22 November 2010
Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies
Secretary of State for Community and Local Government, Eric Pickles, was asked whether Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) are now here to stay following the recent Court judgement that stated the Government did not have the power to revoke the policy.
Responding, the Secretary of State said that both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have pledged in their election manifestos to remove RSSs and this action forms a key part of the coalition Government document. He went on to say that a sensible and prudent Authority would begin preparing for the fact that RSSs would be removed, and that while the Court judgement was now a factor it was not necessarily a decisive one.
Committee Chair and Labour MP, Clive Bretts, raised concern over the lack of planning guidance to replace RSSs. Mr Pickles stated that Local Authorities are now moving towards a new system that was not target-based but delivery-based, arguing that the new system would encourage Local Authorities to carry out the process of building.
Minister for Decentralisation, Greg Clark, added that the new system had been made clear in Departmental guidance issued in May 2010 during the time of revocation. It was then up to the Local Authority to collect the evidence that would justify the decisions it made. It was also made clear that in the mean time, data collected through the RSS using a rational process could be relied upon.
Conservative Party backbencher, James Morris, argued that there was now a void around the strategic planning function, and heard from Mr Pickles that the duty to co-operate was an important function that Local Authorities have, and that the abolition of RSS was about moving planning closer to the realities of local communities. Mr Pickles stated that suggestions of a policy vacuum were completely wrong as the Government was now moving towards a different system that would deliver new homes.
Labour Party backbencher, David Heyes, noted that the abolition of RSSs would see control of development referred back to the Local Authority. Mr Clark explained that there were adjacent Authorities that wanted to pool their sovereignty, such as in Greater Manchester, and it made sense to do so. This resulted in a voluntary system that reflected a natural economic geography rather than the imposition of regional arrangements.
Local Enterprise Partnerships
Mr Morris asked whether the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) groups should take on strategic planning decisions. Mr Clark said that this was the decision of the individual LEP, stating that groups would have different priorities but the decision to make planning decisions was open to all. He went on to say that there would be comprehensive coverage of LEPs and their powers and that it should not be long before the whole country was covered by LEPs. The Government sees the LEPs model as the best vehicle for development.
Asked whether LEPs would have statutory planning function, Mr Clark said that Authorities could pool the sovereignty they had to create a powerful set of planning mechanisms. However, once LEPs had been created, the influence would come from the bottom up rather than the top down, so Whitehall would not be prescribing LEPs.
In a supplementary question, Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, asked whether LEPs suffered from a democratic deficit. Mr Clark went on to state that LEPs did have a democratic accountability through the Local Authorities in each LEP. A good proportion of representatives on LEPs would be Local Authority Members, it was added. Mr Clark acknowledged that not all individuals would be elected but that LEPs would act as a stark contrast to Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) that were a central Government mechanism.
Sourced from Dehavilland: www1.Dehavilland.co.uk