Recent Changes to the Structure and Organization of Local Government - Essay Example

. Recent Changes to the Structure and Organization of Local Government Abstract Planning is important because it is vital for all nations to have excellent, well planned and attractive communities in which people can live productively. However, it is also important that the planning processes be streamlined so that it is possible to respond to the needs for development relatively, quickly in the public interest. The recent housing crisis in Britain had focused attention on the shortcomings of the land development planning processes in the country and it was agreed that improvements were necessary. The elected labour government in the United Kingdom produced a new planning policy after much effort and consultation and this planning policy was designed to correct the shortcomings in planning processes at the local government and national levels. Spatial planning is an important part of the new planning policy which is in the process of being implemented at the local government level and improvements are still being considered by various local governments to bring their planning processes to be in line with the new policy. This brief essay presents a discussion about the changes to the structure and organisation of local governments in the United Kingdom from the perspective of planning policy implementation and the likely impact of these changes on town planning in Britain. Declaration I hereby certify that, except where cited in the text, this work is the result of the research carried out by the author of this study. The main content of the study which has been presented contains work that has not previously been reported anywhere. _____________________________________________ (Name and Signature of Author) September 2007 This write-up is submitted in fulfilment for the requirements related to a research paper on Local Government and Town Planning in the United Kingdom. Biographical Sketch Acknowledgements Contents Introduction 1 The Implementation of Policy related to Planning in the Local Government in Britain and its Impact on Town Planning 5 Conclusion 14 Bibliography / References 16 List of Figures Figure 1: The Existing Planning System in the United Kingdom 2 Figure 2: Development Control Performance for the United Kingdom 13 List of Tables Table 1: Planning Decisions of District Planning Authority by Speed of Decisions 12 Table 2: Housing Delivery Statistics for the United Kingdom 13 (This page intentionally blank) Introduction The election of a Labour Government in the United Kingdom in 1997 ushered in an era of sweeping reform related to the culture and context of government in the United Kingdom and a reform of the local government was also undertaken (Shaw, 2006, Pp. 3 – 7). It was sought to have a culture that promoted planning as a positive tool and to improve the experience of planning for all actors that could be affected by planning decisions. It was considered necessary to reform the system itself and to improve upon the manner in which planning was being carried out. It was deemed necessary to have citizen – centred governance at the heart of public service delivery and change was desired to be brought about from an organisational, institutional and sectoral perspective. The Local Government Modernisation Agenda (LGMA) offered a strong internal coherence and it was considered appropriate to provide high quality public services, promote an integrated delivery of services, improve upon the adoption of technological innovation and e – governance, enhance the role of leadership and to improve local accountability and confidence as well as to change central government relationships with the local government. The government sought to improve upon the planning system in local government because it was not delivering and the recent housing shortage exacerbated demands that the government do something to improve the system. Figure 1, which has been presented below illustrates the existing planning system in the United Kingdom. Figure 1: The Existing Planning System in the United Kingdom (H. M. Government, 2007, Pp. 6) Although major infrastructure projects are of considerable importance to the future of the nation, such projects are relatively few and most of the planning activity takes place at the local government level (H. M. Government, 2007, Chapter 6). Planning was considered as being of fundamental importance, because good planning is essential to build the thriving, healthy and sustainable communities in which citizens want to live. Planning is necessary because various sections of the community have different views and interests associated with the use of available land and it is important that community governments should try to resolve any differences and to utilise available land for the optimal benefit of the people in a local community. It is the collective local development efforts that impact upon the regional and the national development which shapes the character and spatial quality of Britain, as well the ability of the nation to accommodate citizens in decent and affordable housing. Thus, it is important that efficient and high quality planning be made possible at the local government level. In the recent past, The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 attempted to speed up and improve planning, while the Housing Act 2004 attempted to impose housing safety standards and to present measures to somehow improve the utilisation of available housing. Although the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 are not directly related to the planning process, they do ensure that better and more pleasing town planning is made possible (UK Planning Portal, 2007, “Acts of Parliament” and “Planning Reform”). The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 attempts to introduce a simpler and more flexible planning system at the regional and local level, enhances the effectiveness and level of community involvement in local and regional planning and improves the local development – control process by introducing standard application forms, changing the duration of planning permission permissions and consents (UK Planning Portal, 2007, “Acts of Parliament” and “Planning Reform”). This Act also empowers the Local Planning Authorities to enhance local permitted development rights through the use of local development orders. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 also makes the compulsory purchase regime simpler, fairer and quicker for acquisitions that are required for local regeneration and infrastructure development. Attempts have been made to speed up planning decisions related to major infrastructure projects and the Act removes the crown’s immunity from planning processes. Despite the previously mentioned efforts that have been made, it is one thing to formulate public policy and another to ensure that the implementation of the policy is conducted in a manner that will retain the spirit of reform and the enhancement of regulatory efficiency that was desired to be introduced into the local government planning processes in the United Kingdom. In view of the fact that planning is essential for the national good and that planning has received considerable public attention in the recent past because of the housing shortages in Britain, it is worth examining how the relatively recent changes in the structure and organisation of local government in Britain have had an impact on the implementation of policy related to planning and to town planning itself. This brief essay attempts to examine the previously mentioned topic from a policy implementation perspective and o determine if the desired good which was attempted to be incorporated in policy has been achieved in practice. The Implementation of Policy related to Planning in the Local Government in Britain and its Impact on Town Planning Public policy is made by a government in the name of the public and consists of a vision for what the government intends to or chooses not to do. The public policy creation process will usually try to use objective reasoning and instruments for design and measurement to implement, evaluate, refine and further implement public policy which can be evaluated on the basis of its effectiveness, efficiency and fairness. The concept of transparency and accountability in public policy is often associated with fairness of access and equitable distribution. It is necessary for a government to redefine, refine and reinvent past policies, while reinventing new policies and new instruments for design or measurement so that improvements can be made possible. It is also important to identify the problems that are associated with a policy or a set of rules and regulations and to think strategically when trying to invent a better public policy. Solutions to rectify public policy which is no longer working in a satisfactory manner may be short – term, intermediate – term or long – term measures and it is often essential to utilise quantitative as well as qualitative analysis to determine what should be done in order to bring about improvements. When formulating policy, it is usually necessary for a government to deal with diversity and local concerns when thinking about national policies and various actors, including politicians both inside and outside of the government, members of the civil services who implement policy, regulations and laws as well as the public at large, including the media, often have inputs to the policy making process and influence what is finally accepted as being worth trying (Barrett, 1981, Part 1), (Hill, 1997, Chapter 6) and (Parsons, 1995, Part 4). A sense of dissatisfaction had existed in the United Kingdom with the local government planning processes for some time and this sense of dissatisfaction became even more acute as a result of the housing crisis which was to have an impact on the general public within the country. Spiralling home prices had made a home unaffordable for many in a country which has always had a culture of families owning their own homes and the lengthy planning process at the local government level was being blamed for the dwindling supply of public housing. The Barker Review attempted to present some of the elements related to what was wrong with the planning processes and extensive public consultations were carried out by the government through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also responsible for local government, housing and planning, Department of Communities and Local Government and the Parliament. Hence, attempts had been made to carry out a reasonable amount of research into what was wrong and how efforts could be made to improve the situation (Barker, 2006, Pp. 1 - 20), (Ashworth, 2005, “Executive Summary”), (House of Commons, 2006, “Executive Summary”) and (UK Parliament, 2007, “Report”) etc. The government’s spatial planning reforms sought to provide faster and fairer decision making and it was generally considered as being desirable to improve upon the responsiveness of local government (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2007, Part 2). In response to the new policy directives, many local governments sought to demonstrate a sense of community leadership by seeking to identify what could be done to meet the needs of an area in terms of planning and to establish a strategy to meet these needs (Local Government Association, UK, 1998, Pp. 16, 18 and 25 – 30). Planning groups which included representation from organisations that were important for an area were established and it was generally sought to reduce the time lags associated with decisions about planning issues by arranging single – issue meetings. Planning is now being considered more in terms of being a coordinating framework, rather then a regulatory service and attempts have been made in various local governments to improve the strength and resources of planning departments. Attempts are being made to remove a requirement for detailed planning submissions for consideration of any planning proposals. Planners and regulators are now being encouraged to assist in the identification of good practices that can continue to further enhance the planning process. Until recently, each local government had to prepare a so called “unitary development plan” (UDP), which detailed how land was being considered to be used in a specified area and this UDP was used as a basis for consideration of planning applications that were received (Welsh Assembly Government, 2002, Pp. 1 – 21). However, the time that was being taken to prepare a detailed UDP was often too long and the UDPs were too complex. Many local governments have been working to streamline plan preparation by revising regulations and procedures. Community involvement is now being actively encouraged and the product of the streamlined planning is now required to contain minimal necessary justification and explanation of policies, although all planning is still required to be carried out after rigorous analysis. Proposal maps that are contained in streamlined plans are no longer required to contain detailed maps of all areas, especially when relatively minor changes are being considered to the land for planning purposes. Clear planning policies that are presented briefly are now required, because brief and logical descriptions are likely to result in speedy approvals. What is in effect being done is to somehow sacrifice extensive and detailed planning in order to speed up the planning process and to speed up the approval process if proposed land utilisation is in the community interest. However, it has to be appreciated that speeding up planning should not sacrifice the quality of planning to a great extent and community involvement should not mean that bad planning should be allowed, because it is good planning that will deliver the communities in which people will want to live. Local development plans (LDPs) are now often required to present land areas for high priority planning for which more detailed action plans should be produced. Procedures are being streamlined and timetables for the preparation of LDPs are now being established by the local planning authorities to remain within the limits defined in the national planning policy (Royal Town Planning Institute, 2007, Pp. 12 – 23). It has been suggested that an annual review of the LDP should be published and that should a local authority fail to provide a LDP, another local authority or consultants be utilised to present a plan. The planning decision-making process was overloaded and slow, making attempts to improve upon this aspect of planning approvals essential for the implementation of policy. Improved skills and awareness is being injected into the planning decision – making process which is expected to provide user – friendly service streamlined regulations and improvements associated with certainty, consistency and clarity in decision-making are also being considered. It should be appreciated that the implementation of the new spatial planning reforms was intended to be a relatively long – term effort for the improvement of planning processes and it had been envisaged that about three years were required for local governments to practically implement the vision of spatial reforms. The three year time frame for the implementation time span is expected to expire sometime in the year 2008. Hence, it will appear that although broad policy guidelines have been agreed upon about needed improvements in the land planning processes at the local government level, the actual implementation of the broad ideals that have been presented as a vision for planning at the local government level in the United Kingdom are still being worked out, despite the fact that some improvements have already been attempted. As a result of the efforts that have been made to enhance planning at the local government level, a certain sense of innovation, dynamism and a mood for positive change has been communicated to the local government planners. The North West Regional Assembly recently used electronic, e-government, tools to seek consultation about the preparation of a draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the region and this is the kind of innovation that is required if planning is to be enhanced at the local level to be in line with policy expectations (Royal Town Planning Institute, RTPI, 2006, Pp. 16 – “Commendation for E-Government”). It is obvious that although concrete changes to planning within the local government are being gradually implemented, the policy formulation process at the national level and the public attention that this has received has created an impetus for change. The reforms that have been proposed as part of new public policy for planning and which are being implemented in local government and local government planning departments have bee largely supported by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), the professional town planning body in the United Kingdom (Royal Town Planning Institute, 2007, Pp. 1 – 10 and Pp. 20 – 36). However, RTPI has stated that the manner in which policy is implemented will make a significant difference to the outcome and RTPI is opposed to giving powers to Councillor hearing panels because it wants political considerations to be removed from the process of planning and desires that the best possible professionally designed plans be delivered quickly for speedy implementation. It has to be appreciated that the new planning processes have reduced the levels of scrutiny and provided somewhat greater leeway to those who are proposing land development projects. However, unless those who are involved with the planning processes are high calibre professionals, it is possible that the quality of planning efforts can suffer, despite the fact that developers can now make financial gains by implementing new projects quickly. It can, therefore, be concluded that the new planning policy will certainly make it possible for a speedy implementation of development plans and that this is likely to result in an upsurge in the development and building activity within the nation at a slightly lower cost. Statistics presented in (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2007, “Development Control Statistics, England 2006 / 2007”) do indicate that the speed of decision making has improved in the recent past and statistics related to new housing indicate that an upsurge in development activity is apparent (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2007, “Housing and Planning Key Facts”). Representative statistics on the previously mentioned improvements have been presented in tables 1, and 2 as well as figure 2 below. However, the new policy has to be implemented with care so that the quality of new developments is ensured and Britain can continue to deliver the high quality in development and town planning which makes the United Kingdom a great place to live in. Anyone who has visited the many developing countries around the world and observed the results of poor planning is likely to appreciate the value of town planning in the creation of great human habitats and it has to be appreciated that the consequences of poor planning and development efforts continue to erode the value of a place for decades to come. Mistakes that are made in planning cannot be corrected either cheaply or quickly. Table 1: Planning Decisions of District Planning Authority by Speed of Decisions (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2007, Pp. 23) Table 2: Housing Delivery Statistics for the United Kingdom (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2007, Pp. 1) Figure 2: Development Control Performance for the United Kingdom (H. M. Government, 2007, Pp.133) Conclusion From the previous discussion it can be concluded that it had become necessary to improve upon the planning system in the United Kingdom because the planning processes were too lengthy and these processes could not support the requirements related to development activity for the public good. Improvements which had been envisioned in policy are still in the process of being implemented at the local government level, but it is important that efforts to speed up planning processes be supported by the use of high calibre professionals for planning decision – making and that the process remains free from political interference. England is a great place to live in because of its excellent land use planning and development efforts. It is vital that the quality of planning be maintained because poor planning is very expensive to correct. (This page intentionally blank) Bibliography / References 1. Ashworth, R., Skelcher, C., & Great Britain. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2005). Meta-evaluation of the local government modernisation agenda: progress report on accountability in local government. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. 2. Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales. (2002). Local authority performance indicators 2000-01: council services compendium for England. [London: Audit Commission. 3. Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales. (2002). Development control and planning. London: Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales. 4. Barclay, C., Christopher, B., & Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Library. Great Britain Parliament House of Commons Library (2002). Third party rights of appeal in planning. Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, Library. 5. Barker, K. & Great, B. (2006). Barker review of land use planning: final report, recommendations. [London]: Stationery Office. 6. Barker, Kate. (2006). Barker Review of Land Use Planning: Interim Report – Analysis. Crown Copyright. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/D/2/barker2_interim050706.pdf 7. Barrett, S. and Fudge, C. (1981). Policy and Action. Methuen, London. 8. Bennett, A. F., Dunwoody, G., & Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Transport, L. G. a. t. R. C. U. A. S.-C. (2002). How the Local Government Act 2000 is working: fourteenth report of session 2001-02. London: Stationery Office. 9. Carr, P. (2000). Response to consultation on establishing a new local structure. London: Post Office Users' National Council. 10. Cherry, G. E. (1974). The evolution of British town planning : a history of town planning in the United Kingdom during the 20th century and of the Royal Town Planning Institute, 1914-74. New York: Wiley. 11. Crook, Tony et al. (2002). Planning Gain and Affordable Housing. University of Cambridge. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/1842631128.pdf 12. Department of Communities and Local Government. (2007). Development Control Statistics, England 2006 / 2007. Department of Communities and Local Government. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/dcsengland0607 13. Department of Communities and Local Government. (2007). Housing and Planning Key Facts. Department of Communities and Local Government. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/housing-keyfacts-jul07 14. Department of Communities and Local Government. (2007). Land Use Change in England: Residential Development to 2006. Department of Communities and Local Government. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/ 15. Department of Communities and Local Government. (2007). Planning Policy. Department of Communities and Local Government. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/ 16. Department of Communities and Local Government. (2007). Strong and Prosperous Communities - The Local Government White Paper. Department of Communities and Local Government. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/strongprosperous 17. Docter International, U. K. & Istituto di studi e documentazione per il territorio. (1987). European environmental yearbook ... : nature conservation, protection of the environment, town and country planning in Belgium, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom, with a special survey of USA policy. London: Docter International. 18. Elias, P., Goudie, J., Bear, C., & Butterworths (Firm) (2000). Butterworths local government law. London: Butterworths. 19. Entec UK Limited. & Great Britain. Department for Transport, L. G. a. t. R. (2002). Delivering affordable housing through planning policy: ENTEC. London: Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. 20. General Council of the Bar (England and Wales), Law Society (, & Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. (2003). Overarching and underpinning: planning in the 21st century. London: Thomson; Sweet & Maxwell. 21. Great Britain. Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales. & Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales. (2003). Bed management: review of national findings. London: Audit Commission. 22. Great Britain. Department for Transport, L. G. a. t. R. & Great Britain. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2000). The Building Regulations 2000. Norwich: Stationery Office. 23. Great Britain. Department for Transport, L. G. a. t. R. (2001). Planning: delivering a fundamental change. London: Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. 24. Great Britain. Department for Transport, L. G. a. t. R. (2001). Reforming planning obligations: a consultation paper; delivering a fundamental change. London: Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. 25. Great Britain. Dept. for Transport, L. G. a. t. R. M. a., Planning, P. R. P., & University of the West of England. (2002). European planning systems update. London: Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. 26. Great Britain. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. & Stationery Office (Great Britain) (2003). Housing renewal. Norwich: TSO. 27. Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts. & Leigh, E. (2006). Enhancing urban green space: fifty-eighth report of session 2005-06: report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. London: Stationery Office. 28. Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. ODPM: Housing, P. L. G. a. t. R. C. (2006). Ministerial informal council on sustainable communities under the UK presidency: oral and written evidence. London: Stationery Office. 29. Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, P. L. G. a. t. R. (2002). Planning competitiveness and productivity: memoranda submitted to the Committee. London: Stationery Office. 30. Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Transport, L. G. a. t. R. C. (2002). The new towns: their problems and future. London: TSO. 31. H. M. Government. (2007). Planning for a Sustainable Future – White Paper. H. M. Government. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.rtpi.org.uk/download/2591/AAA-The-White-Paper.pdf 32. Ham, Christopher and Hill, Michael. (1993). The Policy Process in the Modern Capitalist State. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 33. House of Commons. (2006). Empty Homes and Low Demand Pathfinders – 2005. House of Commons. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmodpm/295/295.pdf 34. House of Commons. (2006). The Role and Effectiveness of CABE – Fifth Report of Session 2004 – 2005. House of Commons. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmodpm/59/59.pdf 35. Local Government Association, UK. (1998). Modernising Political Management Arrangements. Local Government Association, UK. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/blg/modernising.pdf 36. Lyons, M. & Lyons Inquiry into Local Government (Organization) (2007). Place-shaping [electronic resource]: a shared ambition for the future of local government: final report. London: Stationery Office. 37. Marshall, T., Glasson, J., & Headicar, P. (2002). Contemporary issues in regional planning. Aldershot: Ashgate. 38. Parsons, Wayne. (1995). An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis Part 4. Edward Elgar: Aldershot. 39. Royal Town Planning Institute, RTPI. (2006). RTPI Planning Awards 2006 – Judges Report. Royal Town Planning Institute, RTPI. Retrieved: September 19, 2007. From: http://www.rtpi.org.uk/download/508/JUDGES-REPORT-2006.doc 40. Royal Town Planning Institute, RTPI. (2007). Planning for a Sustainable Future: A High Level Response. Royal Town Planning Institute, RTPI. Retrieved: September 19, 2007. From: http://www.rtpi.org.uk/download/2598/Planning-White-Paper-RTPI-High-Level-Response-final.pdf 41. Royal Town Planning Institute, RTPI. (2007). Planning Together - Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) and Spatial Planning: a practical guide. Department of Communities and Local Government. Retrieved: September 19, 2007. From: http://www.rtpi.org.uk/download/784/Planning-Together.pdf 42. Sharland, J. (2006). A practical approach to local government law. (2nd ed. ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. 43. Shaw, Dave. (2006). Culture Change and Planning: Literature Review – Spatial Plans in Practice: Supporting the Reform of Local Planning. Department of Communities and Local Government. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/153734 44. Smith, Rynd. (2007). Planning Whitepaper and RTPI Responses. Royal Town Planning Institute, RTPI. Retrieved: September 19, 2007. From: http://www.rtpi.org.uk/item/815/23/5/3 #Better Outcomes, Faster 45. Team, N. U. K., Healey, P., Davoudi, S., & Great Britain. Department of the Environment, T. a. t. R. (2000). European spatial planning and urban-rural relationships: the UK dimension, final report. London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. 46. The Civic Trust. (2006). The Barker Review of Land Use Planning – Comments from The Civic Trust. The Civic Trust. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/B/2/barker2_2006_thecivictrust_83.5kb.pdf 47. UK Parliament. (2007). Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Planning. UK Parliament. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/odpm/Planning.cfm 48. UK Planning Portal. (2007). Planning policy, legislation and guidance. Crown Copyright. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1018433960408.html 49. UK Planning Portal. (2007). Planning Reform. Crown Copyright. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1073303307213.html 50. Welsh Assembly Government. (2002). Planning: Delivering for Wales Consultation Paper. Welsh Assembly Government. Retrieved: September 19, 2007. From: http://new.wales.gov.uk/docrepos/40382/4038231121/403821/403821/403826/890944/delivering_210102-e.pdf?lang=en 51. Wilks – Heege, Stuart and Clayton, Steve. (2005). ‘Modernising’ local authorities: Councillors’ perspectives on the new political management arrangements in Burnley and Harrogate. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Retrieved: September 17, 2007. From: http://www.liv.ac.uk/ssp/research/Modernising_local_authorities.pdf Read More