Comment on Planning Policy Statement Consultation from CLG

The consultation period relating to a proposed consolidation of a number of Government Planning Policy Guidance and Statements comes to an end on 28 July.  This consolidation is an attempt by Government to streamline and simplify Government Policy relating to non-housing development in towns and the countryside in order to stimulate economic development and provide developers with more certainty as to the eventual outcome of Planning Applications.

The ministerial forward by Margaret Beckett emphasises that “development plans need to have clear proactive, proportionate and flexible policies aimed at supporting the start up and growth of businesses, attracting inward investment and increasing employment particularly in deprived areas”.  Regrettably it singularly fails to do this.

The planning system is a key lever the Government has to contribute towards improving economic performance but it is recognised in the introduction to the proposed policy consolidation that “if it is not based on an understanding of the needs of business it can also represent a barrier to employment and productivity growth”.  Whilst recognising all of this the consultation, entitled Planning for Prosperous Economies, completely misses the point when it comes to establishing policy for areas such as the North East, much of which is considered to be “disadvantaged”. 

In general terms the consolidation of a number of different policy statements is clearly to be welcomed but it does not go far enough.  All planning policy is linked in some way or another and there is certainly a requirement for all the relevant issues to be consolidated into one document but by omitting housing which is an integral part of planning for a prosperous economy and at the same time referring to and yet not fully engaging separate policies in relation to climate change appears to be an opportunity missed.  It is also relevant to note that this is the third consultation in less than 2 years on the same subject.

The problem will all of this is that the Market which drives economic prosperity is at the bottom of the process not where it should be, at the top.  Instead we have Statements of Principle, Regional Spatial  Strategies, Local Development Frameworks establishing policy based on market information which is always by definition going to be out of date.  Whilst a need for flexibility is recognised, in practice when faced with a judgement call that does not fit into the proscribed boxes the system becomes confused in considering all the relevant aspects.  In the end the matter becomes process driven, success being measured by the proper application of process rather than on the end result of bricks and mortar on the ground. 

In the North East we are desperately in need of a more relaxed attitude to development of all sorts.  The legacy of Enterprise Zones has on the whole been a good one and similarly, so have the results of the Development Corporations.  Both these Government initiatives concentrated upon delivery of investment in specific geographic areas.  It is now inconceivable to think of the North East without developments such as Newcastle Business Park, Team Valley, Sunderland Enterprise Park and Riverside Park, Middlesbrough.  The cultural benefits delivered by Newcastle’s East Quayside and Stockton’s Riverside Park, both of which brought life back to their respective rivers is unquestioned.  How did this happen?  It happened because planning policy was less stringent and there were less hurdles to cross.  Put simply, they demonstrated a time when Government was prepared to relax its myriad of rules and programmed itself to say “yes” trusting entrepreneurs, investors and businesses in this region to deliver.

The Government should find mechanisms to enable those circumstances to return.