Defining reasonable alternatives

The context

As stated this week in the Guardian:

“On paper, the planning system should be one of the most meaningful pillars of our democracy. ?While elections merely give us the chance to stick an X in a box once every few years, local planning should, in theory, empower us to help continuously steer the future of our neighbourhoods."

That may be, but with a system centred on local plans comprising a multitude of moving parts, and which must balance myriad interests, we also need consultation windows and parameters.

Indeed, local plan-making must be unashamedly systematic, but that is not to say complicated. Three core principles might be:

• Hold a timely (and hence ‘true’) draft plan consultation
• Consult not only on the draft plan but also reasonable alternatives (RAs)
• Finalise the plan in light of the consultation.

Being consulted on RAs is an opportunity to stick an x in a box, if you so wish, and that is a good thing.? Who doesn’t want to be presented with a mutually exclusive brokered choice.

More than that though, RAs act to frame and rationalise what otherwise risks being a disjointed debate.

Specifically, consultees can comment in the knowledge of what plan-makers believe to be the key marginal moving parts, and how these could be reorganised in such a ways that the plan is taken in a different direction whilst still according with the plan objectives and evidence-base.

The problem

… is in respect of ‘what’ and ‘when’, and is summed up in this standard PINS question:

Where and how... in the various stages in plan making, have reasonable alternatives been considered, selected and compared, including options in respect of the spatial strategy, amounts of development to be accommodated, strategic policies, specific site allocations and development management policies?

This question does not align with my understanding of what is required, which is either a problem for me or planning reform.

The solution – an overview

On the question of what, some suggested rules are:

• Apply the dictionary definition of alternatives as mutually exclusive options
• Apply the regulatory definition of reasonable as “taking into account the objectives and geographical scope of the plan”.
• Ensure that the appraisal will be able to meaningfully differentiate in terms of significant effects, where significance is understood in the context of the plan objectives / scope.

Also, recognise that:

• The requirement to focus on “the plan and RAs” suggest a focus on alternative plans, which whilst impossible, does provide a steer.
• The requirement is to explain RAs only in “outline” terms and defining RAs is “deeply enmeshed with issues of planning judgment, use of limited resources and the maintenance of a balance… [such that any LPA] has a substantial area of discretion...”
• Whilst evidence from earlier work naturally feeds in, there is no requirement to demonstrate an ‘iterative’ process and the aim is not to provide an ‘audit trail’.
• The focus must be on engaging those with a strategic interest.

On the question of when, some suggested rules are:

• Focus on the clear legal requirement to consult on RAs as part of a true draft local plan consultation, in order to inform the consultation and subsequent plan finalisation.
• Also accept legal precedent that tells us that RAs appraisal must also inform the draft plan.
• Specifically, accept this legal precedent as a requirement to explore RAs to inform finalisation of the draft plan, e.g. as a final ‘check and challenge’.
• Fully acknowledge that earlier work to explore alternatives can also add value.

The solution – focus on RA key diagrams

This guarantees a focus on RAs that:

• Reflect the objectives / scope of the plan and, indeed, are virtually alternative plans.
• Can be meaningfully differentiated in terms of truly significant effects.
• Are engaging to the key audience.

And it need not be difficult, given understanding of “when” the work must be done.

Specifically, at the time of the draft plan consultation, clear objectives and detailed evidence can be drawn upon to focus-in, with ‘more than marginal’ options confidently dismissed.

Indeed, if necessary for the sake of sanity, just focus on defining an emerging preferred key diagram, and then worry about others for appraisal.? This can still be timely.

Clearly there can and should also be earlier work to explore options and alternatives (inc. broad strategy and site options) as part of the process that leads to the point of being able to define RA key diagrams, but that’s a separate discussion (we have a flow diagram).

The key point is that earlier work does not aim to discharge the requirement re RAs, but rather aims ensure that RAs can be explained in “outline” terms come the draft plan consultation.

In turn, earlier work must be reported with caution, as it will be somewhat superseded, i.e. not entirely policy relevant given final objectives and latest evidence.

The solution – a proportionate look at DM policies

There is a need to remain open-minded to DM policy RAs, but we must not default to:

• Screening all DM policy issues for RAs.? [How do you even define a DM policy issue?]
• Attempting to explore alternatives for each and every DM policy issue.

Focusing on the latter, the clear risk is one or both of the following:

• The appraisal fails to meaningfully differentiate in terms of significant effects, i.e. it transpires that the alternatives are not RAs.
• There is pressure to differentiate in terms of significant effects despite significance in truth being highly questionable, such that the effect is to distract and confuse.

A case in point is the Surrey Heath SA Report (2024; see Appendix III).? It appraises two sets of DM policy alternatives but fails to meaningfully differentiate in terms of significant effects.

As a final theoretical point, also consider that emerging proposed DM policies will be appraised (as an obvious step), and that any appraisal, by definition, involves consideration of performance relative to the baseline, or no plan option.? As such, an appraisal of ‘do something vs do nothing’ is never an appraisal of RAs.

But to end on a practical point, consider affordable housing, built env decarb and biodiversity net gain, as three key DM policy topics for local plans:

• Pros of stringent policy – are obvious (homes, net zero and biodiversity respectively)
• Cons of stringent policy – development viability taking a hit, with potential implications for wide-ranging objectives, which cannot be predicted with any certainty.

So, whilst alternatives can be defined, they cannot be meaningfully appraised, and hence are not RAs.? Yet we have seen thousands of such appraisals over the years.

The solution – revisit the Regs

Specifically Regulation 19, which is:

• The only formal requirement to consult on a draft plan.
• Not a time for considering RA key diagrams, given the role of subsequent PINS-led plan-making (given democratic accountability and the recent ministerial direction).

The following issues arise:

• Confusion about the fundamentals of the plan-making process.
• Confusion about the role of RAs in local plan-making.
• A lack of motivation at Reg 19 to present genuine RAs, such that LPAs default to presenting alternatives that are not policy relevant in light of objectives / evidence, and so a distraction.

A solution is to simply bring the Regs into line with those for neighbourhood plans.

Conclusion

RAs have had a terrible rep for decades, yet we persist.? It was only last year that SA, which is the primary forum for exploring RAs, was described in a Government consultation as

“… a box-ticking exercise… a nightmare… unintelligible...”

Also, it was only last year that we were considering removing reference to RAs from the tests of soundness.? I wrote in support of that here.

Now is the time to recast the role of RAs in local plan-making, ahead of a very challenging couple of years.? The public needs to understand that every five years they will have a chance to stick an x in the box in respect of RA key diagrams, and then we build a system around that.