guidance andcancellation of existing guidance, by July 2013, is realistic. This is especially the case as there had been nopublic consultation prior to this recommendation being made. We would recommend instead that new guidanceis consulted on and introduced gradually, and by broad topic area, over a period of six months from July 2013,with the existing guidance to be cancelled (unless the overarching response to the consultations identifies aneed for it) no earlier than the end of 2013. Further to our points above, existing guidance may in many casesneed to be archived following its cancellation.


15. In principle, CPRE supports the consolidation of planning guidance into one web location, as this willaid public involvement in planning. A number of other Government departments and agencies have a significantinterest in the detailed application of policy and regulations, and they should be encouraged to produce conciseand accessible guidance in the style recommended by the Review. They should not be inhibited from doing sobecause of DCLG’s priority of reducing the overall amount of guidance that it produces. We accordingly haveconcerns about the suggestion in paragraph 8 of Lord Taylor’s report that DCLG should act as a “gatekeeper”for the proposed new site. It should not be assumed that other Government departments and agenciesnecessarily need to consolidate their guidance to the same extent as DCLG. For example, guidance coveringthe historic environment appears to be relatively up to date and well maintained. Defra has also recentlyindicated that new guidance on planning and noise is necessary, but appears to have been inhibited by DCLGfrom producing such guidance.13

January 2013

Annex

REVIEW OF PLANNING PRACTICE GUIDANCE

A submission by CPRE to the review chaired by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor

November 2012

Introduction and summary

1. This submission by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is intended to inform the deliberationsof the review team in (i) outlining subject areas for new consolidated planning guidance; and (ii) consideringthose areas of existing planning practice guidance that need to be retained, pending the publication of newconsolidated guidance. We have long experience of the planning system and were prominently involved inconsultations around the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). We have also contributed to a separatesubmission by Wildlife & Countryside Link to the Review. While welcoming the final version of the NPPF,we have concerns that important details could be lost from existing Government guidance.

2. We welcome the invitation by Lord Taylor and his team to organisations not directly involved in theReview to make a submission to his Panel. (invitation at roundtable meeting at the Town and Country PlanningAssociation on 22 October 2012). We are nonetheless surprised and disappointed at how the Government haschosen to announce and run this review, with only a short window for input by outside organisations andwithout (to date) any indication of a formal consultation.

3. We note the Government’s recognition, signalled at the round table meeting and in the Review terms ofreference, that there continues to be a need for supporting guidance produced directly by Government, but thatGovernment will also encourage civil society organisations to promote best practice. We assume this suggeststhere is a role for NGO sector-produced best practice guidance and we agree this is sensible. However, as ageneral comment, we are of the view that Government should identify areas where such guidance is neededand invite relevant organisations to collaborate in preparing it. Then, crucially the documents produced shouldbe Government-branded publications so that they are taken seriously in decision making.

4. We have largely confined the scope of this submission to planning practice guidance issued by theDepartment for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) or its predecessors (as indicated in the terms ofreference), and have been guided by the list of Government planning guidance documents that appears on thePlanning Portal website.

5. National planning guidance is critically important to making planning work well. As a result of ourdetailed comments below, we believe that the mooted new guidance should cover a number of areas. We alsorecommend that the drafting of this guidance should take place following the recommendations of the Review,involving a number of relevant Government departments, and as an inclusive process involving a full, openpublic consultation on a draft.13 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Red Tape Challenge—Environment Theme Implementation Plan,

September 2012, see footnote 2 at page 17.


General comments

(i) Subject areas for new consolidated guidance

6. CPRE notes that the Review will seek to consider “what new practice guidance may be needed to supportthe implementation of the NPPF”. We believe that additional guidance will indeed be needed. We havesignificant concerns that a number of key areas of policy in the NPPF are insufficiently clear. These are set outwith references to the relevant points in the NPPF in Table 1 below, along with our reasoning in each case.

7. CPRE does not believe that supporting “the implementation of the NPPF” should be the only reason forproducing guidance. This is an unwarranted assumption included in the terms of reference for the review.Ministers have repeatedly made clear that the NPPF only addresses those areas of planning which cover thepolicy priorities of national Government. Planning law and policy is both much wider in scope and morecomplex in detail than the NPPF. It has evolved to address common problems faced by local communities, aswell as particular public policy objectives at national level. “Wider than NPPF-related guidance” is essentialto helping achieve good planning decisions and outcomes.

8. Two examples are provided by way of illustration. First, the use of Section 215 “untidy land” notices isone example of where planning law enables a range of detailed interventions on local issues on which there islittle or no need for central Government policy direction. Government planning guidance has provided, ratherthan policy direction, necessary explanation and assistance on application and consistency, saving individualplanning authorities from having to do their own research. Second, it has been necessary for CLG to producefour detailed guidance documents to explain the procedures for nationally significant infrastructure projects(NSIPs) instituted by the Planning Act 2008, procedures which were introduced to address perceived delays inthe process. This example highlights the complexity of much primary and secondary planning legislation,which has needed detailed guidance to enable all parties to use the processes efficiently. Moreover, the NSIPprocess serves public policy objectives that are largely distinct from the NPPF, as the NPPF itself explains. Wehave included documents relevant to both of these examples in the list of documents that we believe shouldbe retained (see paragraphs 9–10 and Table 2 below). CPRE recommends, therefore, that any new suite ofguidance should look to provide overall supporting guidance for all aspects of planning law as contained inthe Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and the subsequent planning Acts of 1991 and 2004; extant secondaryregulations and European directives relevant to land use planning; as well as any issues remaining from thePlanning Act 2008 and Localism Act 2011.

(ii) Areas of existing planning practice guidance that need to be retained

9. CPRE believes that it will be essential to retain at least 40 current DCLG guidance documents pendingthe publication of new guidance (see Table 2 at the end of this submission for an indicative list, which shouldnot be seen as exhaustive). In many of the cases listed, we would also doubt that there is a need to withdrawor update the substantive guidance already issued. This is because the guidance in question relates to either (i)national policies that have not significantly changed as a result of the NPPF, such as on town centres orassessing open space requirements; or (ii) legal procedures, for example for nationally significant infrastructureprojects as set out in the Planning Act 2008, that have not changed or required new explanation since theguidance was issued.

10. Many of the documents that we have recommended for retention into the foreseeable future fit into thecategory of explaining provisions of planning legislation, in particular the 1991 Act and the Town & CountryPlanning Act 1990 which the 1991 Act amended. CPRE agrees that there is some scope to consolidate and/orwithdraw a number of existing Government guidance documents that were produced before the commencementof Planning & Compensation Act 1991, which instituted the current system of development management inaccordance with adopted development plans.

January 2013


Table 1

NPPF POLICIES NEEDING ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE

NPPFPolicy Paragraph Reasoning

Protection of the Green Belt 87–91; Circulars 02/2009 and 07/2009 explain extant Directionsand World Heritage Sites 126–141 which assist policies, retained in the NPPF, protecting

against inappropriate development in the Green Belt andWorld Heritage Sites respectively. CPRE believes that bothDirections, along with guidance on their implications forlocal planning authorities, should be retained.

Allocation of employment 22 An agreed methodology is needed on employment landland reviews, which until now has been provided in a CLG

guidance note. The methodology should encourage localplanning authorities (LPAs) to take a “plan, monitor andmanage” approach, avoiding the allocation of land which isnot needed for employment purposes.

Town centres 24 Earlier policy from PPS4 in relation to town centre planningis relatively unchanged in the NPPF. Existing guidance onneed, impact and the sequential test should therefore beretained and revised where appropriate. Such guidancewould support clearer policy making but also help toachieve a primary purpose of the NPPF: to bring clarity toplanning to enable wider public engagement with theprocess. Retail need and impact assessments involve detailedtechnical analysis usually carried out by specialists. It isvital that guidance should set terms of reference for suchstudies that can be easily agreed between LPAs, applicantsand those wishing to challenge such developments. This willenable better scrutiny of such assessments, help fasterdecision making and reduce appeals. The need for effectivetown centre first policy guidance is especially great: towncentres continue to face difficulties during recession, withdifficulties faced by national profile retailers and the moveof sales to the internet. In this context new large-scale retaildevelopments, particularly edge and out of centre, willremain controversial, especially when they can threaten thecharacter and diversity of retail in smaller townsFor similar reasons, guidance should also clarify themeaning of “significant adverse impact” in paragraph 27 ofthe NPPF.The NPPF did not set out the indicators which LPAs shouldcontinue to use to monitor the vitality and viability of theirtown centres over time. These were set out in Annex D ofPPS4 and their use specified in Policy EC9.2 but they weresubsequently lost in the NPPF. Guidance should clarifywhich of these indicators should be monitored to supportlocal policy and decision making. A consistent approachacross LPAs would help them in their duty to cooperate (seebelow) and bring clarity for applicants as well as thoseseeking to challenge a development on impact. It isimportant that LPAs should continue to monitor such factorsas part of their evidence base for future policy developmentand developing their expertise in dealing with well-resourced applicants.

Promoting sustainable 30 Guidance is needed to explain which patterns oftransport development facilitate the use of sustainable modes of

transport and the extent to which it might be reasonable todo so depending on the context. This is a key principle ofthe NPPF yet is rarely understood—there are long lead timesbetween a development being planned and travel patternssettling down a decade after completion. This is aparticularly weak area of the NPPF. Much of the policyapplication detail covering transport planning principles andthe relationship between land use and transport issues hasbeen lost.



32, 35 Identifying opportunities for sustainable transport modes andhow to maximise them through choices about location anddesign.

Housing: five year supply 47 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires that where there hasand under-delivery been a persistent record of under-delivery of housing, local

authorities demonstrate, on top of their five year land supplyfor housing, an extra 20% of supply. This whole concept isflawed as it mixes planning policy and objectives with“punishment” based on a dubious view of managementperformance. At very least, whilst this policy exists theremust be clarification on the meaning of “under-delivery”, asinconsistency is emerging in the way that PlanningInspectors are seeking to define this on a case by case basis.The whole approach to assessing five year land supply isalso in need of careful update in the context of currentmarket conditions. The question of the definition ofdeliverability and the link to other guidance on viabilitymust be reworked in this context. It is crucial that theguidance clearly differentiates between under-delivery in thesense of identification of a land supply in line with thehousing need and demand identified in an areaCPRE would like to present further detailed evidence on thisissue. We are concerned that the current generalisedapproach in policy and the lack of political accountability ininterpretation are bringing the current arrangements intodisrepute. The evidence suggests that the PlanningInspectorate appears to be interpreting this policy in a highlyvariable fashion with no reference to either intendedoutcomes

Housing: dwellings for rural 55 Annex A to PPG7 should be retained. This remained extantworkers under PPS7 and has not been replaced by Annex 3 of the

NPPF. CPRE is aware of decisions made since thepublication of the NPPF, however, where PlanningInspectors have continued to rely on Annex A to upholdenforcement notices against inappropriate development inthe countryside.14 The Annex provides crucial detail onwhen it might be deemed essential for an agricultural workerto live near to their place of work. While the NPPF haswidened the scope of this policy to include all “ruralworkers”, the guidance should be broadened to give clarityas to what this term means. The fact that the policy has beenwidened compounds the importance of strong guidance tolocal authorities on ensuring that permanent damage to theopen countryside will not result because of abuse of thispolicy.

Control of advertisements 67–68 Law and secondary regulations on advertisement controlcontain a significant amount of detail, and can be used in awide variety of situations, none of which are explained inthe general policy principles of the NPPF.

Promoting healthy 69–70 Guidance to support the growth of local food networks, orcommunities “webs”, could do much to promote healthy communities,

and community facilities in particular, using a concept thatalready commands wide public enthusiasm. There are tworeferences to food elsewhere in the NPPF. Arguably, neithergives due prominence to the strategic importance of foodnationally or its key role in achieving sustainable andhealthy communities.Guidance should consider:— how food provision, particularly of fresh food, can be

supported as an essential service in local centres andtown centres to increase access to all sections of thecommunity, especially for those without use of a car;and

14 See, for example, decision letters APP/D380/C/11/2152132, APP/D3830/C/11/2152133 and APP/D3830/A/2153792.



— ways that local food production in particular can besupported both through the development of a diverseretail sector and through supporting ruraldiversification to add value to primary agriculturalproduction.

Greater provision of food produced locally would alsoenable shops to offer distinctive, seasonal and the freshestfood. This could offer a unique selling point to smallershops providing local services, especially in poorly servedvillages. It would also help food to remain part of the highstreet retail offer. This would enhance the attractiveness,individuality and distinctiveness of high streets.Food plays a central part of day-to-day and weeklyshopping; some 50% of retail spend is on food. Support forlocal food shops would offer more opportunities forresidents to shop without their cars, with localenvironmental and health benefits. It would also increaseopportunities for social interaction in accordance withparagraph 69 of the NPPF. Such relationships can also offerinformal support and contact to more marginal members ofthe community, especially the elderly.CPRE has carried out extensive research on local food websand the scope for local planning to support them, as part ofthe Making Local Food Work programme supported by theBig Lottery Fund (more available from www.cpre.org.uk/resources/farming-and-food/local-foods )

Local Green Space 76–77 Paragraph 76 of the NPPF enables local and neighbourhooddesignation plans to designate Local Green Spaces where “the green

area is demonstrably special to a local community and holdsa particular local significance” inter alia because of its“tranquillity”, and where the space is not an “extensive tractof land”. There is a need for guidance to clarify these termsand on how to implement an LGS designation. More on theissue of tranquillity is set out below.The guidance could be informed by the work ofLeicestershire County Council, the only local authorityknown to CPRE that has initiated work on how the LocalGreen Space designation could be implemented. Seehttp://www.leics.gov.uk/greenspacesThe guidance should also clarify how the new designationrelates to existing Local Landscape Designations.

Brownfield sites in the Green 89 The NPPF seeks to encourage the redevelopment ofBelt brownfield sites in the Green Belt to a greater degree than

the former guidance in PPG2, but does not recognise theparticular sensitivity of many such sites, which are ofteneither former quarries with high biodiversity value or formerinstitutions set in extensive landscaped grounds, whichcontribute greatly to a sense of openness. Guidance isneeded to ensure that the openness of the Green Belt isrespected when such sites are redeveloped.

Avoiding noise and 123 As the meaning of “tranquillity” is not set out in theprotecting areas of Glossary to the NPPF there is a need for clarification of howtranquillity the term should be interpreted by LPAs. Research carried

out by Northumbria and Newcastle Universities for CPREand Natural England shows that both audible and visibleelements in the countryside influence people’s experience oftranquillity. Factors include absence of noise but also thepresence of “positive” features such as woodland or bodiesof water. It is also clear from this research that certain“natural” types of sound such as birdsong and the sound ofthe sea or other water do not constitute “noise”, even thoughtheir levels of sound energy may be higher than man-madesources such as road or aviation traffic.



Guidance is needed to clarify which noise factors should beincluded or excluded as well as which data should supportlocal plan policies or planning decisions. Although under theEuropean Noise Directive there is nationally collected dataon urban quiet areas within major agglomerations, we areunaware of any widespread data on rural quiet areas whichcould be used by LPAs to support this policy. CPRE’s 2007tranquillity data is available for this purpose but guidanceshould make it clear that this use is recommended to giveclarity to future designations and planning decisions.Tranquility is a planning concept developed by CPRE andwe would welcome an invitation to lead on the productionof best practice guidance.There is a need for new guidance on noise. We areconcerned that guidance on noise exposure levels relevant toplanning decisions which featured in PPG24 has now beenlost. The NPPF para. 23 requires planning policies anddecision to avoid “significant adverse impacts on health andquality of life” in accordance with the Noise PolicyStatement for England (NPSE). However, in turn the NPSEdoes not give guidance on noise exposure levels that wouldhave such significant adverse effects along the lines ofPPG24. The noise policy aims of the NPSE explicitly referto the wider context of Government policy on sustainabledevelopment and in para. 1.8 set these out includingreference to Living within Environmental Limits. Forconsistency and clarity in planning decisions guidance isrequired for different noise contexts and sources on whatsuch environmental limits should be related to noise andbased on the best available evidence, including WHOresearch, data and guidelines.Defra has also indicated that it believes further guidance onplanning and noise is necessary, in order to explain Sections79 and 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.15

Light pollution 125 There is a need for guidance for local authorities on howparagraph 125 could be implemented in their area. Theguidance could cover lighting policies in the local plan,adoption of Environmental Lighting Zones, development oftechnical guidance on good lighting design for various landuses (eg lighting in advertisements, commercialdevelopments, decorative building lighting and sportsfacilities) and management of street lighting. For streetlighting, guidance on joint planning and highway authoritypractice will be needed, along with advice on street lightswitch-off and dimming schemes. The guidance should sharegood practice.Guidance should also give advice on the legal context oflighting and light pollution. Many forms of lighting can beclassed as a statutory nuisance under the CleanNeighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 which meansthat local authorities have a duty to investigate complaintsabout light nuisance from sources listed in the Act.The guidance could also provide information about theInternational Dark-Sky Association’s Dark Sky Placesscheme as many National Parks and AONBs are in theprocess of designation as Dark Sky Reserve (eg ExmoorNational Park) or Dark Sky Park. The application processand designation would have an impact on affected localauthorities and their lighting policies.Light pollution is an area where CPRE has particularexpertise. We would welcome an invitation to participate inthe production of best practice guidance.

15 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Red Tape Challenge—Environment Theme Implementation Plan,September 2012, see footnote 2 at page 17.



Conserving and enhancing Section 12 para We support the retention of guidance for local authoritiesthe historic environment 126–141 and practitioners on the historic environment. Previously

such guidance has been produced by English Heritage andendorsed by CLG and DCMS. We recommend this approachis used for guidance relating to the NPPF.The historic environment represents an extremely varied,sensitive and complex range of factors. Supporting guidanceis essential in providing clarity and fostering publicunderstanding, thereby helping ensure that the unnecessaryloss of heritage assets is minimised.

Strategic Housing Land 159 It should remain clear that the SHLAA process is policyAvailability Assessment neutral, and does not in itself seek to make judgements(SHLAA) about the appropriateness of allocating any particular sites

for housing. Given the emphasis placed by the NPPF on theimportance of the 5 year supply of land for housing, and thedeliverability of this supply, CPRE suggests that standardguidance on the preparation of a policy-neutral SHLAAshould be retained and updated to take account of currentdifficult market conditions and to make links to guidance onviability. By completing a thorough SHLAA process localplanning authorities will then hopefully be in a strongerposition to decide which sites should be allocated forhousing development.

Strategic Housing Market 159 We support the retention of guidance to local planningAssessment (SHMA) authorities on both need and demand.

Concerns about robustness of the evidence of need used tojustify some rural exception site development have emergedfrom some of CPRE’s local groups. We support thedevelopment of rural affordable housing to meet local need,including on exception sites. This can be essential forhelping those with close family or employment ties to arural area to live there. For this reason it is important thatthe local housing needs assessment is robust enough toaccurately pinpoint the amount and type of need. Wetherefore support retaining and updating the helpfulguidance contained in the SHMA guidance document onassessing need.

Viability 173 Guidance in this area is crucial. Guidance is particularlynecessary on what are deemed to be “competitive returns” toa willing landowner or developer. This information wouldallow users of the planning system to determine moreclearly what standards and infrastructure can realistically beexpected to be achieved in new developments in variablemarket conditions..Reliance on the current informal sector guidance is notacceptable, as Government would effectively be passinginterpretation of crucial policy matters of great publicinterest (as evidenced by the widespread concerns aboutdeveloper interpretations of viability expressed by MPs inthe Second Reading of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill inthe House of Commons) to unaccountable and only partiallyrepresentative bodies. Clarity from CLG as to the status ofthis recently produced guidance on viability assessmentwould be welcome. We are aware of two sets of guidance ondeliverability and viability having been producedindependently in recent months (by the Harman Review andRICS, respectively), and the fact that more than one set ofguidance has been produced underscores the importance ofclarity from CLG on how deliverability, which is fastbecoming a defining policy of the NPPF, will be defined bythe Planning Inspectorate

Duty to co-operate 178–181 Guidance is needed to explain how the evidence todemonstrate co-operation, of which examples are given inparagraph 181 of the NPPF, can be prepared; on “otherbodies” that help with strategic priorities, in particular Local



Nature Partnerships (paragraph 179); and how and wheninvolvement of other bodies should be built into theplanning process.

Table 2

EXISTING GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS THAT CPRE BELIEVES SHOULD BE RETAINED PENDINGTHE PUBLICATION OF NEW GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE

Date ofName of publication issue Brief description (taken from Planning Portal website)

A Farmer’s Guide to the Jul-02 This guide outlines the planning system for farmers.Planning SystemA Practical Guide to the SEA Aug-06 Practical guidance, published in September 2005, on applyingDirective European Directive 2001/42/EC “on the assessment of the

effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment”.Assessing needs and Sep-01 This Guide reflects policy objectives for open space, sport andopportunities: a companion recreation, as set out in PPG17.guide to PPG17By Design: Urban Design in May-00 This GPG provides sound practical advice to help implementthe Planning System— the Government’s commitment to good design.Towards Better PracticeCircular 02/02: (ODPM): Nov-02 This Circular explains the new procedures for handlingEnforcement appeals enforcement appeals in England.procedureCircular 02/05: Temporary Mar-05 This circular gives guidance on the temporary stop noticeStop Notice provisions in Part 4 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase

Act 2004 which inserted sections 171E to 171H to the Townand Country Planning Act 1990.

Circular 02/06: Crown Jun-06 This Circular contains guidance for local planning authorities inApplication of the Planning England on dealing with planning applications by the CrownActs following the commencement of Part 7 Chapter 1 of the

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.Circular 02/07: Planning and Mar-07 This circular explains how the Highways Agency (the Agency),the Strategic Road Network on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport, will

participate in all stages of the planning process withGovernment Offices, regional and local planning authorities.

Circular 02/09: The Town and Mar-09 This circular sets out the requirements of the Town andCountry Planning Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009,(Consultation) which is made under the Town and Country Planning (General

Development Procedure) Order 1995 (Statutory Instrument1995 No 419).

Circular 02/99: Environmental Mar-99 This circular provides guidance on the Town and Countryimpact assessment Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and

Wales) Regulations 1999 for local planning authorities.Circular 03/07: Town and Mar-07 This Circular gives an outline of the revised system ofCountry Planning (Control of advertisement control and includes relevant advice aboutAdvertisements) (England) advertisement applications to local planning authorities.Regulations 2007Circular 05/00 Appeals Jun-00 This circular explains the new procedures for handling planning

appeals in England, introduced with effect from 1 August 2000.The object is to speed up the appeal process while maintainingits quality.

Circular 06/05: Biodiversity Aug-05 This circular provides administrative guidance on theand Geological application of the law relating to planning and natureConservation—Statutory conservation as it applies in England.Obligations and Their ImpactWithin the Planning SystemCircular 07/09: Protection of Jul-09 This circular replaces and expands on the guidance in PlanningWorld Heritage Sites Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment

(PPG15). It gives advice on the level of protection andmanagement needed for World Heritage Sites.



Circular 10/97—Enforcing Jul-97 This circular brings together and updates earlier guidance, inPlanning Control: Legislative DoE circulars 21/91 and 17/92, on how to use the amendedProvisions and Procedural planning enforcement provisions.RequirementsCircular 10/05: Permitted Nov-05 This circular gives guidance on the permitted developmentdevelopment rights for rights for antennas found in Part 1, Class H and Part 25, Classantennas A and Class B of the Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (the GPDO).Circular 11/95: The use of Jul-95 This circular brings up to date DoE circular 1/85 on the use ofConditions in Planning planning conditions.PermissionsCircular 15/92: Publicity Jun-92 This Circular remains the principal source of advice on how

local planning authorities should fulfil the statutory requirementto publicise planning applications.

Community involvement in Feb-04 This paper sets out the importance of greater communityPlanning involvement in planningEmployment Land Reviews: Dec-04 The primary purpose of this guide is to provide planningGuidance Note authorities with effective tools with which to assess the demand

for and supply of land for employment.Enforcing Planning Control: Jul-97 A practice manual for local planning authorities on all aspectsGood Practice Guidance for of planning enforcement work.Local Planning AuthoritiesGood practice guidelines: Apr-09 These travel plan guidelines are intended to set out bestDelivering travel plans practice actions that can be taken to produce high-quality,through the planning process robust travel plans.Guidance on associated Sep-09 This note provides guidance on dealing with associateddevelopment: Applications to development for applications for Nationally Significantthe Infrastructure Planning Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) made under the Planning ActCommission 2008.Guidance on transport Mar-07 This document is intended to assist stakeholders in determiningassessment whether a transport assessment may be required and, if so,

what the level and scope of that assessment should be.Lighting in the Countryside: Jul-97 The key objective of this guidance is to identify good practiceTowards Good Practice in the planning and design of lighting in rural areas.Making the Planning System Sep-04 A guide intended to help and encourage local planningaccessible to everyone: Good- authorities (LPAs) to go beyond the minimum requirements forpractice guidance on access to access to planning informationand charging for planninginformationManual for Streets Mar-07 The Manual for Streets is a joint publication produced by the

Department for Transport (DfT) and Communities and LocalGovernment.

Outdoor advertisements and Jun-07 This guide aims to explain to those wanting to display ansigns: A guide for advertisers outdoor advertisement how the system of advertisement control

works in England.Planning Act 2008: Guidance Mar-10 Guidance developed for local authorities affected by thefor local authorities changes made to the planning regime for nationally significant

infrastructure projectsPlanning Act 2008: Guidance Sep-09 This guidance note sets out the procedures for pre-applicationon pre-application consultation consultation on nationally significant infrastructure projects, as

required by the Planning Act 2008.Planning Act 2008: Nationally Sep-08 This note provides guidance on completing application formssignificant infrastructure for nationally significant infrastructure projects, under theprojects—Application form Planning Act 2008.guidancePlanning for Town Centres: Mar-05 This Guidance deals specifically with design issues relating toGuidance on Design and planning for town centres and some of the main tools availableImplementation tools to secure the implementation of town centre planning policies

and proposals.Planning for Town Centres: Dec-09 This guidance aims to help the interpretation of town centrePractice guidance on need, policies set out in Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning forimpact and the sequential Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4)approach



Protected trees: a guide to tree Mar-10 This guide—aimed at tree owners, the general public andpreservation procedures amenity groups—answers some of the most common questions

about tree preservation procedures.Strategic Housing Land Jul-07 This guidance explains how local authorities and their partnersAvailability Assessments: must carry out an assessment of land availability for housing,practice guidance over a 15 year period, in their areas as outlined in Planning

Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3).Strategic Housing Market Aug-07 This practice guidance sets out a framework that localAssessments: Practice authorities and regional bodies can follow to develop a goodGuidance understanding of how housing markets operate.The Control of Fly-posting: A Oct-00 This Guide provides local authorities and other agencies with aGood Practice Guide manual to assist them in controlling fly-posting.Town and Country Planning Jan-05 Advice for local planning authorities (LPAs) on how to makeAct 1990 Section 215: Best the best use of their powers to take steps requiring land to bePractice Guidance cleaned up when its condition harmfully affects the amenity of

the area.

Supplementary written submission from the Department for Communities and Local Government

I was grateful for the opportunity you gave Lord Taylor of Goss Moor and me to appear before yourCommittee to set out our approach to the External Review of Government Planning Practice Guidance. I washeartened that the Committee recognised that this is a critical piece of work.

I hope that between us, Lord Taylor and I were able to reassure the Committee that we are determined thatthe outcome will be guidance of value, that is regularly reviewed and kept current and that people will havethe opportunity to influence.

There were two points on which I undertook to provide the Committee with a further response. Thesewere on:

— A possible light touch method of updating local plans (Q45); and

— Whether for the permitted development changes from office to residential to bite it would benecessary for a building to be (a) built, (b) fitted out and (c) used as offices? There was also a relatedquestion as to whether it would be very easy to build an office that was internally designed so thatit could very quickly convert to flats and whether this would fall within the newly permitteddevelopment rights (Q 54–59).

I am pleased to confirm that there is a light touch method for updating local plans. The National PlanningPolicy Framework is clear that a Local Plan can be reviewed in whole or in part to respond flexibly to changingcircumstances. The degree of work to be undertaken by a council will depend on the number of specific policiesunder review and how they will impact on the remainder of the plan. When submitting its Local Plan forreview to the Planning Inspectorate, councils will still need to be satisfied that it is “sound” in that it has beenpositively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

We have been clear that for the purposes of decision making, policies in Local Plans should not be consideredout of date simply because they were adopted prior to publication of the National Planning Policy Framework(on 27th March 2012). However, the Framework does recognise that Local Plans may need to be reviewed totake into account the policies within it. This should be progressed as quickly as possible, either through apartial review or by preparing a new plan. This is why we agreed fast-track guidance with the PlanningInspectorate to help councils speed up partial reviews where they only need to review one or a small numberof specific policies in their Local Plans. These reviews are unlikely to be able to cover issues which arefundamental to a plan such as housing or employment strategies but is intended to help councils update singlepolicies more quickly. The guidance can be found at:

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/plns/local_plans/discrete_policy_review_guidance.pdf

We announced our proposals in relation to the granting of permitted development rights for change of usefrom office B1(a) to residential (C3) on 24 January. We intend to bring forward the necessary regulations toprovide for these changes in May. For the rights to apply I can confirm that the building will need to havebeen in use as a B1(a) office at the time of the regulations coming into force. This will allow for buildingswhich have a current B1(a) office use and those that are empty but whose last use was as a B1(a) office tochange to residential. I hope this clarifies the position and provides reassurance that the new right should notencourage developers to build offices with the intention of immediate change to residential use or in a formthat is internally designed to allow for rapid conversion to flats rather than for the intended office use for whichplanning permission was granted.


At the end of the session we also touched on the Committee response, Seventh Report of Session 2012–13,to the Department’s “Extending permitted development rights for homeowners and business: technicalconsultation”. I recognise that the Committee has made substantial points on the detail of those elements ofthe consultation that relate to changes to a householder’s right to extend a property. I would hope to send asubstantive response in the near future, as soon as the Government’s overall response to the consultation hasbeen finalised. However I would be grateful for your agreement that this be slightly beyond the usualrequirement of eight weeks that we would normally seek to meet.

February 2013

Letter dated 13 February 2013 from the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committeeto Nick Boles MP, Under Secretary of State for Planning at the Department for Communities and

Local Government

On behalf of the Committee I would like to thank you and Lord Taylor of Goss Park for giving oral evidenceto us on 30 January on the Government’s review of Planning Practice Guidance (Department for Communitiesand Local Government, Review of Planning Practice Guidance Consultation, December 2012). The deadlinefor submissions to the Government’s consultation on the Review is 15 February. This letter is submitted to theGovernment to be taken into account as part of the consultation; to assist the Government I attach a copy ofthe written evidence the Committee received.

Having considered the evidence the Committee welcomes the External Review and the approach adopted bythe Government. The Committee is clear that a thorough review of Planning Practice Guidance is long overdueand that cutting out the deadwood will be to the benefit of everyone from planning professionals to membersof the public. In our view the External Review (Department for Communities and Local Government, ExternalReview of Government Planning Practice Guidance Report submitted by Lord Matthew Taylor of Goss Moor,December 2012) provides a compelling case for a thorough examination and streamlining of the existing 7,000plus pages of Government Planning Practice Guidance, which supports the implementation of national planningpolicy. We also welcome the other side of the External Review led by Lord Taylor to identify gaps and to closethem with new guidance. The Committee therefore welcomes the Government’s decision that an expandedExternal Review team will continue the work of revising the guidance. Finally, we consider that having planningguidance located on a single, up-to-date website will be of considerable benefit to everyone.

There are four points, on which the Committee has some questions or concerns and on which we seek aresponse from the Government.

First, respondents to our call for written submissions raised many questions about either the fate of particularitems which appear in Annexes A (items recommended for cancellation) and B (items recommended forcancellation, but any relevant material should be incorporated into revised guidance) of the External Review,or about new areas of guidance which respondents felt were needed. In the first category, we cite as examplesthe British Property Federation’s concerns about Tourism and Simplified Planning Zones, the Town and CountryPlanning Association’s about equality and disability, and the Institute of Historic Building Conservation’s wishto keep, for the time being, items 57, 63 and 65 from Annex A. There were many more. In addition theCommittee would refer to the wish on the part of several parties to see guidance defining more clearly termsin the National Planning Policy Framework such as “substantial harm”, “optimal viable use”, “valuedlandscapes”, “rural worker” and “objectively assessed needs”. There are also a substantial number of additionalpieces of guidance, beyond those proposed by the External Review, which were seen as necessary by many ofour respondents to fill in gaps.

The Committee has a concern about the process by which all these matters will be considered. In yourresponses on 30 January you were very clear that there would be further consultation, both as the new systemis developed and subsequently [Qq 1–5, Communities and Local Government Committee, Review of PlanningPractice Guidance, uncorrected evidence, HC (2012–13) 940-i]. But the Committee does see it as importantthat all the points of detail which have been made are fully considered and that those with an interest aresatisfied (even if their proposals are not taken forward) that they have been properly taken into account. TheCommittee would be grateful for your assurance on this matter, and for some indication as to how it will fitinto the process. As a first step, the Committee considers that the Government should, when its announces itsconclusions on the consultation exercise, set out in a table a comprehensive list of all the suggested changesto annexes and proposed new items of guidance with its assessment of each.

Second, there is concern about the timetable. While nobody wants to see any delay, as you said on 30January, it is “is important is that it is right and it works” [Q8]. As you indicated, there are two parts to theproject: the technical work involved in setting up the new website, and the revisions of the material to beplaced upon it. The Committee is concerned that ministers and officials will be criticised if an unrealistictimetable is set and subsequently not met. We consider that there is advantage in producing a more detailedtimetable, still challenging, but recognising the several stages which have to be gone through including theconsultation stage.

Third, as you acknowledged, the question of guidance produced by other Government Departments is adifficult one [Q 30]. There is no departmental equivalent of the “duty to co-operate” required of local


authorities, and the Committee has seen no evidence that other departments are engaging enthusiastically withthis process. The Committee accepts that achieving a high quality website which covers simply the guidanceproduced by the Department for Communities and Local Government (including the Planning Inspectorate),and maintains it, would be a valuable step forward, even if there were no guidance from elsewhere. It wouldbe an improvement on the present situation. But on the other hand Lord Taylor, is right to indicate that theinclusion of relevant and well written guidance from other Departments would greatly increase the value andutility of the site [Qq 30–31].

You accepted that there is much more work to be done about this [Q 7]. At present the Committee isunconvinced that it is achievable, certainly within anything resembling the July target date. The Committeeasks for an assurance that this will be pursued, and an indication of the timescales you envisage.

Finally, there is the question of guidance produced by others and of its status. There is widespread concernabout this, which the Committee shares.

It is important for the smooth running of the system that those involved know what is important and relevant,and what is not. This applies to those drawing up plans, those making and considering planning applicationsand those submitting or determining appeals. Time is saved and argument reduced if there is common groundregarding what is to be taken into account and what is background material which may be useful but notdeterminative.

It will, the Committee understands from the evidence session on 30 January, [Q 28 with Qq 3, 9, 12, 23 and24] be clear that material included on the website itself represents the policies and intentions of the Governmentof the day, clearly and succinctly expressed and continually updated. The Committee also understands andsupports the idea that material such as case studies is “signposted” but that this does not represent Governmentguidance and is essentially material which is helpful but not determinative. In the Committee’s view, theproblem arises with other material which may be produced by other bodies. For example, as the Committeeraised on 30 January, work which has been produced on viability [Q19]; questions arise where papers conflict,and there is uncertainty about their value or status. There was also raised of the “Planning for Climate Change”guide, which has been produced by a consortium but whose value and importance is similarly unclear [Q35].In the evidence session you suggested that when guidance had been slimmed down “there will be more roomfor other organisations to put forward their ideas and for them to be taken seriously” [Q 2]; the Committeewas not clear as to the role which this might play, or who you had in mind.

The Committee would add that questions were raised by respondents about why outside bodies wouldproduce guidance when its impact was likely to be unclear, given that it can be an expensive and timeconsuming process; how duplication or conflict between different pieces of guidance could be avoided; andhow the neutrality of guidance produced by any outside organisation could be guaranteed. The Committeerequests clarification on these points. The Committee considers it is important that this is resolved in advanceand that the concerns which interested parties have are addressed. Specifically, the Committee requests answersto the following questions.

(a) Is it correct to assume that everything on the website will be official Government guidance and thateverything else will not?

(b) Might the site contain material produced outside, or will all material be subject to checks andpossibly modification by ministers?

(c) Is it the case that “signposted” material will essentially be useful background but will notconstitute policy?

(d) Will there be differences in the signposting-so that some outside sources are seen as carrying moreweight than others-and if so what will be the criteria for this?

Although the Committee has decided not to produce a report to the House, the Committee asks that theGovernment respond to this letter within eight weeks, and the Committee intends to publish this letter and theGovernment’s response.

Clive Betts MPChair, Communities and Local Government Committee

Letter dated 21 May 2013 from Nick Boles MP, Under Secretary of State at the Department forCommunities and Local Government to the Chair of the Communities and Local Government

Committee

Thank you for your letter dated 13 February 2013, following mine and Lord Taylor of Goss Moor’s oralevidence session on 30 January. Please accept my apologies for the delay in our response and my gratitude forboth your support of the aims of the Review of Planning Practice Guidance, and the insightful questions andconcerns you raise.

This letter responds to the points you raised, and is best read alongside the Government Response.to theExternal Review of Government Planning Practice Guidance Consultation and Report, which is alsopublished today.


Concerns about the Cancellation of Particular Guidance Documents

I can assure the Select Committee that the opinions of consultees are being fully taken into account as weprogress our work on revised and new guidance, and that we will continue to consult with all key partners totest our thinking ahead of the new guidance suite going live. In all instances in which consultees have expressedreservations about a particular document’s recommended status, submissions are being carefully reviewed byofficials and will be taken into account in how ·guidance is recast. We are also giving very careful considerationto the opportunities that exist to define or clarify terms used in the National Planning Policy Framework, whilstensuring that we do not inadvertently add to or amend the body of planning policy..

You asked for assurance that interested parties will be satisfied that their comments have been taken intoaccount, not only through the recent consultation, but throughout the development of the new process andsubsequently. It is our intention, given the wide scale of this review, to open the guidance web-based resourcefor comments once the majority of the new and revised guidance material is available this summer. We arekeenly aware that the new guidance suite will look and feel very different to the existing material, and will beseeking views not only on the content of the material, but also the format and style, and how the web-basedresource works. This will be, in effect, a “beta mode” testing of not only the functionality of the web-basedresource, but the material itself, giving us the opportunity to understand the views of interested parties and thewider sector. We will therefore be able to consider and take into account users’ comments ahead of the “alpha”version going live.

In addition, and as discussed with you on 30 January, once live, the practice guidance suite will be subjectto a regular annual refresh. Users will be encouraged to provide feedback where they feel that elements of itrequire further adjustment, ensuring that, unlike the existing guidance suite, we will be able to keep the web-based resource current. Regular refresh will not result in wholesale change each year but will ensure that adviceis up-to-date. This is a significant new approach we are putting in place through the web-based resource, andI would very much welcome the Committee’s ongoing involvement and comment on the effectiveness of thenew guidance resource.

More immediately you expressed some concerns about the location of certain documents in particularannexes within the Review Group’s report. I hope these concerns will be allayed somewhat by the fact that wewill now only cancel existing guidance when the new guidance is in place. This means that no guidance hasbeen cancelled, and that there will be no “guidance void” before the new material is published. We have setthis out in the Government Response to the External Review of Government Planning Guidance Consultation.

The Timetable

I fully understand your concerns about the Review’s timetable. As I said on 30 January, I acknowledge thatwe have set ourselves a challenging schedule. I do, however, feel that it is perfectly possible to have themajority of the new planning guidance suite published by this summer and open for comments as set outabove. Realistically, given the tight schedule, it may be that a small amount of guidance is not ready until afterthis point—for instance, some of the guidance material that links to secondary legislation related to the Growthand Infrastructure Act, and which may not come into force until October. It therefore naturally makes sense topublish any related guidance material at that point.

It is my firm intention that this autumn, and following consideration of comments received over the summer,the Government Planning Practice Guidance web-based resource goes fully live.

The Integration of Guidance Produced by Other Government Departments

As you acknowledge, there is a delicate balance to be struck between ensuring that the web-based resourceis as useful and integrated as possible (covering all areas of importance for government planning practiceguidance) and ensuring clarity of ownership and simplicity. As we have set out in the Government’s responseto consultation, we believe that this is best achieved by limiting the degree to which the body of planningguidance links to other resources ie through signposting and providing links to the websites of other governmentdepartments, statutory consultees, and other government bodies, and not to specific items of guidance.Separately I know that a number of other Government departments are currently reviewing their guidancesuites on topics which link to planning, and my officials will continue to assist them in their efforts to simplifyand reduce the guidance they produce.

The Role of Guidance Produced Outside of DCLG

I understand the Committee’s concerns on this subject. All organisations are already free to produce guidanceshould they so wish, and it is the role of decision makers to assess the weight of different guidance. I amconfident that there will be sufficient clarity as to the role of the Government Planning Practice Guidance suitefor planning practitioners to be able to judge the value that other and different types of guidance may or maynot have- and for those who may wish to produce guidance to judge when that may be useful.

In answer to your question about why outside bodies will be interested in producing guidance, I believe thatthey will recognise the opportunity this review presents, and the greater role they are encouraged to play. Theywill have the chance to produce guidance that better engages with issues of direct specialist interest to them,


and which tackles the concerns of local communities. Such material already exists, and some groups arecertainly enthusiastically seizing this opportunity.

To directly address the questions you ask at the end of your letter:

1. It is correct to assume that everything on the ,web-based resource will be considered as officialGovernment planning practice guidance and that everything else will not, once the web-basedresource has gone live.

2. The resource will not contain any material produced outside of Government.

3. Sign-posted material, such as technical guidance produced by other government departments, mayinclude elements of policy. We are exploring this matter on a case by case basis. It is true that thesites of other government departments, statutory consultees, and other government bodies will belinked. This arrangement will ensure that there is a clear distinction between what is, and what isn’t,Government planning practice guidance.

4. As set out in the Government response, the only sites· linked to will be those listed above. Again, itis up to decision makers to decide on the weight given to individual pieces of guidance.

I hope that this response addresses the issues and answers the questions you have raised.

Nick Boles MP

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited04/2014 26899/039005 19585

Distributed by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:

Onlinewww.tsoshop.co.uk

Mail, Telephone, Fax & E-mailTSOPO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GNGeneral enquiries 0870 600 5522Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0845 7 023474Fax orders: 0870 600 5533Email: [email protected]: 0870 240 3701

The Houses of Parliament Shop12 Bridge Street, Parliament SquareLondon SW1A 2JXTelephone orders: 020 7219 3890/General enquiries: 020 7219 3890Fax orders: 020 7219 3866Email: [email protected]: http://www.shop.parliament.uk

TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons

This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/

PEFC/16-33-6222014