Open Source Planning Green Paper - The Conservative Party

ContentsExecutive Summary1. Labour’s failing planning system................................................................ 42. Our solution – a new Open Source planning system.................................. 53. Local housing, local infrastructure and the local environment .................. 54. A new system of collaborative planning ...................................................... 85. A more open and responsive system of approvals.................................... 116. Infrastructure of national importance........................................................ 147. Other planning issues ................................................................................ 168. Footnotes.................................................................................................... 22Planning

Local ContextChild Health Profile Liverpool 2012Key statistics• About 22.1% of Year 6 children are classified as obese, higher than the average for England.• Levels of teenage pregnancy, alcohol-specific hospital stays among those under 18 are higher than for Englandaverage breast feeding initiation and smoking in pregnancy are worse than for England average• 27,800 children live in poverty• Estimated levels of adult 'healthy eating', smoking and physical activity are worse than the England averageDemographic profileEthnicity Liverpool North West England22.1% of Year 6 children WHITE are classified 88.91% 90.21% as obese, 85.42%MIXED 2.52% 1.57% 2.25%higher than the average for England. Levels of teenageASIAN 4.16% 6.20% 7.82%stays among those under BLACK 18, breast 2.64% feeding 1.39% 3.48% initiationpregnancyCHINESEOROTHER1.77% 0.63% 1.03%

Local decisions over local plansThe creation of an Open Source planning system means that local people in each neighbourhood – a term we use to includevillages, towns, estates, wards or other relevant local areas – will be able to specify what kind of development and use ofland they want to see in their area. This will lead to a fundamental and long overdue rebalancing of power, away from thecentre and back into the hands of local people. Whole layers of bureaucracy, delay and centralised micro-managementwill disappear as planning shifts away from being an issue principally for “insiders” to one where communities take thelead in shaping their own surroundings.As with our other policies designed to bring competition to public service provision (for example our plans to empowerparents and voluntary groups to provide new schools), Open Source planning will engage local communities and foster aspirit of innovation and entrepreneurship.A framework of incentives for developmentWe have already set out in a previous green paper our commitment that when your community builds more homes, centralgovernment will match pound-for-pound the extra money that your area gets through council tax for six years – and whenyour community attracts more businesses, we’ll let your area keep the increased business rates for six years. Now, in thisgreen paper, we also commit to allowing neighbourhoods to keep some of the money contributed by developers to councilsat the time when planning approval is given. This will generate real cash for local communities, be a real incentive forlocal people to welcome new homes and new businesses, and be a powerful symbol of the new collaborative approach wewant to take to development.A new system for national infrastructureIn addition to promoting sustainable local development, it is crucial that our new planning system allows for timelydevelopment of infrastructure projects of national importance, such as major transport and energy projects. To addressthis challenge, we will establish a democratically accountable version of the major infrastructure planning system introducedby Labour – providing a parallel at national level to the local accountability and civic engagement which will be promotedby our new local planning system.Our policies in briefOur new Open Source planning system will mean that:1. for local housing, local infrastructure and the local environment:a. we will eliminate large amounts of unnecessary bureaucracy by:• abolishing the entire bureaucratic and undemocratic tier of regional planning, including the Regional SpatialStrategies and national and regional building targets;• amending the Use Classes Order so that people can use land and buildings for any purpose allowed in thelocal plan;• abolishing the power of planning inspectors to rewrite local plans – so long as they comply with national standards,are sensibly related to neighbouring communities, and have been developed by a fair and proper process, theywill be approved; and• limiting appeals against local planning decisions; (such decisions will be challengeable by developers or localresidents only if they involve abuse of process or failure to apply the local plan);2

. we will create a new system of collaborative planning by:• giving local people the power to engage in genuine local planning through collaborative democracy – designinga local plan from the “bottom up”, starting with the aspirations of neighbourhoods;• encouraging upper-tier authorities (e.g. county councils and unitary authorities), which are responsible forinfrastructure such as waste, roads etc., to compile infrastructure plans; and• giving all local planning authorities and other public authorities a Duty to Co-operate so that there is a sensibleconversation between all those involved in shaping neighbourhoods and the landscape.c. we will create a system of approvals which is much more open and responsive by:• establishing a presumption in favour of sustainable development: the presumption will be that individuals andbusinesses have the right to build homes and other local buildings provided that they conform to nationalenvironmental, architectural, economic and social standards, conform with the local plan, and pay a tariff thatcompensates the community for loss of amenity and costs of additional infrastructure;• ensuring that significant local projects have to be designed through a collaborative process that has involved theneighbourhood; and• giving immediate neighbours a new role – with a faster approvals process for planning applications to whicha significant majority of the immediate residential neighbours raise no objection. This will give developersa strong incentive either to design buildings in ways that do not adversely affect immediate neighbours (perhapsby involving immediate neighbours in designing these new buildings), or to reach voluntary agreements thatrecompense immediate neighbours for any loss of amenity.2. for infrastructure of national significance:a. we will abolish the unelected Infrastructure Planning Commission whilst retaining its expertise and fast-trackprocess within government;b. we are likely to use private or hybrid Bills to promote very major linear projects like high-speed rail – ensuringa proper Parliamentary process;c.we will ensure that all other major infrastructure projects like power stations:• are considered at planning inquiries which have binding timetables, and which are governed by the nationalplanning framework (see below), so that they focus on planning issues and are not held up by discussions of widerpolicy such as the desirability or otherwise of types of power generation; but• are given final planning permission by a democratically accountable Minister, informed by the conclusions of theinquiry, with the decision subject to a specific time limit; andd. we will provide transitional arrangements for projects already before the Commision to ensure that theseprojects are not disrupted or delayed.3. at national level, for all forms of development:a. we will publish and present to Parliament for debate a simple and consolidated national planning framework,which will set out national economic and environmental priorities, and how the planning system will deliverthem;b. as part of this we will issue a reduced number of simplified guidance notes, setting out minimumenvironmental, architectural, design, economic and social standards for sustainable development; andc. we will maintain national Green Belt protection, Areas of Outstanding Nature Beauty, National Parks, Sitesof Special Scientific Interest and other environmental designations which protect the character of our country’slandscape, stop unsustainable urban sprawl and preserve wildlife.Open Source Planning 3

Labour’s failing planning systemLabour’s contribution to the planning system has been to introduce new layers of bureaucracy and to strengthen Whitehall’scontrol over local communities.The present planning system in England was created by the Government’s Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act in2004. The system is plan-led i.e. the presumption is that specific development decisions will be made in accordance withGovernment-approved development plans for each area.The first of these plans is a Regional Spatial Strategy which is produced by regional government on the instructions ofcentral government and which attempts to set the overall context of how a region will develop. These Regional SpatialStrategies are prescriptive and detailed, and impose specific house-building targets on every local authority in the region.The second type of development plan is the Local Development Framework (LDF), that has to be drawn up by each of the368 Local Planning Authorities and which sets out, in a series of separate but interlinked documents, the detaileddevelopment policies for that local authority area. The requirement that Frameworks must comply with the relevant RegionalSpatial Strategy, combined with frequent interference from civil servants and planning inspectors, severely limits the extentto which these local plans truly reflect local opinion.Indeed, so complex is the Local Development Framework process that the Government’s target of seeing all Frameworksin place by 2007 1 has long fallen by the wayside. Recent figures show that to date just 50 Frameworks have been signedoff by the Planning Inspectorate, representing less than 14% of English councils. 2The introduction of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks has been a failure. Indeed, theconfusion and complexity created by the new system is such that the Government had to pass another two Acts 3 to try andrectify the consequences of their own defective legislation. So we have now had three major pieces of planning law pushedthrough Parliament in the last five years.A recent survey of planners found that 97% of respondents believed that the introduction of a Local DevelopmentFramework, referred to by a planner as a “resource hungry beast”, had not resulted in a quicker process for plan-making.Commenting on the findings, the chief executive of the Town and Country Planning Association described as “recurringthemes…the complexity of the system, consultation fatigue, a confusing range of documents in a system too often aliento the public with huge requirements for supporting material.” 4The present Government has attempted to speed up the planning system by introducing binding targets requiring councilsto deal with a specified percentage of planning applications within a certain period of time. Unfortunately, the processesrequired of councils are so detailed and bureaucratic that it is simply not possible to speed up the assessment of all planningapplications. The perverse result of Labour’s central planning targets, therefore, has been to encourage local authoritiesto turn down applications in order to reach a decision 5 and to ensure that the vast majority of application decisions aremade not by elected councillors, but by salaried officers.The Government’s approach of retaining strong central control over planning means that, in many cases, people feel thatthey have no say over development taking place in their areas. Local communities feel that their views are being ignoredand that they are having development imposed upon them. All too predictably this sense of disenfranchisement often leadsto antagonism. The result is an inherently adversarial system with opposing parties spending large amounts of time andmoney fighting each other, rather than seeking an agreed solution.But it is not just at local level that the planning system suffers from democratic deficit. At regional and national level theGovernment has done everything in its power to prevent Parliament from having a say on planning policy and to exemptMinisters from being publicly accountable for planning decisions by hiding behind unelected quangos where there is anychance of a planning issue being politically contentious. Regional Spatial Strategies, and the unelected Regional Assembliesthat were tasked with creating them, have borne the brunt of public anger over housing numbers when all they are doingis implementing central government policy. And for major infrastructure planning such as new nuclear power stations orairport expansion, the Government has sought to hide behind the creation of the Infrastructure Planning Commission.4

Our solution – a new Open Source planning systemWe believe that only radical reform will allow us to address the many flaws in the current planning system. We will use aninnovative Open Source approach to overhaul how planning works from top to bottom. This will decentralise and streamlinethe planning system and allow it to focus on promoting sustainable development that local communities want.The decentralisation of power is a core principle for the Conservative Party. We have already published a number of greenpapers detailing how we will shift power away from centralised bureaucracies and into the hands of individuals,communities and councils. As with housing, schools and local government, so with planning – to create a genuinelyresponsive service, power must be given to those who are directly affected by that service.But localising control over planning decisions is only one part of the package of modifications that are needed to create anew Open Source planning system and help to kick-start development. The three key tenets that underpin our radical plansfor an Open Source planning system are to:• restore democratic and local control over the planning system;• rebalance the system in favour of sustainable development; and• produce a simpler, quicker, cheaper and less bureaucratic planning system.In the following sections we spell out how the planning system would look under a future Conservative government, drivenby these three core principles.Local housing, local infrastructure and the local environmentGetting rid of regional planningWe have already outlined in Control Shift and Strong Foundations, our decentralisation and housing green papers, thefundamental failings of Labour’s regional planning system, and have explained why we believe we should remove theregional planning layer altogether. We will abolish the entire bureaucratic and undemocratic tier of regional planning,including the Regional Spatial Strategies, the Regional Planning Bodies, and national and regional building targets.We anticipate primary legislation in the first year of a Conservative government to achieve these changes, as part of abroader Local Government and Housing Bill.This policy is even more pressing given the disarray that the Regional Spatial Strategy process is currently in. Both theEast of England and South East Regional Spatial Strategies have been subject to High Court review, and Ministers havedelayed the publication of the final South West Regional Spatial Strategy to pre-empt similar legal challenges. 6 This fiascohas left the planning system in limbo with a huge number of councils and developers unable to make progress on planningapplications.Given the urgency of the problem, we will consider whether to use the executive powers of the Secretary of State torevoke the Regional Spatial Strategies, in whole or in part, prior to primary legislation. And we will publish ourproposed policy changes and draft legislation as part of a necessary process of consultation required in law. Thesedocuments will have the status of ‘emerging policy’ and will therefore permit local authorities to amend elements ofRegional Spatial Strategies which they find undesirable, even before primary legislation is passed.Having removed the regional planning architecture, control over development will revert to the local level, with no statutoryplanning documents between the national planning framework (and its associated guidance notes) and local authorities’new Local Plans (see below for more detail).In contrast to the unelected regional tiers of government across England, London has a different, clearer constitutionalsettlement. However, there is still scope for further devolution down to the Mayor and Assembly, and down to Londonboroughs. We are consulting colleagues in the GLA and the boroughs on the scope for more decentralisation in London.Open Source Planning 5

Flexible ZoningThe present planning system deals not just with proposed new development, but also with the uses to which land andexisting buildings are put. Under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, all the various uses for buildingsand land are grouped into a number of categories, or classes (shops, restaurants and cafes, hotels etc.). Planning permissionis not required for changes of use within a particular class (e.g. general industry) or, in limited cases, between categories(e.g. from a restaurant to a shop). However, any other change in use entails seeking and obtaining planning permission.The categorisation of land use into Use Classes is sensible. However the requirement to gain planning permission forchanges of use has two considerable disbenefits. Firstly it creates a significant amount of work for local planning authorities– figures show that there were more than 30,000 change of use planning applications in 2006-7. 7 Even more importantly,the bureaucratic hurdle of needing planning permission to change the use of a building can act as a disincentive todevelopment and so stifle economic and physical regeneration.We will amend the Use Classes Order so that people can freely (i.e. without planning permission) change the use ofbuildings within a range allowed by the local community in its local plan. We will retain the current categorisation ofuses (and start with an explicit assumption that all current approved existing uses are legitimate), but allow councils tospecify in their local plans the kinds of use they are content to permit for the buildings and land in each given partof their area.We anticipate that most local communities will take the opportunity offered by such Flexible Zoning to adopt a significantlymore relaxed approach to changes of use of existing buildings. For instance, they might say that buildings within a particulararea can be used for any purpose except general industrial use, or that a street can be used for any kind of retail or serviceprovision. And for those areas where the council chooses not to stipulate what types of building it does and does not wantto see, the presumption in favour of sustainable development will mean that any development is permitted.Our new Flexible Zoning system will allow councils to retain control over changes of use when this is deemed to be sociallyor environmentally necessary and will mean that developers are not able to force through development such as inappropriateconversions where these are not in the interests of the local community.Removing power from the Planning InspectorateWe believe that the planning priorities and policies – the vision for the development of a community, produced by localdemocratically-elected representatives following a process of collaborative democracy – should not be overridden bycentral government inspectors. We will therefore remove the planning inspectors’ powers to change local plans.Instead of having the power to ride roughshod over local sentiment by effectively rewriting these plans (as at present), theInspectorate will be asked to report to the Secretary of State on any direct breaches of national planning guidanceand process, to ensure that the plan has been produced within the statutory framework and to ensure that the plans aregenuinely spatial, i.e. they take neighbouring plans into account so that, for example, developments which straddle localgovernment boundaries are consistent between plans. All other issues will be left for local determination. In determiningwhether a plan is spatial there would be an incentive for local councils to submit plans quickly to ensure that their view ofthe spatial distribution of development will guide neighbouring local plans.An inspector examining a local plan will do so transparently and in a public forum that allows local authorities, developersand other interested parties to make representations on whether the plan is in compliance with the national planningframework, has followed due process and is spatial. And, where the Secretary of State finds that a local plan breachesnational planning guidance, is not appropriately spatial, or has not been produced within the statutory framework,it will be for the local planning authority to amend and resubmit its local plan.6

This will assure the Secretary of State that every local plan has been drawn up in a professional manner, following theappropriate procedures. Beyond these matters of process, all other aspects of a local plan will be determined bylocal people.The Secretary of State will not have the power to rewrite local plans or change the magnitude of any locally derived housingtargets included in local plans. But planning inspectors will have to consider whether the local authority has conducted aprofessional assessment of the housing need for their locality (i.e. following best practice guidance). Should the Secretaryof State be advised that any local authority has not adequately performed this task, he or she will reject the local planin question.It will not be for the Secretary of State to specify or comment on how or where a local authority incorporates in its localplan the results of its assessment of housing need – such issues of judgement will remain entirely for local determination.When determining what is sustainable development for their area, councils will draw on the environmental, architectural,economic and social standards set out in the national planning framework. But, as one element of the framework is thepresumption in favour of sustainable development, a sign-off by the Secretary of State would legitimise the view of whatis sustainable in the local plan. This means, after sign off, a local plan – including its own local definition of what constitutessustainable development in that area – will not be contestable in the courts except by way of judicial review of the Secretaryof State’s actions.Likewise, decisions on specific planning approvals taken by a democratically accountable local authority should be regardedas sound unless it can be proven otherwise. Therefore we will reform the existing planning appeals system. Firstly, wewill make the system symmetrical by allowing appeals against local planning decisions from local residents, as wellas from developers. Furthermore, we will limit the grounds for appeal against a local planning permission tojust two:1. that correct procedure was not followed in assessing the application,or2. that the decision reached is in contravention of the local plan.Since all local plans will be assessed by planning inspectors to ensure that they comply with national planning policy andguidance, decisions perceived to be in contravention of national planning policy will not be grounds for appeal.And we will create a new twin-track, two-stage process for the assessment of planning appeals. Appeals made on groundsof abuse of process will be dealt with by the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), whereas an appeal concerningcorrect application of the local plan will be handled by the Planning Inspectorate.In both cases we will introduce a mechanism for weeding out frivolous or malicious appeals which wouldsignificantly delay development. The first assessment stage will rapidly determine whether there is a case to answer, withappeals only being fully considered by the Local Government Ombudsman or the Planning Inspectorate if they pass thisfirst stage.Our new appeals system will be significantly swifter and cheaper than judicial review, although judicial review will remainas an extra option for anyone unhappy with the decision of the Ombudsman or the Planning Inspectorate. This will meanchanges in the powers of the Ombudsman to give him some teeth and ensure that, as is the case with the PlanningInspectorate, his or her decisions about due process are complied with and that those who have appealed to the Ombudsmanhave effective redress. 8Open Source Planning 7

A new system of collaborative planningLocal plansThe Local Development Frameworks introduced by the government have not only failed to speed up plan making, buthave also been a bureaucratic nightmare to complete. They are excessively detailed, consisting of an entire suite ofdocuments, all of which are interlinked. Above all, they are not expressions of a vision of the locality that emerges fromthe people of that locality.We will make a truly local plan, built out of a process of collaborative democracy, the centrepiece of the local planningsystem. New local plans will, of course, have to conform to national environmental, architectural, economic and socialstandards and constraints. But within this national framework, the local plan will be truly local. It will define what thepeople of a given locality – through a process of collaborative democracy – mean by sustainable development fortheir area.Recent academic research has found collaborative democracy – the idea that citizens should be actively involved in makingthe kind of decisions hitherto reserved for bureaucrats and elected representatives – to be a highly successful concept. Webelieve that the production of new local plans is a process that is ideally suited to the use of collaborative democracy. Bybuilding local plans from the bottom up so that they genuinely reflect the will of the people, we will help communities tocome together so they can solve their collective problems together.We will therefore give local people the power to engage in genuine local planning by mandating that all local authoritiesuse collaborative democratic methods in drawing up their local plans. Following the publication of this green paper,we will consult widely on the models of collaborative democracy best suited to local planning. We will draw both uponrelevant experience inside the UK (e.g. in the collaborative development of village plans) and on relevant models fromother countries. We will aim to identify a range of different methods of involving the neighbourhood in developing thelocal plan, so that local areas can experiment in drawing up their own plans. But we will expect to see, at a minimum:• the evolution of the plan starting at ‘ground level’ in neighbourhoods with every single resident of theneighbourhood approached to take part;• the provision of good data by the local planning authority to the electors in the neighbourhoods, so that they candevelop their vision for their community on a well-informed basis (this will need to include analysis by the councilof the likely need for housing and for affordable housing for local people in each neighbourhood, as well as detailsof infrastructure and services planned by other agencies and the third and private sectors);• the full involvement of democratic representatives at all levels (parish and town councils, ward councillors,accountable residents’ associations and other elected representatives), as well as consultation with other interestedparties; and• a presumption that the ‘modules’ of the local plan provided by each neighbourhood will be incorporated in thefinal plan unless there are strong grounds for modifying them; but also• a role for the planning authority itself in helping neighbourhoods to develop their visions and in brokeringa rational and coherent plan for the area as a whole, on the basis of negotiation with each of the neighbourhoodsand with all the relevant public agencies responsible for infrastructure and the environment.In order to align incentives and responsibilities, we will legislate to ensure that neighbourhoods will receive a proportionof the local tariff (see below) raised from all development.The creation of genuinely local plans will give communities and councils more freedom to set energy efficiency andrenewable generation requirements for new developments, for instance by including requirements for Combined Heat andPower systems in plans for town centres.8

Second, as we spell out below, affordable housing will be exempt from our replacement for section 106 and CommunityInfrastructure Levy payments – the local tariff. This will act as a powerful economic incentive for developers to includeaffordable housing as part of their proposed development.We are confident that these substantial financial incentives, combined with National Affordable Housing Programmegrants to help subsidise construction, and the introduction of Local Housing Trusts, the majority of which we anticipatewill want to build some homes for social rent, will deliver substantial amounts of affordable housing where it is needed.Good designThe quality of the built environment is crucial in creating liveable communities. We want to encourage the creation ofbuildings which are practical, sustainable, affordable and attractive, and also deliver social goals, for instance by ‘designingout’ crime. We must promote the highest standards of architecture and design. Not only is this a desirable end in itself, butit is an important factor in encouraging communities to support new development.We will therefore expect local authorities to set out architectural and design standards in their local plans.Local infrastructureWe believe that the introduction of a regional planning layer has been an expensive failure and have no qualms aboutdismantling it. However, that is not to say that there is no need for co-ordination at a spatial level higher than individuallocal planning authorities. There will always be some elements of planning, in particular the provision of the various typesof infrastructure that support development, that will require some form of co-operation between adjoining local authorities.Historically, leading such co-operation in two tier areas has been the role of county councils, which have also had planningpowers over minerals and waste. We do not intend to disturb this arrangement.We do anticipate that local authorities will want to work with appropriate adjoining local authorities to plan the varioustypes of infrastructure required to support future and ongoing development in their areas. For this purpose we willencourage unitary or upper-tier authorities to take a strategic view and take the lead in compiling InfrastructurePlans, which will set out how those authorities intend to deliver infrastructure (e.g. waste, roads, etc.) consistent with thelocal plans adopted in each local area.In order for local authorities to be able to anticipate the nature and dimension of future infrastructure needs, they musthave access to all the relevant information concerning proposed development. At present, this can be hampered byinsufficient sharing of information between the relevant bodies regarding current and potential future development. Wewill open up the information flow between public bodies (Primary Care Trusts, schools, the Highways Agency, etc.), alongwith the utility companies, so that all the relevant development information, including any plans produced by these bodies,is actually seen by all the other bodies in that area. And we will legislate to give all local planning authorities and otherpublic authorities a Duty to Co-operate which will ensure that they consult all the relevant parties, including all borderinglocal authorities, in drawing up their plans including infrastructure plans.In keeping with the philosophy of our Open Source approach, all this information will be published in an Open Sourceformat on the web – so that it is accessible and all the information is presented in a meaningful manner.10

A more open and responsive system of approvalsPresumption in favour of sustainable developmentAlthough we are determined to reassert local control over local planning decisions that does not mean that we want orexpect communities to turn their backs on development. Indeed we believe that the country needs to see a major upswingin development and construction as soon as possible, and we will enact policies to make it happen. We have alreadyannounced our plans to use fiscally neutral financial incentives to encourage local authorities to promote the developmentof new houses and new businesses. 11 But we also believe that, in redesigning the overall framework for planning, it is rightand proper that the system be underpinned by a predisposition in favour of sustainable development.Therefore we will counterbalance our introduction of genuine local planning control, by making it a guiding principleof the planning system that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Specifically, we will makeit unlawful for a local planning authority to refuse permission for a development if:• the application is from a Local Housing Trust that has the required level of local support and meetscertain standard criteria including conformity with the national planning framework, or• the application(i) conforms to the local plan (and hence with the national planning framework) ; and(ii) is accompanied by a payment of the agreed level of local tariff (as described below) from the developerto the local planning authority; and(iii) in the case of larger projects, is the product of an appropriate public consultation process e.g. Enquiryby Design (or similar).All construction built as a result of the presumption in favour of sustainable development would, of course, still need tocomply with local design and building control regulations.A presumption in favour of sustainable development will give the planning system an inbuilt bias towards the creation ofappropriate new houses, offices, schools, shops and other development. Our emphasis on local control will allow localplanning authorities to determine exactly how much development they want, of what kind and where. But unless they usetheir local plans explicitly to rule out particular types of development in specific areas, the planning system willautomatically allow applications to be approved.This radical shift towards sustainable and appropriate development will act as a catalyst to jump-start thousands of projects,both large and small, that will play a key role in fostering sustainable growth. By creating a presumption in favour ofsustainable development, we are explicitly affirming that we consider sustainable development to be a fundamentally goodthing for the country and a vital driver for delivering an enhanced level of well-being for each and every community.It is important that the greater autonomy offered by the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not abused.Therefore we would want to see vigour put into taking enforcement action against such abuses and where neededwill give local planning authorities new enforcement powers to tackle planning applications that, having beengranted, turn out to be substantially misleading, for instance misleading neighbours about the scale and design of thedevelopment proposed. We will legislate to provide that, in these circumstances, the planning authority can revoke thepermission, a decision that would be judicially reviewable.Open Source Planning 11

House buildingIn our previous green papers we have explained at length how and why we will be rejecting the current Government’scounterproductive housing targets, and instead offering local authorities a powerful council tax matching incentive toencourage new house building. We believe this incentive will prove strong enough to produce the scale of house buildingthe country needs. However, we will keep the level of this council tax incentive under review in order to ensure thatit does deliver.In addition, we have indicated how individual communities will be able to bring forward small-scale developmentwithin their own area on a limited basis outside of the local planning process, by the creation of Local HousingTrusts. These Trusts will allow villages and towns to develop the local homes that local people want, provided thereis strong community backing. The type and quantity of housing to be built will be for the community to decide, butwe anticipate it could be a mixture of market housing for sale, affordable housing for rent, sheltered housing for elderlylocal residents, or low-cost starter homes for young local families struggling to get on the housing ladder. All non-markethousing built by Local Housing Trusts will remain in local ownership in perpetuity, ensuring that future generationscan benefit.As well as housing, Local Housing Trusts will be allowed to assist the community by providing other services for thebenefit of local people. For instance, they might offer long-term, low-rent commercial accommodation for a village shopon a serviced tenancy, a community hall, or a sports facility.One of the best examples of individuals taking responsibility for housing is in self-build. Self-building can mean peopleliterally building their own homes or hiring a contractor to build it for them once they have the land and the planningpermission. It also often refers to groups of people coming together to pool their skills and build a number of housescollectively, neighbours literally building their community. Successful projects also can involve unemployed and unskilledpeople, young and old, who would otherwise struggle to find employment and housing.Self-built homes rely on being affordable and because they are the ultimate representation of having a stake in a home anda community, they are usually more environmentally friendly and built to higher design and quality standards. 12 As part ofour progressive Conservative vision for housing, self-built homes – like Local Housing Trusts – are a perfect embodimentof individuals and families taking responsibility where, under this Government, the State has sucked power out ofcommunities. Giving more power back to local people and self-builders can increase the creation of successful communitiesand the revitalisation of existing areas across the country.Planning obligationsIt has long been an accepted feature of the English planning system that local planning authorities can attach stipulationsto the granting of planning permission for a development in order to make that development acceptable in planning terms.In the last decade, the scope of planning obligations (often referred to as section 106 agreements, after the legislation 13that provides for them) has expanded beyond site-specific remediation and adaptation to cover a wider range ofcontributions towards the cost of the additional infrastructure used to support new developments, as well as the provisionof affordable housing as part of a development.The greater reach of planning obligations has made section 106 agreements much more complex, with the result that theycan in some cases take years to negotiate between the local authority and the developer. Clearly this is not an optimal useof scarce local authority planning resources. But despite these problems, the Government has legislated 14 to allow localauthorities to introduce an additional planning charge to fund infrastructure, to be called the Community InfrastructureLevy (CIL). Having originally been due to come in last year, the implementation of CIL has now been delayed until April2010. Perhaps due to widespread confusion as to how CIL will operate alongside section 106 agreements, research showsthat only one in five local authorities plans to introduce a CIL 15 .We believe that the principle of expecting developers to make a contribution towards the additional infrastructure neededto make their development viable is sound. However the Government’s proposed twin-track approach is unnecessarilycomplicated and does nothing to address the uncertainty and delays that currently exist in agreeing planning obligations.12

We will simplify the system by returning planning obligations to their original function by limiting their use tostipulations relating directly to site-specific remediation and adaptation. At the same time, we will scrap CIL andnon-site-specific planning obligations and instead introduce a single unified local tariff applicable to allresidential and non-residential development (even a single dwelling), but at graded rates depending on the sizeof the development. 16Each local planning authority will set its own local tariff rates and will publish them in its local plan. A percentage of themoney raised by the tariff from each building constructed will be passed down to the community in which the developmenttakes place. Affordable housing units will be exempt from paying the tariff, as will all development by Local HousingTrusts and all self-build housing.This will give developers much greater certainty about how much a proposed development will cost. It will also givecouncils a locally controlled source of funds to pay for the infrastructure needed to underpin the renewal of their areas, aswell as allowing them to reallocate some of the many officers currently employed simply to manage lengthy negotiationson convoluted planning obligations.Collaboration in designTo help ensure that the development that takes place is genuinely sustainable, we need to develop an approach to planningthat allows for much greater collaboration between the various parties. By properly canvassing all the various stakeholderinterests in a site, and reflecting these in the scheme as it emerges, support for it is created between all parties, soencouraging co-operation rather than confrontation. We want to get local communities involved in deciding, at the outsetand in concert with developers, the quantity and type of residential and non-residential development that is needed ineach area.A distinct and apparently successful methodology along these lines – called Enquiry by Design – has recently been pilotedin the UK by the Prince’s Foundation. Enquiry by Design is a highly participative, cross-disciplinary process for definingdetailed spatial plans, masterplans and regeneration frameworks for identified (usually large) sites. In addition to Enquiryby Design, there are other methodologies, such as Charettes, which can be used to achieve collaborative design.We believe that collaboration with the local community in design is crucial and we will legislate to require that onprojects above certain thresholds, before they can submit a planning application, developers involve the localcommunity in collaborative design, as determined by the local planning authority. In order to provide confidence toresidents that these public consultations will be meaningful, we will make the depth of collaboration a material planningconsideration in determining an application.Immediate neighboursAll new development affects a local community at two different levels. Firstly there is an impact on the wider area, forinstance in greater demand for council services, which will be dealt with by the proceeds of our local tariff, as well as ourradical council tax incentive policy. Secondly there is a much more localised impact on those in the immediate vicinity ofa new development. But, although these immediate neighbours may see a specific and personal amenity suffer because ofa development, there is, at present, no way to ensure they can receive any recompense.To address this issue, we will legislate to provide that, if more than a small minority of residential neighbours in theimmediate vicinity of a new development (of any type) raise any objection, then the conformity of the planningapplication with the local plan must be formally assessed by the local planning authority. We will consult further onthe precise proportion of immediate neighbours whose disapproval will trigger a rejection of the presumption in favour ofsustainable development. We will consult further about the definition of “immediate vicinity”.Of course, in the case of larger developments, those responsible for development will engage with these neighbours aspart of the comprehensive and compulsory consultation process that precedes their planning application and this processalone may lead to unanimous local support (or at least the absence of local opposition). However we anticipate that inmany cases developers will choose to avoid the need for formal assessment of the application, and hence speed upthe planning process by reaching voluntary agreements to compensate nearby householders for the impact of thedevelopment on their amenity, in return for their support.The ‘significant majority’ rule will act to prevent developmentbeing held up by a small number of immediate neighbours and will give all neighbours an incentive to be reasonable intheir demands, lest most of their neighbours sign up before they do.Open Source Planning 13

We will also add another layer of democratic engagement, by providing that the parish council (should there be one) inwhich the development takes place will count as a set of immediate neighbours for the purposes of this policy, so thatdevelopers will tend to negotiate with parish councils about their plans, and may choose to negotiate a voluntary agreementwith the parish council to compensate for any loss of civic amenity. We will consult about the weighting to be attributedto the parish council for the purposes of the ‘significant majority’ rule.This genuinely decentralised bottom-up approach to development will strengthen grass roots engagement with thedevelopment process. When people feel they have a genuine say on the merits of any development local to them, they aremuch more likely to take a positive attitude towards the benefits that it will bring.A cheaper, more effective planning systemThe combined effect of our policies to make the system of planning approvals more open and responsive, allied to our widerstrategy to transform the planning system, will have a significant effect in reducing the number and complexity of planningapplications that need to be assessed in detail by local planning authorities. These changes will also cut significantly thetime and money required to prepare and submit a successful planning application, thus encouraging development.Infrastructure of national importanceLabour’s approach to the delivery of major infrastructure projects has been glacially slow and resolutely bureaucratic. Inthe last decade there has been a number of extremely lengthy, extremely expensive planning inquiries on key nationalinfrastructure projects such as Heathrow Terminal 5. Unfortunately, these inquiries have frequently not focused on the keyquestion of ‘whether proposed development is in accordance with national planning law’ but, rather, have become protractedexaminations of conflicting views on national policy.The Government’s response has been to create a new quango – the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) – and tointroduce new National Policy Statements for specific types of development such as airport expansion and nuclear powerstations. But these new arrangements are fatally undermined by Ministers’ determination to wash their hands of anyresponsibility for making major infrastructure planning decisions. Under Labour’s proposals, the Commission will havethe power to build over the Green Belt, demolish listed buildings, compulsorily purchase land, and overrule local planningrules and guidance, despite having no democratic accountability. And there will be no proper Parliamentary ratification ofthe National Policy Statements.We have already indicated that we would abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission while retaining its expertiseand fast-track process. We will do this by creating a specific unit for major infrastructure projects (the MajorInfrastructure Unit), with its own special character, within a revised departmental structure that includes thePlanning Inspectorate. At the same time we will integrate the National Policy Statements into our revised and simplifiedsystem of national planning guidance. 17In place of the Infrastructure Planning Commission we will divide major infrastructure projects into two broad categoriesand we will adopt different approaches for each type. For very major linear projects, we will revise the procedures forhybrid or private bills to allow these projects to be approved more simply and directly by Parliament. This methodwas successfully used for Crossrail and we are likely to use it for our proposed new high-speed rail system.All other major infrastructure projects will be decided by short and focused planning inquiries carried out by thenew Major Infrastructure Unit and governed by our new national planning framework. Such inquiries would be runby senior planning inspectors who would have much of the freedom enjoyed by judges in the courts to provide the directionof a case by way of pre-trial hearings. This would allow for the lines of evidence required to be clearer and for inquiries tobe more focused.At the conclusion of the inquiries, planning inspectors from the Major Infrastructure Unit will make recommendations tothe Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will then be required to make a final decision on the application withina specified time limit on the basis of the material presented.While we are committed to abolishing the Infrastructure Planning Commission, we do not want to see any applicationsthat have begun to be considered by the Commission start the planning process all over again. We will, therefore, introducetransitional arrangements to ensure that any such projects do not have to return to square one.14

National framework for developmentWe believe that, with the exception of nationally important projects, planning should be a local matter, with planningdecisions being made at the local level wherever possible. But central government still has a number of key functions inthe planning system.Most importantly, national government has the right and responsibility to determine and define the economic andenvironmental priorities for the country, and to design a planning system that will help to ensure that the pattern ofdevelopment matches those priorities.In the past, Governments have set out their national planning objectives through a series of Planning Policy Guidancenotes (PPGs) and more recently Planning Policy Statements (PPSs). These documents are used to convey centralgovernment policy on various aspects of development and land use to local planning authorities, who must take theircontents into account when drawing up their Local Development Frameworks and making decisions on planningapplications. They cover broad policy themes such as planning aspects of climate change, housing, renewable energy, floodrisk, Green Belt and waste, and also procedural themes such as how to compile local and regional spatial strategies.Despite 12 years of attempts to make these guidance documents clearer and more priority focused, they remain sprawlingand cumbersome, as well as often being back-breakingly long. As an illustration, since 1 January 2005 the Governmenthas issued a colossal 3,254 pages of national planning guidance,10 with another 1,000 pages of draft National PolicyStatements and associated documents being published recently.More damagingly, because these documents are produced and revised as and when the need arises, they are piecemeal innature. There is no over-arching picture of the Government’s priorities for the country and the role which planning canplay in delivering them. By contrast, the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales have each set out a simple policyframework of priorities for the planning system in their areas. We believe this is the correct approach and we will seek toreplicate it in England.We will therefore fundamentally reform national planning policy and make it accountable to Parliament. We willintegrate into one document – a national planning framework – the principal features of all national planningpolicies. This simple and consolidated framework will set out not only what the government’s economic andenvironmental priorities are, but how they relate to each other. Such a framework would also set out in general terms(but in sufficient detail to provide clarity) what was expected, both of the planning system and in terms of nationalinfrastructure, to deliver these priorities. Crucially, this framework would have to be debated and voted on by resolutionin both Houses of Parliament. This will impart genuine democratic legitimacy on the national planning framework andnational planning policies, so reducing the scope for planning decisions to be subject to time-consuming legal challengesthrough judicial review, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.As part of this framework, the need for the existing PPSs and PPGs will be evaluated and those required will be re-orderedand aligned in order to reflect the national priorities, as determined by Parliament. The result will be a series of short andfocused guidance notes describing how specific aspects of the planning system will operate to deliver the government’sagenda and setting out minimum environmental, architectural, economic and social standards for sustainable development.These revised planning guidance notes will also set out the details of any specific planning tools which would be requiredsuch as special regimes for urban regeneration, protection of the countryside and woodland, flood prevention etc. In thisway, the government will remain responsible for establishing and, when necessary, updating, specific rules on those partsof the country to which the normal planning system does not apply. In particular, we will maintain national Green Beltprotection, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and otherenvironmental designations which protect the character of our country’s landscape, stop unsustainable urbansprawl and preserve wildlife.Open Source Planning 15

Other planning issuesIn addition to our fundamental reform of the entire planning system, there are a number of standalone planning policiesthat we have previously announced. In the interests of completeness, these policies are outlined below.Wind farmsWe actively support getting more of our energy from renewable sources, including both on-shore and off-shore wind. Thiswill help tackle climate change, create thousands of jobs, and help guarantee our energy security. Britain has some of thebest renewable resources in the world – not just on land, but in the wind, wave and tidal power available off one of thelongest coastlines in Europe. We should make the most of those resources.If we are to be successful in this task it is vital that we develop broad public support for the process. On-shore wind farmsare not appropriate in all settings: local community consent is vital, and applications will need to be considered in the lightof the possible impact on the local environment. This means allowing communities to be active participants in, as well asbeneficiaries of, on-shore wind development.That is why it is Conservative policy to allow communities that choose to host wind farms to keep the business ratesthey generate for six years. We are also examining how community ownership of wind turbines can be introduced,as on the continent, and how discounted electricity can be available to communities in the vicinity of wind farms.This is the sort of fresh thinking that will be required to increase acceptance of wind farms.Conservation creditsThe planning system must be sensitive to the impact of development on the ecosystem services that land provides – cleanwater and soil for food production, flood alleviation, energy production, carbon sequestration and a habitat for wildlife.Presently, there are few mechanisms to account for the loss of ecosystems when land is developed and our biodiversity hassuffered as a result- for instance, some 97 per cent of our flower-rich meadows have been lost since 1945. 18The existing bureaucratic, regulatory approach has failed to halt biodiversity decline and urgent action is needed to addressthe loss of vital ecosystems in the face of climate change and development. Conservation credits are one way of reflectingthe importance of diverse ecosystems to our environment. Conservation credit schemes create incentives to protectbiodiversity value, ensuring that fragile ecosystems are protected and there is no net biodiversity loss from newdevelopment. Responsible developers are already looking at ways they can reduce their impact on the environment and aconservation credits scheme could build on those steps.Any system would have to be tailored to the English landscape but a scheme could mean that housing or publicinfrastructure projects are required to factor in the loss of biodiversity and provide for new habitats or restoreexisting fragile ecosystems so that local biodiversity is maintained or improved as a minimum requirement. Afteran assessment of biodiversity loss, a developer would agree to generate credits to at least an equivalent value. An accredited‘habitat bank’ – run by a local community, voluntary group or private enterprise – would then use the credits to create ormanage new conservation schemes such as a wildlife reserve, country park or new woodland creation.A mechanism that places a value on biodiversity would allow a more comprehensive and strategic approach to the problemof eroding ecosystems. It would appeal to a spirit of social responsibility on the part of developers and harness additionalresources for important conservation work. Working together, businesses, local planners and conservation groups coulddesign banks or schemes appropriate to their local environment. Credits could be used by communities to encourage naturalflood defences, provide green spaces for local children or create wildlife corridors. By pooling credits the environmentaloutcome can be improved and larger conservation projects can be established such as wetlands or peatland restoration.In devising a scheme, we would not want to weaken the existing protection for vital habitats. We would ensure that anymeasures were in addition to existing safeguards regarding development on green spaces. Any new system must also avoidimposing additional burdens on home ownership and be consistent with our plans to expand the number of affordablehomes. We need to make it easier for responsible developers to invest in local conservation projects, not raise the overallcosts of development.16

Ending the garden grabUnder Labour planning rules imposed in 2000, gardens around homes are classified as brownfield land. With councilsbeing required to follow rigid Whitehall guidelines on the proportion of new housing to be built on brownfield land, theentirely predictable result has been a significant increase in suburban gardens being ripped up and the plots replaced withblocks of flats. We will abolish arbitrary Whitehall density targets, reverse the classification of gardens as brownfieldland and allow councils to prevent overdevelopment of neighbourhoods and stop ‘garden grabbing’.Scrapping the predetermination rulesIn some councils, candidates standing for election have been advised by monitoring officers that “predetermination rules”mean they must avoid mentioning any controversial local issue, for instance relating to a proposed development, duringtheir election campaign to prevent themselves being barred from voting on that issue if elected. This makes a mockery oflocal democracy and leads to unwarranted cynicism about politics and politicians.That is why we have said that we will legislate to ensure that councillors (while being properly prevented fromadvancing personal interests) have the freedom to campaign and represent their constituents, and then speak andvote on those issues without fear of breaking the rules of ‘pre-determination’.Schools planningWe believe that schools are a good example of the sort of development – with an acute impact but dispersed benefit – thatneeds to be treated differently by the planning system. Our radical schools policy will encourage the creation of newschools wherever there is demand. However, for the policy to be successful it is essential that unnecessary bureaucracy isnot permitted to stifle the creation of new community schools. Therefore we will ensure that our new planning systemwill allow for the necessary development of new schools. Specifically we will legislate to:(i)(ii)(iii)give an automatic right to change the use of any existing building to educational use as a matter ofpermitted development i.e. without the need to seek planning permission;preserve the current stock of land available for new schools by legislating to require that all existing landthat is currently used for ‘non-residential institutional purposes’ (Use Class D1) is kept as D1 land,unless the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families agrees to an application for changeof use - this will keep the cost of this land down, so allowing new academy providers to take over, shouldan existing school close; andrequire that planning applications to build new schools be assessed following the same system as fornon-linear major infrastructure projects i.e. decided by short and focused planning inquiries carried outby the Planning Inspectorate and governed by our new national planning framework, followed by a decisionby the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. This will allow all the interested parties tomake representations, while ensuring that applications are considered impartially, based on nationalplanning law.We are confident that these policies will allow new schools to be created wherever local people want them. But to ensurethat vested interests do not abuse the planning system to stall the creation of new schools, we will give any school promotera right of appeal to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families in the event of unreasonable delay/objectionfrom any local authority.And as an additional inducement, we will expand our business rates incentive scheme to encourage new schools. Manyof the bodies setting up new academies will be charities and because charities pay very little (and sometimes nothing atall) in business rates, our incentive will not reward local authorities for encouraging the development of new schools.We will therefore topslice the national business rates pool to create a new fund that will remunerate local authoritiesthat allow the development of new schools as if the schools that are created were not subject to relief and paid fullbusiness rates.Open Source Planning 17

Mobile phone mastsMobile phone masts are an important part of the nation’s infrastructure, especially given the growing demand for mobiledata services. But there has been significant public concern about masts being erected with little consultation and in aninsensitive manner. We believe that all types of mobile phone masts in England (including Network Rail, TETRA andsmall/pico masts) must be subject to the same, full planning process as other forms of development, so giving localcommunities a greater say on where they are located. 19 We will also review the case for greater incentives for operatorsto share masts and allow domestic roaming, and will investigate new technologies, such as WiMAX and wirelessbroadband, which have the potential to reduce the number of new masts required. And we will review potential healthissues related to mobile phone masts in the light of ongoing scientific research.TravellersConservatives believe in social responsibility. Different people, from different communities, should be free to lead theirlives in different ways. But this freedom must come with a responsibility to the wider community. The vast majority oftravellers accept this, but a very small minority do not.Planning rules should ensure fairness between the settled and the traveller communities. Local authorities have a role toensure the provision of suitable authorised sites to tackle genuine local need for their area in consultation with localcommunities. In addition, recent UK case law has clarified that councils need to provide authorised sites locally if they areto be able to take effective action against unauthorised sites, even though enforcement still remains a major problem.Where, therefore, councils have made appropriate provision for authorised sites in their area, which reflect local need andhistoric demand, we will provide them with stronger enforcement powers to tackle unauthorised development andillegal trespass. In addition, we will introduce a new criminal offence of intentional trespass.At the same time, it is important that settled council taxpayers do not foot the bill for the construction of new authorisedsites. We will also therefore reform the system of traveller site funding to councils so that councils are properlycompensated for new sites and require travellers to make a contribution to the appropriate cost of services onauthorised sites.The Human Rights Act affects all the planning, eviction and enforcement decisions made by all public authorities, includingcouncils and the police. It has made it more difficult and expensive to evict trespassers from private and public property,and has overridden planning law by allowing travellers to go ahead with unauthorised development. We will replaceLabour’s Human Rights Act with a new British Bill of Rights, which will help address these problems.The Labour Government has used the regional planning system and top-down targets to force local planning authoritiesto build new traveller camps, often on Green Belt land and, if necessary, use their compulsory purchase powers to obtainland for these new traveller sites. Conservatives disagree with top-down building targets, be it for traveller camps ornew houses.As part of the abolition of regional planning and the Regional Spatial Strategies, targets for the provision of travellercamps will be scrapped. In addition we will also scrap John Prescott’s controversial guidance on travellers.In addition, our promise to limit the concept of retrospective planning permission will also ensure that another route bywhich the planning system has been abused by those seeking to use unauthorised sites will be curtailed.As a result we will have introduced a legal framework, similar to that which exists in the Irish Republic, to enable councilsto remove unauthorised dwellings. This will allow councils to tackle the problem of unauthorised sites including both thosebuilt on land which is owned by travellers and land which is not.18

Retail developmentJohn Gummer, when Environment Secretary in 1996, put in place planning rules on out-of-town retail development inorder to prevent town centre decline (so-called ‘PPG6’). As a result, local councils can reject proposals for new supermarketsand retail development outside towns.The Labour Government has now changed national planning rules on retail development (through a document calledPPS4) and has scrapped the ‘needs test’, which requires developers to prove the need for additional out-of-towndevelopment. The needs test gives local authorities an important power to control out-of-town development and allowsthem to focus regeneration and development on their local high streets.We will undo Labour’s changes to planning rules which have weakened councils’ ability to stop unwanted out-oftowndevelopment. We will ensure that a needs test is readopted, and will enable local councils to take competitionissues into account when formulating their local plans.ParkingPlanning rules on transport issued by John Prescott in 2001 (PPG13) instructs councils to increase parking charges as a'demand management' tool, to be more aggressive in issuing parking fines and to impose maximum parking standards innew developments. Family homes and flats are being built without sufficient car parking spaces that the market wouldotherwise provide.Yet the Government’s own publication has admitted: ‘CABE research found that car parking remains a significant issuefor residents and house buyers. Many people feel that the design for a new residential development should accommodatetypical levels of car ownership and that the level of parking in new developments is often inadequate for residents’ andvisitors’ demands. There was a general feeling among buyers of new homes that apparent attempts to restrict parking inorder to curb car ownership were unrealistic and had little or no impact on the number of cars a household would requireand acquire.” 20Surveys in Kent have confirmed long term anecdotal evidence concerning the parking problems experienced by residentsin recently constructed developments where constraint on parking space and/or street space has been applied. Whereparking controls are not in place, ownership levels do not appear to be related to the amount of reasonable parking spaceavailable. The result of these rules has been greater problems with on-street parking in residential neighbourhoods, carsspilling onto neighbouring streets, the spread of Controlled Parking Zones and increased public resentment against parkingwardens and escalating parking fines.As Simon Jenkins has observed: ‘parking wardens… are for millions of Britons the sole point of human contact withgovernment. They have replaced policemen and lollipop ladies as the most ubiquitous figures of communal authority. Yetthey are rarely local, and are untrained and unsuited for this exalted role. They may not fraternise and they turn a blind eyeto crime or antisocial behaviour other than illegal parking. Officials, who common sense says should become the friendlylink between citizens and government, are frigid recipients of public fury. Tony Blair could not have invented a better wayof making the public hate local government’. 21We will amend this planning guidance to abolish the rules which force up car parking charges. We will scrap all Whitehallparking standards, as they should be a matter for local discretion depending on the nature of the neighbourhood. Thesechanges will encourage the greater provision of off-street parking spaces which will take pressure off clogged-up streets.Open Source Planning 19

MineralsPlanning for minerals is the responsibility of Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities – usually unitary or county councils.While much attention has been focused on our abolition of central housing targets, there is an analogous position in relationto minerals targets which have also been determined by Regional Spatial Strategies and allocated down to minerals planningareas. We would, therefore, look to repatriate the determination of the amounts of minerals required back toMinerals and Waste Planning Authorities, subject to national environmental standards to ensure that each authoritymakes its provision in a fair and sustainable way.Exception would be made for nationally strategic deposits of minerals, where responsibility for determining amountswould rest with the Secretary of State.As well as restoring democratic control over a key local, economic and environmental activity, this makes economic sensetoo. One of the key principles underpinning the industry is ‘the proximity principle’ – that minerals should be used asclose as possible to where they are worked. The logic of determining county quotas on a regional basis has long been atodds with this.In addition, the Regional Spatial Strategy has ridden roughshod over extraction figures put forward by councils and whichtook local circumstances into account. Many councils have complained that the methodology used in doing this was anarchaic, back-ward looking one which took no account of future needs.Clearly, geography has to play a part in minerals policy; you can only extract where the mineral lies. Mineral deposits donot, of course, respect administrative boundaries. There will, therefore, no doubt be a need for Minerals and WastePlanning Authorities to work closely with each other where deposits are shared. Those areas which need to importminerals will be free to make their own arrangements with other authorities or to pursue options such as increasing theamounts of recycled aggregates they use.Rural planningAs the provider of the majority of our food and the manager of our landscape, the farming industry has a critical role.However, under Labour our farmers have been treated as dispensable, with the result that over the last thirteen years wehave experienced major declines in production of meat, dairy and vegetables, and become increasingly dependent onimports of food we could grow ourselves. 22 Falls in domestic production not only weaken our food security and underminethe viability of rural communities, but also damage the countryside and threaten our food manufacturing industry, whichdirectly supports 440,000 jobs. 23Reversing this damaging trend requires a new approach. Our farmland is a national resource for future generations andthe very foundation of our food security. However, under Labour the protection of our best farmland has been downgradedand the Government has rejected councils’ calls to keep in place local protection of this valuable asset. We will introduceinto our national planning framework rules preventing the development of the most fertile farmland, in all butexceptional circumstances.We also need to prevent the planning system from unnecessarily restricting economic growth in rural communities. Nationalplanning policy has failed to counteract the restrictive notions of what is ‘appropriate’ rural business, focusing onagricultural and land-based industries at the expense of other types of enterprise. Farming and land management are, andwill remain, crucial to the country and to the countryside, but this should not constrain the growth of other sectors of therural economy, which accounts for the vast majority of the rural workforce.Therefore, as announced in our Rural Action paper last year, we will extend the designation of brownfield land to includeland previously occupied by agricultural buildings (erected before a specified date) to facilitate the development ofdisused buildings for other purposes.20

Building regulationsUnder Labour, we believe that building regulations have become unnecessarily prescriptive and overly complex. Theyneed to be simplified and reduced, with a focus on outcomes (e.g. public safety, energy efficiency) rather than box-ticking,and ensuring that regulation is proportionate to risk. In particular, we believe that building regulations can play asignificant role in the greening of our housing stock.BlightA number of recent examples have raised questions about the current blight laws that govern whether properties affectedby particular types of public sector development are liable for compensation. We will review the blight laws to ensurethat the system of reimbursement for blight is quicker and that the level of recompense awarded for those propertiesmaterially affected by development and potential development is fair.Extending the scope of ‘permitted development’The Killian Pretty review was a Government-commissioned independent evaluation of the planning application process,published in 2008, which made 17 detailed recommendations to create a faster, more effective and more responsive planningsystem. In order to further streamline the planning system and ensure that it concentrates only on those applications thatgenuinely merit examination, we will accept the recommendations of the Killian Pretty review, where they are applicableto our new Open Source planning system. 24 Implementing the Killian Pretty review will cut several more tens of thousandsof planning applications from the system, particularly those relating to minor non-residential developments, for instanceby introducing permitted development rights for shops, offices and public buildings. And we will ask Joanna Killianand David Pretty to examine how the planning processes can be simplified further through the introduction ofadditional permitted development.We have previously announced in Power to the People, our decentralised energy green paper, that we would make theinstallation of micro-generators a ‘permitted development’ in non-listed properties; we welcome the fact that thepresent Government are now consulting on proposals to allow some types of micro-generation as permitted development.And we will alter the rules so that there is a presumption in favour of planning permission for the installation of microgeneratingequipment in, or in the curtilage of, listed buildings, whenever this does not detract from aesthetic qualityor architectural and historical interest.With the introduction of a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and the exclusion of many residential andnon-residential developments from the need to seek full planning permission, we believe that there will no longer be anyexcuse for those required to seek planning permission failing to do so. Therefore we will also limit the concept ofretrospective planning to permit only the rectification of genuine mistakes, while recognising that councils will needto use some of their planning resource freed up in a streamlined system to increase their enforcement capabilities.The construction industry, householders and businesses will not be the only ones to benefit from an increase in the scopeof ‘permitted development’. Local planning authorities will also see a sizeable fall in the volume of paper that they haveto handle. This, together with our proposals for a presumption in favour of sustainable development and for automaticpermission in the case of sustainable development that meets no objections from a significant majority of immediateneighbours, means that local authority planning officers can go back to focusing on what they were originally employedto do – designing and implementing visionary plans for the development of their areas.Open Source Planning 21

Footnotes1 PlanningResource, 5 October 2009.2 Hansard, 13 October 2009, column 773W.3 Planning Act 2008 and Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.4 Town and Country Planning Association press release, 5 October 2009.5 “The practice of refusing applications purely to get a decision by the due date is becoming widespread”, Gary Halman, commercial planning adviser, cited in Planning, 29 October 2004.6 Planning Resource online, “Strategies under siege”, 9 October 2009.7 DCLG, Killian Pretty Review, 2008, p8.8 We announced in Control Shift, our Localisation green paper, that we will make all formal rulings of the Local Government Ombudsman legally binding on local authorities (subject toan appeal to the Secretary of State).9 Average annual number of new homes for social rent under the last Conservative Government (1992-97) was 51,514, compared to an average of 27,453 under the current LabourGovernment (1997-2009); DCLG live tables, table 1000.10 Our council tax Matching Fund is a revenue neutral policy that reallocates existing local government grant funding. For more details on the scheme, please consult Control Shift, ourDecentralisation green paper.11 See Control Shift, our decentralisation green paper, published in February 2009.12 Obviously self-built homes, like all other development, must meet all building regulations and local design criteria.13 Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).14 In the Planning Act 2008.15 Driver Jonas News, DJ Community Infrastructure Survey results, January 2009.16 The local tariff will not apply to residential extensions.17 Hansard, 23 March 2009, column 74W.18 Daily Telegraph, 28 December 2008.19 Tougher planning regulations for mobile phone masts that allow for greater local control were introduced in Scotland in 2001 and have proved successful.20 DfT, Manual for streets, March 2007, p.103.21 The Guardian, 16 June 2006.22 Hansard, 5 January 2010, column 79W.23 Food and Drink Federation - see http://www.fdf.org.uk/about_fdf.aspx24 This pledge does not apply to any recommendations of the Killian Pretty review that are rendered irrelevant by existing Conservative Party Policy.22

Promoted by Alan Mabbutt on behalf of the Conservative Party both of 30 Millbank, London SW1P 4DP.

Open Source Planning Green Paper - The Conservative Party

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?