Planning for Britain’s rural future
In his ‘Review of Rural Economy and Affordable Housing’, Matthew Taylor looked at how the planning system could bring a positive, lasting legacy of places in which people actually wanted to live. Rather than fixating on how many new homes were needed, his report considered how to manage and plan for development that was inevitable and necessary; whatever the precise timescale or numbers. For many Taylor’s Review was regarded as a blueprint, setting out the steps necessary for the planning system to play its role in realising a vision for the future of the countryside. More recently, the Government has revealed its own reforms and vision of the planning system. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – launched in March 2012 with practice guidance issued from March 2014 – attempts to ensure the planning system enhances and improves places (‘rather than simply being about scrutiny’). Is this framework enabling local authorities and rural communities to plan for their future? Jessica Sellick investigates.
Rural communities do not stand still, they change whether development takes place or not. While for some people rural sights and sounds are preferable to living in a city any day, it is becoming much harder for them to own their own home, grow up and find a job where they live, keep warm and access local services delivered by real people. At the same time, economic growth is central Government’s top priority. A range of measures have been introduced to tackle what Government believes are the underlying reasons for slow growth of the countryside economy: lack of business premises, slow internet connections and spread out and fragmented business communities. Is the spatial planning process placing the needs of the land, communities and people firmly at the centre to address these economic and social challenges?
The statutory planning system has been described by Planning Minister Nick Boles as having the potential for both “enormous good” and “great harm”…planning is one of the most “creative”, “selfless” and “visionary” roles in public life but could also be “destructive and narrow-minded”. Since the Coalition Government was formed it has been attempting to simplify the planning system. The NPPF forms a key part of these reforms, reducing the number of policy pages and intending to make the system less complex and more accessible for local planning authorities and communities. Every local planning authority in England is now required to have a clear, up to date Local Plan, which conforms to the NPPF, meets local development needs, and reflects local people’s views of how they wish their community to develop. Neighbourhood Plans are a new way for communities to choose where they want homes, shops and offices to be built, have their say on what those new buildings should look like and what infrastructure should be provided. Together, the Local Plan and any neighbourhood plans should form the overall development plan for the local area.
There has been much enthusiasm from communities wishing to draw up Neighbourhood Plans (NP). According to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), in May 2014 more than 1,000 communities had submitted an application to their local planning authority to designate an area to be covered by a NP. More than 80 communities had undertaken community consultation to build an evidence base for their NP; more than 40 communities had submitted plans to their local planning authority; and 13 had gone to a public referendum and passed. On the one hand, the concept and development of NP could be viewed as an attempt to overcome what Matthew Taylor described as the ‘sustainability trap’, recognising where rural communities want their place to be rather than writing it off as unsustainable within a settlement hierarchy and disallowing development. On the other hand, getting a NP through the external examination process can prove challenging, with some failing inspection altogether and/or the Decision Statement making a series of recommendations for the community to take up. How approved NPs (which are being developed on a case-by-case piecemeal basis) will operate alongside the policies and targets contained in the relevant Local Plan are also being worked through.
Nowhere were these questions and issues more apparent than at a recent Rural Services Network (RSN) event on ‘Neighbourhood and the Broader Planning Agenda’. Here 25+ delegates debated whether Neighbourhood Planning is: (a) promoting local democracy (b) costs too much – who pays? – And (c) is a mechanism for supporting the wider rural economy. As well as providing a welcome opportunity to hear what’s happening up and down the country, for local authority representatives implementing the NPPF was seen to be enhancing local democratic decision making with officers across service areas utilising their professional skills. For community representatives, four issues were raised. Firstly, the size and scale of a given area proposed for a NP: will it bring parishes together and/or will parishes support and engage with a NP in a surrounding area? Secondly, how can parishes ensure front-loading community engagement builds capacity, interest and momentum (“ensuring those that shout the loudest aren’t the only ones listened to”?) Thirdly, how can parishes manage expectations, balancing ‘wish lists’ with local resources and legal limitations? Fourthly, does money drive activity? Local planning authorities estimate it costs £30,000 for communities to pay for support, examination and a public referendum of a NP. While the ‘Supporting Communities in Neighbourhood Planning’ programme (funded by DCLG and run by Locality) can provide direct support equivalent to £9,500 or grant payments equivalent of £7,000, there is still a funding gap that some communities are struggling to fill.
To see what can be learnt from a number of reports, policy initiatives and practice – from Taylor’s report to the NPPF – the Hastoe Group has launched a Rural Housing Policy Review. Chaired by Lord Richard Best of Godmanstone, the Review will look at the extent to which the recommendations of the reports have been implemented; what has changed and the emerging challenges– ‘where next for rural affordable housing?’
Taken as a collective, what is missing from these discussions is the relationship between planning reform and a broader economic development agenda (i.e., are the reforms actually helping people to find a job where they live? Are they creating local opportunities to undertake training and skills development? How can we ensure businesses and representatives from farming, manufacturing, tourism, services etc. also have a voice? ). Even Government priorities for making better use of existing buildings will see farmers able to turn unused agricultural buildings into “homes”. How can planning reforms be more directly aligned to the priorities and Enterprise Zones of Local Enterprise Partnerships, to the Rural Growth Network Pilot Programme and rural broadband and mobile infrastructure?
While the Hastoe Review is welcome, there remains a disconnect between national policies, local planning aspirations and the needs of communities and businesses in rural areas – is the countryside under unparalleled pressure (think concrete and bulldozers) or are we achieving sustainable rural places (think living, working, thriving)?
Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration; an economic development business working with communities, Government and business to help them achieve their full potential. She is currently supporting 5 existing LEADER partnerships and 2 new groups during Transition in 2014; providing Local Authorities with resources to measure their ‘Social Return on Investment’; and assisting Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) gather rural data and evidence. Jessica was part of the team that undertook a National Review of LEADER and research on where ‘Big Society’ initiatives are working well (both for Defra) and for Oxfam on farm poverty. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: www.roseregeneration.co.uk / Twitter: @RoseRegen
