The Future of Local Plans
One of the Government’s many recent consultation documents was about the reform of local planning. The stated aims of its proposals were to
· reduce the complexity of Local Plans and to make their role and content clearer, with more use of digital tools, visualisation and mapping; and
· to reduce the time taken to develop Local Plans to a maximum of 30 months from initiation of the process to adoption, and to ensure that new Plans are developed every five years.
These are laudable objectives, and after the long process involved in Wandsworth’s Local Plan over the past three years, we were particularly interested in the proposals. But we found that they raise a number of concerns, which have been set out in a detailed response from the London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies. The proposals fail to take account of the well-established regime of Local Plans in London, centered on the London Plan which sets policies across London and provides the framework for each individual borough’s Local Plan. This is very different from the context in which most Councils - rural and urban - across the country operate; and a one-size-fits-all approach to planning across the whole country is unlikely to work effectively in the interests of local communities.
The proposals require that all plans should conform to detailed templates determined by central Government. While some standardisation would be welcome, there is no recognition that LPAs operate in very different contexts, and that what might be appropriate for one authority might not be for others.
There is a process prescribed in detail to achieve the required 30-month timetable, with three external ‘gateway assessments’ during the process, to be conducted by inspectors or by other assessors appointed by the Secretary of State. There is no mention of community or stakeholder engagement in these assessments, which would be paid for by each LPA. A new organisation would be set up to oversee the assessments, though its nature and purpose are not specified.
Despite a welcome emphasis on stakeholder and public engagement, the time allowed for consultation in the plan-making process is limited, and constraints are added to engagement with inspectors at the final examination.
There’s a welcome stress on the importance of annual monitoring. But a proposed list of metrics is highly generalised, and will not meet the needs of all areas. Nor is there any recognition of the need in different areas to gather regular monitoring data on specific policies and strategies.
The detailed proposals have been described by some commentators as a power grab by central Government, and not in the interests of local communities.