Thinking larger than local

By , Thursday, 5 August 2010, 18 Comments

The RTPI has gone into battle with 28 other groups to ensure the survival of strategic planning.

Being careful to avoid any mention of ‘regional’ the new alliance has written to Eric Pickles calling for ‘larger-than-local level’ planning to be enshrined in any reforms to the current system.

It’s an impressive array of signatories (and acronyms) with the TCPA, ADEPT, BPF, CPRE, CIH, CIC, CLBA, FoE, ICE, NHF, NHF, POS, RIBA, RSPB, Shelter and WWF all lining up to back strategic planning, some for very different reasons.

Speaking in Radio Four’s Today this morning the RTPI’s Kelvin McDonald said: “Really in a way this is big society in action, this is nearly thirty organisations coming together saying to government work with us because we have concerns that perhaps there are unintended consequences to what you are doing at the moment and we want to work with you to give advice on what may be the best way ahead because what we’re seeing at the moment is a void, is a vacuum, there’s uncertainty.”

There’s safety and influence in numbers, surely the government has to heed such a loud and unified warning from such a broad spectrum of organisations?

  • Tom

    Out with the RSS. In with the LTLLSS. Bit of a mouthfull, but I’m willing to embrace the future with an open mind…..

  • Roger

    Good! If they can make the argument for strategic planning, without being tempted to dicatate the geography in the way the RSS did, then I think they will win their argument. Eric then needs to take this work and ask LPAs to get together in a way that much sense to them, to make it work and produce the required outcomes.

  • Jade

    Could we see a national spatial strategy? Or are we heading towards more sub-regionally based groups?

    Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) a partnership of 11 authorities have already made significant headway and it would be interesting to see whether this could be explored in other areas.

  • Ethics Girl

    Hurrah for common sense. And great to see the RTPI leading the way and on national radio!

  • Tufted Jake

    Perhaps we could have some sort of “structure” “plan” system for issues that are larger than local. I’m thinking out of the box, I know, but who isn’t in these crazy days?

    I AM TUFTED JAKE

  • McBain_v1

    The RICS is conspicuous by its absence from that letter. Will the LEP be an appropriate vehicle for this sort of spatial planning? If all of the bodies that currently have experience of cross-boundary working are being dismantled and those skilled people are effectively being ‘lost’ to the practice, how can any replacement organisation expect to deliver?

    I await the draft Decentralisation and Localism Bill with a mixture of resignation, dread and morbid curiousity. How much more of a mauling can the planning system take before delivery of nearly all key needs (renewable energy, housing, intergrated flood defences, transport) stalls?

    • SCH

      I’ll see your resignation, dread and morbid curiosity and raise you a sense of impending doom, Cap’n Mainwaring! This is a government that evidently wants to either centralise or abolish, so I wouldn’t be surprised if less and less gets delivered at a spatial level, despite the genuine efforts of the rest of the public sector and the interest groupsnamed on the letter to drive the debate towards considering the consequences. With little indication of how LEPs are to be financed, and thus staffed, you’re absolutely right that the experience that the Regional Assemblies and the like represented will disappear.
      As for the government having to listen to the warning, I would like to think they would, but this is an administration that doesn’t listen to its own civil servants (allegedly) or even to the concerns being expressed by businesses over the ability of LEPs to deliver joined-up activity on growth and business support issues – quite why they would feel the need to listen to a coalition of the willing (the enemy of my enemy is my friend?) I don’t know.
      I am of course horribly biased and not a little cynical, as I am being made redundant by virtue of being employed by one of those nasty public sector quangos that caused the worldwide recession, broke the banks, cost everyone a fortune in bail-outs and … oh, hang on, that wasn’t us.

  • Jim

    The letter is a bit timid in, as you say, avoiding any mention of ‘regional’. In response the government will probably just say that any local authorities who do want to work together on cross-boundary issues are free to do so and leave it at that.

    • Roger

      Is there actually any problem with breaking away from the ‘regional’ view of planning? It only came about because of the overall construct government put in place as a way of imposing their will on the country via their government offices. These totally artificial ‘regions’ were always going to be disliked and distrusted if only for their failure to address the lack of any connection between the areas that were lumped together via the regional government sysytem.
      I hope this group of experts are offering government a clear and postive way of avoiding the vacuum that now exists through the loss of the RSS. A national spatial strategy would be a very good start so that we can begin to join the various bits of the country together in a far better way than currently exists. We also need to offer a view on what various parts of the country are for and encourage these to develop and prosper. Everything seems to happen by accident rahter than design.

  • Pingback: Strategic plans for local people - Saving special places - The RSPB Community

  • LoisInLakeland

    When I read about this in the FT yesterday, described as an “unlikely” alliance. the words of Mandy Rice-Davies came to mind – “well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” Professional associations can’t afford to have lots of unemployed members ‘cos then they can’t pay their subs, go to conferences etc etc …. for too long they have wasted time pointing out why they are different, funny how that changes when threatened eh?

    • Tom

      They are not claiming to be the same at all. They are saying that they think a Reg……larger-than-local level of planning is necessary to deal with issues that go beyond individual LPA boundaries, and potentially cover many LPAs.

      Saying you think a particular system is the best way to work is not the same as saying you are the same as everyone else who supports such a system.

      I do think its far past time for a national spatial strategy, we’ve needed one for years, perhaps this government may actually start to listen and work on one.

  • Alan

    LDF’s will proceed where there is strong, local leadership. Now that evidence-based RSS’s have gone and where there is there is weak local leadership that prefers to blame others for difficult decisions, we can expect procrastination through time and money wasting reviews of housing numbers etc. This is a tragedy for people without homes and for the economy.

  • Pingback: Elemental » Interesting links for August 4th through August 10th

  • Trevor Dennington

    With diverse organisations concentrating on specific aspects of the Conservatives’ Open Source Planning proposals, the real major issue is being overlooked.
    The proposal to do away with planning appeals other than on grounds of (a) decision not in accord with Local Plan or (b) due process not followed, is an absolute affront to Democracy which, if suggested by New Labour, would have seen Tory and Lib Dem MPs waving their Order Papers like people demented.
    It is a fundamental principle of democracy that one always has a right of appeal from the decisions of unelected bureaucrats. The alternative amounts to STALINISM ! When planning officers take over 80% of decisions on planning applications with no input from elected members, and when Other Material Considerations are a factor in the decision undef 38(6) of the 2004 Act, no appeal from their decision amounts to State totalitarianism which one might expect from New Labour but not from the Tories or Lib Dems. It is outrageous, contrary to planning law, and needs to be torpedoed before the Law of Unintended Consequences takes effect.

    • Tom

      We have a development plan (LDF), which is produced with full (some think too much) public consultation and input, which is approved by duly elected local members, which sets planning policy. We have applications which are determined by duly elected local members in accordance with that plan, or under delegated authority, the criteria for such delegation being set by those elected members, and with the elected members being informed of all applications and (usually) having the option of calling in those applications for determination by committee if they choose.

      I’m failing to see the similarities to STALINISM (excessive capitalisation intended).

      In fact I’d go so far to say that decisions which are taken by an unelected body such as the Planning inspectorate, which can override the decisions taken by duly elected local members is undemocratic.

    • Roger

      Tom points out that councils have some form of policy document, be it a Local Plan or an LDF and that this should be the basis for all decision making thereby giving it democratic legitimacy (at least that’s my understanding of his comments). Unfortunately, the ideal situation of members ‘owning’ the LP or LDF is seldom the case and many will go in to bat on behalf of an objector or even an applicant totally ignoring the adopted policies of the council – every application on its merits and all that. Suggesting that there is a problem with 80% plus delegation to officers suggests that the policies contained in an LP or LDF our somehow disconnected from members and imposed on them. This may well be the gut feeling of many elected members. If so it means that there must be something seriously wrong with the way we do planning policy.

  • Roger

    If we are now moving into a new age of permitted development, with community right to build etc, should the government not go further and sweep away the ‘every application on its merits’ argument? This would allow councils to identify those areas considered unsuitable for certain types of development in principle, thereby removing the uncertainty and avoiding all those tiresome planning appeals. Just a thought.

Latest jobs Jobs web feed