Forum Brief: Planning Bill

Lord Rooker has unveiled a new planning bill designed to speed up approval for new business developments.

The planning minister said the current system is "a barrier to progress" and said the much anticipated bill would streamline the approval process, making it faster and easier to gain planning consent.

Forum Response: Country Land and Business Association

Oliver Harwood, head of rural economy at the CLA, said: "We welcome the announcement of a new 'Loss Payment' for all victims of compulsory purchase. This acknowledges the principle that people who have their property taken from them against their will should be entitled to an additional payment to compensate them for the inconvenience and stress involved. We will be putting reasoned arguments to the government for the proposed level of payment to owners - set at 7.5 per cent, subject to a cap of £75,000 - to be increased.

"However we note with concern the Bill's reduction of the necessary safeguards for householders and businesses facing speculative proposals for compulsory purchase orders by local authorities. Currently, if a local authority seeks to acquire someone's land by compulsory purchase, it must prove that there is a good reason for it.

"The Bill proposes the removal of significant checks and balances, by allowing an authority to buy land anywhere if it thinks that the acquisition 'will facilitate the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement on or in relation to the land'. This is a reduction of the protection that statute affords people's rights in a property-owning democracy. We will be seeking changes in the Bill.

"Householders and businesses are still awaiting the result of the Law Commission's study into a broad-based reform of compulsory purchase. It is unfortunate that this Bill contains no commitment to further reform, to bring statute (which goes back to 1845) up to date. This further work properly forms part of the reform package, and must be brought forward at the earliest possible date. We see no reason why these further important elements should not be incorporated into the Bill as it passes through parliament."

Forum Response: Institute of Directors

A spokesman for the IoD told ePolitix.com: "Whilst we support any moves to speeding up the process - delays are certainly a big problem for our members - we are not convinced that the proposals are heading in the right direction. Significant changes to the system potentially have serious costs with no obvious benefits. The current system needs to be improved but does not require major alterations."

Forum Response: Local Government Association

Councillor Jane Chevis, chair of the Local Government Association Planning Executive, said: "A planning system that has no direct democratic mechanism for people to voice concerns over plans that affect them on a county and regional wide basis is a recipe for bad and unpopular development.

"People will not understand why their counties have been left out of the planning process despite their key role in balancing the social, economic and environmental well being of their areas.

"One Bill promises to give people a choice in a referenda whether to have elected regional government, while simultaneously another bill proposes bypassing county councils in favour of those very regional bodies, regardless of whether they will ever become elected assemblies.

"The government has prejudged the voice of people across the regions and counties of England and risks creating a planning system that is less accountable to the people it affects, and which would therefore inevitably lead to less popular and poorer developments."

Forum Response: Countryside Agency

Terry Robinson, head of planning and sustainable development at the Countryside Agency, said: "The time is ripe for the planning system to play an increasing role in encouraging development that people can welcome, rather than fending off poor quality new building. This new Bill should create the means to shape a sustainable future for people and communities in the countryside.

"We are pleased that the Bill introduces improvements to the planning system that the Countryside Agency has been calling for. These will lead to positive planning that challenges developers to do better and strong involvement for communities to focus on where they want to be in the future."

Forum Response: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

Nicholas Cole, spokesman for RICS, told ePolitix.com: "RICS welcomed the announcement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. This is an excellent opportunity to address the root causes of slowness and inefficiency in our planning system, and introduce a sustainable, speedy and transparent regime.

"We particularly support the structural changes. The move towards a robust regional planning tier, based on spatial strategies, is a positive move that will have benefit the planning and delivery of much needed housing and transport. The proposed local arrangements also add flexibility. Allowing joint plans between neighbouring local authorities should particularly help smaller, rural planning authorities that may not have the resources to complete or review the local development framework alone. Overall, this will be a much simpler hierarchy of plans.

"Although the shape of the planning system is set to evolve for the better, RICS urges the government to consider how best to utilise the existing skills and expertise of the county councils. This will be particularly important in the interim period, as regional spatial strategies are developed.

"RICS is also very interested by the idea of simplified planning zones (SPZs). Through relaxation of certain planning controls in specified areas, a scheme running for up to 10 years could play a major role in encouraging economic and social regeneration. However, this should not be achieved at the expense of the local environment, and must be part of a package of measures, including fiscal incentives and community involvement.

"The Bill is fairly skeletal, with much of the 'meat' to be added through subsequent regulation. Therefore, as it stands, the core objectives of the SPZs are not clear. Are they solely to promote business and economic development, or are they aimed at also improving the social and environmental fabric? Nor is there detail of the extent of the relaxation of planning restrictions, or the controls that will remain in place. These details will determine the scheme's success or failure.

"The changes to the compulsory purchase regime are less extensive, and a further Bill can be expected some time in the future. However, what is included in the Bill is very strongly supported. The Bill should result in far wider powers becoming available to local authorities to use CPO powers to improve the economic, social or environmental well-being of their area. This will be a great boon to their regeneration efforts, and allow land to be assembled to bring forward much needed housing developments. In addition, the amount of compensation received by both owners and occupiers is also set to increase. This should reduce costly delays, and represent a fairer payment to those affected."

Forum Response: Countryside Alliance

Richard Burge, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance: "This Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is underpinned by a desire to promote sustainable development in the countryside. We welcome this and are fully behind plans to modernise a system that has had the rural community on the back foot for years.

"We will, however, be monitoring closely the way in which affordable housing is served by this Bill. Steps also need to be taken to protect small community groups and democratically elected councils themselves from the financial muscle of developers who use the cost of the legal appeal process as a means of removing opposition to plans.

"I believe we are 'getting there', slowly but surely, but one of our main priorities must be to ensure that those who live in rural areas can afford to buy any new build and are not undercut by second home-owners".

Forum Response: The Woodland Trust

A spokesman for The Woodland Trust told ePolitix.com: "We welcome the fact that the bill puts sustainable development at the heart of the planning system. However, we remain concerned about the proposals for major infrastructure projects and simplified planning zones."

Forum Response: British Retail Consortium

Bill Moyes, Director General of the British Retail Consortium said: "Retailers welcome the reform proposals in the planning bill and the investment of £350 million. However, we are concerned that grants based on performance targets are unilkely to be invested where they are needed most. Therefore, progress in store development and regeneration projects may be hampered.

Departmental Response

Lord Rooker, the planning minister, told ePolitix.com: "The planning system is crying out for change.Too many councils fail to meet their decision making targets. They're plans are out of date and no longer reflect the realities many communities face.

"The level of uncertainty in the system makes the outcome of decision making unclear that this hurts business. Planning needs to reconnect with people."