Comments

on CLGs new planning guidance

19th Sept 2013
OVER-ARCHING PROBLEM In our view the over-arching problem with the new NPPG is the lack of integration between the various guidance topic areas and the resulting lack in holistic spatial planning. This is a fundamental barrier to the achievement of social, environmental and economic wellbeing, and relates in particular to the topics on: climate change, consultation and pre-decision matters, EIA, SA/SEA, neighbourhood planning, transport and viability. As far back as 2000 Government has recognised and recommended that EIA require fuller and earlier consultation and that the general public and non-statutory bodies concerned with environmental issues have particular knowledge and expertise to offer1. This was more or less repeated ten years later with a CLG report2, which states that the reason why the sustainability appraisal of public plans (SA/SEA) is neither efficient nor effective is due in large part to a lack of clear spatial focus and the lack of public engagement particularly through the use of stakeholder events. The Localism Act 2011 provides a fertile legal landscape for redressing this lack of integration, but whats lacking in the guidance is how to integrate the renewed drive for local autonomy and consultation with sustainability and health appraisal and spatial planning. Alongside this, the Government White Paper on Public Health Healthy Lives, Healthy People3 supports the Marmot Reviews4 assertion that climate change is one of the biggest public health threats of the 21st century. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 creates the legal position for this by establishing Health and Wellbeing Boards and stipulating the use of an expanded Joint Strategic Needs Assessment that considers the wider determinants of health, thereby making sustainability and health indivisible from one another. As a result the NPPF states as one of its Core Principles that planning should support local strategies to improve health. Your new guidance should more strongly encourage the integration of consultation and sustainability appraisal with spatial planning perhaps by saying something like: Sustainability appraisal, whether for plans or projects, can and should be substantially improved by seeking to integrate where possible with consultation (including the public) early on and throughout the planning process. This should be made clear throughout the relevant guidance topics, and particularly in the following areas: climate change, consultation and pre-decision matters, EIA, SA/SEA and neighbourhood planning. More specifically with regard to individual topic areas:
1 2

EIA Guide to Procedures (CLG, 2000) Towards a more efficient and effective SA/SEA in spatial planning (CLG, 2010) 3 Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Our strategy for Public Health in England (HM Govt, 2010) 4 Fair Society, Healthy People: The Marmot Review (Marmot, 2010)

PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION Fundamental to effective stakeholder engagement is ensuring that relevant stakeholders (or representatives if of unmanageable number) are involved. Yet under question 5 of Pre- application Consultation, the guidance provides a very limited and exclusive list of consultees. Your new guidance should make it clear that the list provided is not comprehensive and that consultation must always strive to include a fully representative body of stakeholders. CLIMATE CHANGE Under questions 3 and 7, you specify the use of Sustainability Appraisal, and state specifically that: "Sustainability appraisal should be used to test different spatial options in plans on emissions." See second paragraph above, which quotes from a 2010 CLG report stating the lack of clear spatial focus in most SA/SEAs. Your new guidance should make it clear that SA/SEA on its own is insufficient and requires both additional spatial planning and broader stakeholder consultation e.g. SA/SEA when used in spatial/masterplanning, should be integrated fully with the support of spatial planners/designers within a broader stakeholder engagement that starts early on in the plan-making process, continues throughout and includes local experts in health and sustainability. EIA Under question 7, you set out the publicity requirements for an EIA, which to paraphrase are that the Environmental Statement should be made public at the end of the process. This goes against your policy on consultation, which states that it should start early. See above comment on Climate Change and SA/SEA with regards to consultation. When applied on mixed-use housing developments, it is crucial that the broader consultation include both planners and designers as well as relevant experts in health and sustainability. NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING Under question 3, you explain very clearly when Neighbourhood Plans might require an SA or SEA, yet fail to address how sustainability appraisal is to be incorporated when there are differences of opinion as to what is sustainable and what is not, a situation that is likely to be common due to the interpretation of the legal wording significant environmental effect. Take, for example, the many hundreds of mixed-use housing developments of between 100- 500 homes. While the resource is generally not available for neighbourhood groups to undertake or commission formal sustainability appraisal, there are more cost-effective options available, which fit well with the Governments Red-tape Challenge. Your new guidance should encourage strong consideration of social and environmental issues as well as the use of innovative and bespoke sustainability appraisal processes where possible by inserting "such as" in front of SA/SEA in those instances when SEA is not a legal requirement. Daniel Black Marcus Grant Director, db+a Associate Professor, Healthy Urban Environments 07725 998 550 Deputy Director, WHO Collaborating Centre info@db-associates.co.uk Institute for Sustainability, Health and Environment (ISHE) University West of England