Clause 5 - RSS: revision
Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
2:45 pm
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Hurst and know how much you are looking forward to the somewhat longer sitting that beckons. I welcome also the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), the other voice of the land of paradise in our Committee. It is a delight to see him in his place.
This is a large group of amendments and it covers a lot of ground on the new regional planning arrangements. Perhaps I might begin by indicating to the Committee my understanding of the purport of the amendments, so that we are absolutely clear about the ground on which we stand. Amendment No. 126 would remove the requirement for the regional planning body to give notice to the Secretary of State of its intention to prepare a draft revision—an RSS. I will, with the indulgence of the Committee, move to those initials so beloved of the hon. Member for Rayleigh, and regional spatial strategies henceforward will be RSSs in Hill-speak.
Amendment No. 127 would require for their own areas county councillors, unitary authorities and national park authorities to help the RPB, aka the regional planning body, to prepare draft revisions of the RSS. Amendment No. 199 would require the RPB to set out, before it began to prepare a draft revision of the RSS, proposals to secure public consultation on the contents of the revision in line with guidance from the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 128 would explicitly require the RPB to consider the need to integrate transport, land use planning and the sustainable management of resources and place the protection of the environment as the overarching principle when preparing a draft revision of the RSS. Amendment No. 129 would require the RPB to have regard to the views of county councils, unitary authorities and national park authorities in preparing a draft revision to the RSS. Amendment No. 200 would specify the regional economic strategy and county mineral waste strategies as matters to which the RPB must have regard when preparing a draft revision of the RSS.
Amendment No. 131 would require an RPB to publish the report of the sustainability appraisal of a draft revision, and amendments Nos. 134 and 135 are intended to provide for the RPB to prepare and consult on a draft revision of the RSS twice before submitting the second draft of that revision to the elected regional assembly or, if there is not one, to the Secretary of State. So far, so good.
I should like to deal first with the amendments concerning the role of county councils and other types of authority with an expertise in strategic planning in the regional planning arrangements in part 1 of the Bill. We have just published for consultation the draft regulations and guidance on regional and local planning under the Bill. I am sure that you, Mr. Hurst, have had time to digest their contents, but I should like to take the opportunity to set out in detail the role of the authorities in the new regional planning system.
The authorities will have a critical strategic role in the new regional planning arrangements for involvement and partnership working. The provision for that role is not only in the Bill but also in regulations and guidance. I stress that it is only from those authorities that the RPBs must consider whether assistance is desirable and, if so, try to arrange it. This is not about officers from those authorities working to an RPB brief. If an RPB enters an arrangement with a county council, for example, it will be an agreement between the council and the RPB. They will work together and county officers will report to their members.
Regulations will ensure that these also have a significant input to draft RSS revisions. RPBs will have to consult them up front before finalising proposals to put to the Secretary of State. Thereafter, those authorities will be kept informed and consulted at each stage. The RPB will also have to prepare a statement on whom it has consulted, what they said and how it is taking that into account. That will also reinforce the need for the RPB to have properly involved those authorities in preparing a draft revision of the RSS.
The final element of the package that defines the role of those authorities is guidance. Draft PPS11 makes it clear that the RPB should be particularly careful to ensure that it works on a partnership basis with the authorities to ensure strategy buy-in. The PPS
draws particular attention to the role of counties and unitary councils in assisting the RPB in developing the policy and, subsequently, implementing it through their service responsibilities—education and transport, for example.
PPS11 states that that should be a two-way process in that priorities in those service areas should help to shape the RSS revision. PPS11 also states that the counties will have a particularly important role in sub-regional studies, both as participants and, often, as leaders, working to an agreed brief drawn up by the RPB in conjunction with them and other interested planning authorities and stakeholders. The guidance also makes it clear that the Government expect RPBs and those authorities entering arrangements to work together in all regions. For example, the authorities might provide technical expertise, help or lead work on sub-regional elements.
I have covered this at some length, but I have done so in order to demonstrate that we fully expect counties and these other councils to help the RPB prepare draft revisions to RSSs. RPBs will seek and take account of these authorities' views when preparing draft revisions and, doubtless, in their wider work.