Streamlining local plan SA
Today we have the King's Speech with a focus on streamlining our plan-led planning system in support of growth. In turn, we must streamline the required appraisal process undertaken alongside local plans - sustainability appraisal (SA).
Yesterday the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) posted a helpful blog on making SA "more sustainable" but the focus must be on standardisation and simplification. If we can address those two things, then the benefits (sustainability) will naturally flow.
Below are some ideas for streamlining under the following headings:
What
The answer to the question of what should be a focus of SA has always been clear in the legislation. Specifically, the requirement is to appraise (and, in turn, consult-upon):
"The plan and reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and geographical scope of the plan."
Beginning with "the plan", it couldn't be more obvious what the task is. It is to present an appraisal of the plan, as a whole, under the agreed appraisal framework. Not all policies, not all site allocations, but "the plan". Just as every Inspector's Report focuses on the merits of the plan as a whole, so must every SA Report. Of course, the appraisal can be broken down to ensure it is suitably systematic, but this should only be 'as appropriate' as a means to an end.
With regards to reasonable alternatives (RAs), it's much trickier, with defining RAs overwhelmingly the most challenging aspect of any SA process. But the potential wins are huge, and I believe clarity on RAs could be a central pillar of reforming our plan-led system.
Quite simply, I suggest that the legal requirement amounts to a need to explore alternative key diagrams, i.e. alternative approaches to the development to deliver on housing needs (and any unmet needs) alongside wider plan objectives (e.g. decarbonisation).
This argument is bolstered by the requirement to focus only on 'significant effects', where significance is defined in the context of the plan as a whole. It is only by appraising alternative key diagrams where you can guarantee differential significant effects; focus on anything else and you're crossing your fingers in hope (and, in turn, risking poorly targeted work).
And taking a quick step back, "why" do I suggest we do this? That would be to inform decision-makers and stakeholders, ensuring that everyone understands the balancing act that is the Draft Local Plan, with a clear light shone on the inevitable trade-offs.
Take, for example, an LPA looking to generate unmet need. The SA is there to shine a light on the draw-backs of this approach in absolute terms and relative to higher growth alternatives. In particular, it serves to shine a light on the drawbacks of higher growth alternatives that, taken in combination, are on balance not acceptable to the LPA.
When
The word iterative does not appear in the legislation, but appears in virtually every Inspectors Report and legal opinion dealing with SA. Its over-use is one of the biggest barriers.
The requirement is for SA to feed in as follows:
领英推荐
That's it, and it's not appropriately described as 'iterative'.
Of course SA can and often should feed-in at other stages, but there is no requirement for it to do so, such that there must be a razor-sharp focus on ensuring that additional steps are taken for good reason, and certainly not with a view to building up an audit trail that no one will ever have the will to interrogate. The SA report must not present an audit trail.
How
The PAS blog makes three interesting recommendations:
I quite possibly agree with all three.
The first one is a very big call though. There is a need to grapple with some big questions, and I'm not sure PAS have done this. It goes to the question of 'scoping' SA in the context of NPPF para 7: "The purpose of the planning system is... sustainable development..." It also goes to the heart of current (and poorly targeted) debate on Environmental Outcomes Reports.
On the second question, yes absolutely, other than Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). Given where we are with local plan-making, it is vitally important that there is just one single appraisal process undertaken alongside that covers everything, but not HRA.
On the third recommendation re "who" - yes, but SA must be standardised and simplified first. Once that happens - and the fear, uncertainty and doubt that has pervaded SA for the past 20+ years dissipates - then there is no reason why SA shouldn't be undertaken in-house.
Just yesterday I read legal advice to an LPA suggesting that consultants should take over the SA to add objectivity, but no. There will always be a role for consultants (said as an SA consultant), but it's not to address any lack of objectivity.
Conclusion
Streamlined SA could help with reforming local plan-making and, in turn, planning. Everyone could simply understand that the SA Report (which, of course, can be wonderfully visual and digital; another PAS recommendation) will present them with an appraisal of the plan and RAs (also "an outline of the reasons for selecting the RAs", but not an audit trail).
The appraisal of RAs will always be the centre-piece of any report, in the form of a single appraisal matrix (one page; and if accessibility rules allow). That will give interested parties concise and expertly crafted information on the fundamental choice at the heart of the plan. In particular, in the face of mandatory targets, the question of "where" development happens.