The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies

Transfer staff if your appeals team ?

Haven't we seen this before, when Regional Planning approaches were changed in the 1990's? At that time, lots of authorities relied on increasingly dated plans, and as the last post suggests, appeal rates increased.
Isn't the alternative for authorities to enter a coalition themselves to prepare voluntary sub-regional strategies?

Download 10-05-27 - SofS to Council Leaders - Abolition of Regional Strategies.pdf (size 169Kb) This file has been virus tested and is safe to use

At Bolton we have just submitted our Core Strategy for examination. And while I suspect Eric Pickles may not fully appreciate that RSS does contain rather more than just housing figures and gypsy site, removing it asap without recognising how it forms a critical part of the whole planning process is at best naive. It will be hard to demonstrate conformity and how the plan works from a regional approach when RSS is no longer in place! Also housing targets such as previously developed land and numbers have been set in RSS and not considered through options during Core Strategy development - might this cause problems and challenges? We need firm and definitive advice from PINS and CLG immediately. Yes authorities may well do sub-regional work but what weight will this have and what processes does it need to go through. At least one GM district is putting its Core Strategy on hold - to see whether any commonsense appears...I forsee huge delays and uncertainties. Given financial pressure many authorities cannot afford to lose work done so far, or step back. Hard to see how any of this will bring forward delivery.

Better still...Where does it leave you if you've spent a huge amount of time and effort negotiating the LDF process and progressing your Core Strategy to Independent Examination and you're awaiting the Inspector's Report when all this erupts?

We've also yet to find out what is meant by 'a presumption in favour of sustainable development'.

I agree with Peter - I think PINS are going to be busy, as are the Courts.

Section 79 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 sets out the Secretary of State’s reserve power to revoke a regional strategy where the Secretary of State thinks it, necessary or, expedient to do so.

But my understanding is that this letter has not done this formally, just set out the intention to do so? Therefore whilst the letter is a material consideration in decision-making, the RSS surely still forms part of the statutory development plan? for the time being at least!

As Daniel says, the Courts are going to be busy!

Instead of cry on each others shoulders in lamenting the (soon to be?) passing of the RSS process, shouldn't all you experts be taking the initiative and coming up with what you see as a sound replacement?

For all of its time consuming complexity, the actual process and the evidence it produced remains valid. The millstone around the neck of the process was the term 'regional'. Few, if any, of us in rural areas at least, feel any connection with EU doctrine of regions. These artificial boundaries were imposed on us by Europhiles who saw the EU super state as their ultimate goal. We understand counties in this country not regions.

Come up with a logical strategic planning system, that acknowledges the character of the areas and communities it is attempting to plan for – I think they used to be called County Structure Plans – and you might just find the vast majority supports and promotes its goals. Produce a national spatial plan for the big stuff and leave the rest of us alone to get on with planning for people.

So a mixed picture of interesting views from around the country (though I think it is a bit unfair to suggest we are all a bit LMF as the contribution from Lincolnshire appears to be saying) but does anyone know when we will get more concrete policy, regulations etc because whether we like the changes or not putting resources into more abortive work is not desirable or beneficial to our employers or communities. By the way does anyone know how we work out a five year supply now?

In terms of the experts taking the initiative and coming up with a sound replacement, I believe that the RTPI, TCPA and POS are working hard on this as we speak. What remains to be seen is how this expert advice is taken.

The real problem here is not the removal of the RSS per se, but the complete lack of any strategic-level alternative and the short-sighted view that the major issues of housing shortage, infrastructure delivery and climate change (to name but a few) can be delivered through a system, which seemingly seeks only to pander to those 'locals' how are able to shout the loudest.

I commend this article to you... http://urbanregen.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/mixed-messages-on-housing/

You may be interested to read my second post on the MIxed Messages emerging from CLG.

http://urbanregen.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/more-mixed-housing-messages/

I think M Eccles question, "By the way does anyone know how we work out a five year supply now?" is particularly telling. I don't know the answer but he and others in his position had better find out fast because without a five year supply LPAs are at risk of being deemed "entirely permissive" by default, and not under any new "Open Souce"legislation but rather under the current version of PPS3.

Some LPAs are continuing to submit Core Strategies or other DPDs since Eric Pickles letter was published, with more submissions due in next few weeks. Various others are currently at Examination where Inspectors appear to be seeking views of the relevant LPA and other participants on the letter but continuing with Examinations. Bristol and Castle Point Inspectors are rescheduling Core Strategy appearances on housing to later in the Examination in hope of further clarification from DCLG Ministers on process/timing of abolition of RSS. Minister has the power to revoke whole or part of RSS (posted above) - needless to say some clarity on whether just housing numbers would go initially, or the whole RSS would be helpful ! We may have to wait for emergency budget on 22nd June for confirmation - expectation is lots of announcements to coincide with that.

Some advice from GO (edited for brevity) to St Helens who are just about to submit - though now we see the risks or proceeding as very high!

"Our advice would be not to delay unless there are issues which you consider that your LPA would wish to change its stance upon or that there is unacceptable soundness risk. It is hoped that the issue of the abolition of RSS will be dealt with by PINS in a pragmatic way.   The Plan is the LPAs assessment of what is best for the area based upon all available evidence around housing etc.    Under the new localism agenda it is for the Council to demonstrate that by and large the local community/stakeholders support the overall strategy by whatever means, in terms of evidence, that's available to them.  As you know, we are awaiting further advice from CLG on transitional matters, but in the meantime here are some thoughts on the issues that you raise:
 
(i) not covering areas that we are presently reliant on RSS for:  presumably the LPA could add any brief references in proposed changes on essential areas that you were relying on RSS for- we'd need more clarification on this really.  References in the CS to RSS policy could be changed via the proposed changes document.  However, please bear in mind that any big/fundamental changes to the Plan would have to be consulted upon, and SA would also have to be considered.
 
(ii)  Housing numbers:  St Helens are a Growth Point area and currently include Growth Point figures in the Plan, so you have put your own housing figures in the Plan and are not just relying on RSS.  I guess the issue would be whether, if GP funding is subsequently pulled as part of the spending review, whether you could meet the figures outlined in your GP Programme of Development.  However, if you are content with the figures put forward, there is no reason to delay unless you know, for example, that the Council would seek to change them and had the justification/evidence for that change.  Would allowing some flexibility in your position in the Plan assist, for example, by saying what would happen if GP funding was pulled?  The housing figures are already separated with/without GP so this may assist."
 

An interesting development yesterday - the Government reissued PPS3. Its purpose seems to have been to remove references to housing densities and change the definition of PDL.

It states para 32. "The level of housing provision should be determined taking a strategic, evidence-based approach that takes into account relevant local, sub-regional, regional and national policies and strategies achieved through widespread collaboration with stakeholders."

Paragraph 68 - Determining planning applications still says:

"Local Planning Authorities should take into consideration the policies set out in Regional
Spatial Strategies and Development Plan Documents, as the Development Plan, as well as
other material considerations."

As it post dates Eric Pickles' letter - I would have thought there is a strong argument that it has slightly more material weight when it comes to the approach LPAs should be taking with regards to housing delivery now.

Thoughts?

My thoughts - what a shambles! You make the mistake of looking for logic in this whole exercise. 'They' do not know what our approach to housing delivery should be now, so how on earth should we?

DCLG websites list of PPS's no longer includes PPS11 (RSS), which has now been moved to archived content and labelled 'cancelled'.

However, we have a new PPS3 will numerous references to the RSS. To release a new PPS, with no transitional arrangements in place and having cancelled RSS, whilst still making reference to them smacks of a complete lack of any common sense to this whole sorry process.

Surely a letter outlining the density and garden grabbing alterations would have been enough!

Surely a bit of calm discussion would have been a better way forward? Ill thought out, knee-jerk reactions as per usual. If I proceeded like this in my role I would expect to be fired.

Adam Roake response to my question echoes the observation of "Another Planner" concerning the absence of logic. However my question was prompted by my uncertainty as to which figure to put into the calculation for our annual requirement. Since posing the question the advice from our GO (the same advising Jonathan Noad) is that unless we ahve compelling evidence to the contrary we should stick with the numbers given us by RSS, but that with regard to delivery concerns and our housing trajectory we are now free to back load growth - rather than have a flat-line trajectory. We have always felt that a flexible approach was essential anyway but if our GO has it right - perhaps at last we can have one.

re M Eccles latest, so your GO advice (and you would hope they had some idea!) is that RSS targets are abolished but still use the figures anyway! Makes perfect sense then.

As for back-loading growth, do you have a robust reason for doing so? I would have thought merely wanting some flexibility might not get you over the line.

Re the last question - do we have a robust reason for doing so? - Yes we do thanks.

PINS guidance to Inspectors just published:

Download PINS advice_rs_forthcoming_abolition.pdf (size 34Kb) This file has been virus tested and is safe to use

Just back to the 5 year supply issue, presumably any back loading of housing numbers would have to be done through a core strategy rather than an annual trajectory done through an AMR? If through a CS then it would clearly take a great deal longer to sort out and doesn't help with the short term position of not having a 5 year supply. What was the specific GONW advice on this?

Re 5 year supply, that was kind of my thinking. All very well to back-load but you've still got to deal with the first five years, which probably becomes seven or eight when you take the time-lag into account between start and finish of the CS process.

We are dealing with our five (and 10 and 15 years) supply through our Core Strategy (based on our SHLAA evidence) and we have shown an approach (not contested at PO) to start below the annual average requirement and then to move above it. The GONW advice was pretty much as I set out in my 11:43 post - given in a conversation, so quite brief - are they wrong?

Interestingly PINS were in touch earlier today to give a heads up that a recent "garden-grabbing" appeal against refusal for 2 dwellings in a back agrden is probably to be re-opened given, we understand, the contents of Eric Pickles letter. So cannot wait to deal with that one.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the new PPS3. It seems to me that although back gardens are now defined as green field instead of brown field, if they lie within settlement boundaries, where the DPD says that development is acceptable in principle, what has changed? Surely, an application for new dwellings which are in keeping with the character of the area, such as detached houses in an area of detached houses, complies with DPD policies and should be permitted. The object of the amendment to PPS3 must be to prevent what we used to call "town cramming" not to prevent all new development on urban back gardens.

I have a real conundrum. We don't have an "Option 1" figure as such - it is essentially the same as the RSS. Our evidence is showing that our RSS target is unachievable anyway as we can't back load our housing trajectory in any way which is realistic and achievable. It looks like we will need to challange our RSS/Option 1 figures on the basis of this evidence. Is anyone else doing this, or already done so? If so, with what joy?

Peter Village QC's opinion, as reported in Regen and REnewal, on Mr Pickles letter is instructive.

http://www.regen.net/bulletins/Regen-Daily-Bulletin/News/1009441/QC-warns-ministers-advice/?DCMP=EMC-Regen%20Daily%20Bulletin

I think it underlines the importance of a robust and reasoned housing target, even it isn't the same as the RSS target, and a identified five, ten and fifteen year land supply to meet that target, because you will get challenged by developers.

And surely if your target is "unachievable" that can only be because you haven't identified and allocated enough housing land.

There is plenty of land with pp - over 10 years supply at last years build rate, and that is the issue. Developers are simply not building enough houses to meet the supply requirement. My assertion that the target is unachievable is based on a increase in completions based on the NHPAU growth predictions, and then 5 years sustained delivery at peak historic volumes. Even then we will be at least 12,000 houses short. Land is only a part of the issue, developer ability and willingness to deliver is a greater problem

Aside from the PINS guidance and the QC's opinion, I think that the next few months are going to be particualry interesting. What we are looking at is a fundamental clash between yet to amended planning laws and the government. It will be interesting to see what the first test cases are and how they end up being resolved.

Looking at the issue of build rates, colleagues in the agency community are vey positive about smallish sites in the region of a couple of hundered dwellings and not too infrastructure heavy. Therefore, the current difficulties could arise from the last generation of strategic super sites.

You may have seen that Eric Pickles has made his first Secretary of State planning decision. Ironically it involves 299 new homes on a Green Belt site in Essex and revolved around whether Thurrock had an identified five year land supply. Pickles granted permission.

You can read my analysis, not pleasant for LPAs, and access both SoS letter and Inspector's report on my blog at http://urbanregen.wordpress.com/

Hi All,

On 6 July 2010, Eric Pickles MP confirmed at the Local Government Association’s annual conference that the government had laid the necessary statutory instrument to formally revoke regional strategies. This together with new government guidance issued to local authorities on how to address the changes, should now be taken on board by councils and planning inspectors.

The LGA Group has been instrumental in encouraging government to provide clarity to the sector on this issue and therefore welcome the publication of this guidance. We recognise that further details will be needed on how other areas of the new system of planning will look like and we will be working closely with government and other sector and professional bodies on this.

In the interim, if you have questions or issues related to decentralised planning you feel are not covered in the CLG advice note or if you simply wish to feedback any immediate thoughts or reactions we would be grateful if you could add your comments here.

Link to text of Eric Pickles speech at LGA Annual Conference 6 July 2010: 2010:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/speeches/newsroom/lgaconference2010

Link to webcast of Eric Pickles speech at LGA Annual Conference 6 July 2010:

http://connect.lga.public-i.tv/site/player/pl_v7.php?a=42652&t=0&m=wm&l=en_GB#indx

Link to all LGA Conference 2010 webcasts: http://www.lga.public-i.tv/core/

Link to letter from CLG's chief planner Steve Quartermain, contains transcript of parliamentary statement plus FAQs for local authorities:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1631904.pdf

All the best,
John.

Hi All,

Following the letter from Steve Quatermain, CLG on the 6th July announcing the revocation of the Regional Strategies, could anybody direct me to the Order that was laid before Parliament that actually brought the revocation into force? We have not been able to find a copy of the actual Order and our legal team is quite keen to have sight of it. I've emailed CLG but have yet to obtain a response...

Many thanks,

Ian

Hi All,

Following my request above, CLG have kindly informed me that the Order should be available on the OPSI website sometime next week.

Ian

Hi,

With reference to the above, has anyone found the legal order yet?

I have failed to find the order on either the OPSI or UK Parliament websites. I am writing a briefing note today for our Planning Management Team so would like to get my facts about the legal position right. I ahve e-mailed both websites and Steve Quartermain's office for clarification.

However I have just recieved the follwoing e-mail response from a officer at national archives in response to my OPSI query ...
"Dear Simon,

I have checked with a variety of sources including the Legal department at the Department for Communities and Local Government. They have confirmed that Eric Pickles made a statement before the house regarding Regional Spatial Strategies but that no order has actually been made."

I am therefore awaiting with interest the response from Steve Quartermain's office as if the above e-mail is correct then I assume that RSS's have in actual fact NOT yet been revoked.

Regards,
Simon

I too am still waiting for the appropriate order to appear! This is the response that I received on the 9th July from the Development Plans Team at CLG on the matter when asking about where I could view the revocation Order:

"The Order will appear on the OPSI website, there is just a time lag of a few working days between the Order being laid in Parliament and appearing on OPSI, I suggest you look at the site next week."

I like Simon am now a little nervous about the status of the revocation without sight of the actual Order! The statement from the National Archive is certainly a little worrying!

Ian,

I don't know who you have been in touch with at CLG. Alex Turner from the Development Plans team has just confirmed for me that: "The revocation of RSS was announced by parliamentary statement on 6 July. Abolition of RSS will be taken forward through the "Localism Bill" later this year."

Cheers,
John.

John,

Thanks for your reply. I had been led to believe that it was necessary for the revocation to be brought about through a formal Order being laid before Parliament (an approach that I thought was supported by my email from CLG and the press release at http://www.communities.gov.uk/newsstories/newsroom/1632132).

Is it actually the fact that the written ministerial statement forms the Order that revokes the Regional Strategies and that a written Order of the form of those found at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/feeds/SIfeed.xml is not required? I'd welcome some clarification.

As for my communication with CLG, I won't publish a name but it was somebody within the Development Plans Team...

Sorry - link to press release should read:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/newsstories/newsroom/1632132

John,

I don't think that from your repsonse that you / Alex have inderstood the issue. We all know what the secretary of state announced on the 6th July but in order for RSS to actually be abolished an order has to be laid before parliament under powers granted by s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

To quote Mr Pickles from the CLG website,
"An order laid in parliament today will revoke Regional Strategies with immediate effect."

There is no physical evidence of that order being made on either the UK Parliament website or the OPSI website which is the repository for all legislation.

On Thursday the OPSI representative replied to my e-mail see my post above and confdormed that they had contacted the legal section of the CLG who confirmed that no legal revocation order has been made.

I have just returned to the office and found the following e-mail from the UK Parliament website,
"Dear Mr Latimer

Thank you for your enquiry, which related to the revocation of regional spatial strategies on 6th July.

I have looked on our internal database, but was unable to find any evidence of revocation orders having been laid before Parliament.

However, there was an announcement by the Minister, Eric Pickles, in a Written Ministerial Statement on this subject on 6th July. This statement is available on the UK Parliament website at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100706/wmstext/100706m0001.htm#10070623000013. "

The e-mail continues by suggesting that I contact Steve Quartermain's office for further information. I did send such an e-mail on Tursday but perhaps unsuprisingly I have not yet made any reply.

There are therefore to my mind several possible explanations:
1) The legal order has been made its just that officials at both websites cannot find it or don't have a copy;
2) The due legal process has been followed and perhaps does not require a physical order to laid down - however this is not how I read any of the written material I have seen but I am not a legal expert;
3) There has been some form of c up which CLG are hoping will go unoticed; or finally
4) The order does have to be made for RSS to be revoked but this has not yet happened and both the CLG material letter etc have been worded in an extremely misleading way - hopefully this latter alternative is not correct.

Either way I simply want an answer to the question, have RSS's been legally revoked or not and under what due process and where is the evidence to prove it?

Rregards,
Simon

I've discussed your questions with CLG:

Regional Strategies have been revoked, but there will be no order.

On 6 July, the Secretary of State revoked Regional Strategies under s79(6) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, by Parliamentary Statement. Now that they have been revoked, Regional Strategies no longer form part of the development plan for the purpose of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The abolition of Regional Strategies will be taken forward through the "Localism Bill" later this year.

The Parliamentary Statement can be found in the following link:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100706/wmstext/100706m0001.htm#10070623000003

John,

Many thanks for this, and for chasing it up.

Its a shame that in all the centralist (note not localist...) material and propaganda issued of late on Regional Spatial Strategies no one thought carefully about the wording and terminology being used and no one to my knowledge actually used the phrase 'revoked by parliamentary statement'.

Come to think of it, this is the least of our worries. Its a shame that no one has managed to disuade the Government from, before it had any viable thought out alternative, replacing a perfectly reasonable if imperfect regional planning system with chaos, confusion and a charter for nimbyism.

Simon,

Do also watch out because although the SoS has revoked them, RSSs might still be material considerations according to the guidance issued with Steve Quartemain's letter. Policy as it were by the back door!

This is the link to the letter and guidance http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1631904.pdf
and this is the link to my blog, which you may find of interest.

Good luck deciding whether to forge ahead with LDFs or wait for the Localism Bill.

Adam Roake

Doh!
http://urbanregen.wordpress.com/

Adam Roake

Thanks Adam,

You make a good point and despite its brevity we will all need to revisit and scrutinise the q&a guidance with some care.

To be honest the whole RSS business is for some strategic / policy planners such as myself immensley demotivating and dispiriting.

The Yorkshire and Humber RSS emerged out of a couple of years worth of extensive research, really useful collaborative working among planners, stakeholders and local politicians and via very extensive engagement and public consultation which culminated in a costly but exacting and rewarding EIP.

Yes there were tensions and disagreements during the process and some of the final content of the draft RSS did reflect a degree of compromise. However to characterise the whole process as one of central imposition and failure is just something we as professional planners must not let go unchallenged.

The only part of the process that was truly a centralist imposition was the ability of the secretary of State at the 'final hurdle' to make modifications to change things such as the final housing targets without re-opening the EIP. But this represents just a tiny fraction of the work and the procedural time line. The phrase throwing the baby out with the bath water comes to mind .....

I am sorry but I just do not buy the whole idea of a combination of localism toghether with a general requirement for local authorities and stakeholders to co-operate as a substitute for proper strategic planning nor do I see local communities signing up in their droves for housing development on the back of some aditional pennies going into Council coffers.

Regards,
Simon

I assume that a revoked RSS can only be the adopted RSS not a draft? This is actually an important consideration in the East of England where a review had commenced but the Minister has specifically referred to the revoked RSS.

Just a thought, returning to the topic earlier in this thread. Is anyone contemplating reverting to their draft RSS housing target (the so-called "option 1" figure) as an interim measure pending evidence base work and modelling to determine a final target?

Folks - we (Aylesbury Vale) were just at the end of the examination into our Core Strategy when the announcements started to come. As we are in a growth area (and due to the way in which the RSS was done in the SE) we do not have any option 1 figure. If of interest you might wish to see how we are dealing with this - go to www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk and follow the link on the front page to Aylesbury Vale Core Strategy Examination, and follow the links to inspectors interim report (the counsil rep is the fourth in the list). It might help on the way in which we are moving, and more will become public for our Council meeting on the 8 Sept.

On interim solutions...a phasing idea...

We were so close but pulled our Council's consideration of our proposed submission Core Strategy after Eric Pickles' letter. We want to get it back on track now.

But we don't want to commit our small market town communities to whacking great urban extensions with 15 years' worth of allocations. Our former proposals for 800ish homes at each town were very unpopular and are politically a no-go given that the RSS has gone. And why should we commit these communities for the next 15 years, effectively removing their ability to plan their own growth through bottom-up new style Local Plans?

So what we're tentatively thinking is that we progress with a plan to 2027, but phase the growth. We'd commit fully for the first 5 or 6 years, say 300-400 homes at each town, then have a holding policy (get-out clause) for the post 2017 period saying that these homes won't be allowed to come forward until there has been further work with communities in these areas. Perhaps a hatched-in area on the proposals map for the pre-2017 allocations (phase 1), which would form part of a bigger edged area for rest of the 15 years (phase 2).

Will this work? Is this meeting the PPS3 requirements for a 5 year and 15 year supply? Would this be sound? Are inspectors going to see this as a workable compromise given that the world is changing?
Would love your thoughts!

Localism must not miss the bigger picture on planning

A uniquely wide-ranging group of 29 national bodies have written to the Communities and Local Government Secretary, Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, to urge national and local government to work with them to ensure that strategic planning – planning at the ‘larger-than-local level’ - is embedded in any reform of the planning system under the new agenda for localism.

for the press release and a copy of the letter see:
http://www.rtpi.org.uk/item/3937/23/5/3