Thought leadership: The importance of environment, equity and economy
April 21, 2020
Tim Slaney, Director of Planning, looks at the three pillars of planning.
At the moment we’re facing far bigger issues than planning so I hope all are staying safe and keeping well. If nothing else I trust people within and close to the National Park appreciate how lucky they are to be in or near such inspiring places and have been able to stay local but get out where appropriate.
The planning system is, at its heart, about balancing the three elements of environment, equity and economy. This is particularly so as we re-evaluate what is important and how we support the economy. Against this broad philosophical background, there are a number of thoughts that occur.
In light of Julian Glover’s ‘Landscape Review’, which came out in the autumn of 2019, there is a new focus on planners’ role within designated landscapes. This is largely welcomed, particularly as Glover recognises that planning powers are important for National Parks, the protections they give are essential and that he does not think they hold back progress. The review goes on to say that planning, for the most part, does a difficult job well. That is not to say that there aren’t some challenges and stimulating ideas presented within the report, such as the rate of delivery of affordable homes (for key workers). This is an ongoing priority for the South Downs National Park Authority, addressed though policy making and development management, and some grants.
Glover also picks up on wider governance issues and whether, in order to address lack of direct elections to planning committees and the time spent on planning by some National Parks at full Authority meetings, whether there should be a planning sub-committee. His proposal is that this would be made up of part National Park Members and part Local Authority and/or Parish representatives. This would place the planning committee at arm’s length to the main National Park Authority. I’m not sure there is any evidence that this would make for better decision making or that addressing the perceived ‘democratic deficit’ in the way proposed would result in better plan making and development. I believe our unique model of delegating the majority of decisions to District Councils, using our award-winning Local Plan and other material considerations relevant to a National Park, with only more significant decisions being taken at our own planning committee, is the right balance. This allows for local input while recognising that planning in a National Park relates to guardianship of a national asset.
It is vital that all involved in environmental management at a landscape scale have clear strategies and plans. Key to this is broad agreement with local communities and society more generally, as to whether and what the right offset might be, and where. It’s not just a case of the right tree in the right place. A question that arises is are we prepared for landscape change such that areas that traditionally have one look and feel are altered to provide much-needed climate change services and therefore have a different look? In the years ahead there will be debates around what sort of forms the landscape takes, whether it be additional water bodies, substantive tree planting on a scale thus far unimagined, more vineyards and the like.
Planning should be a strong mix of evidence and engagement, particularly with local communities as well as traditional statutory consultees, but also involve leadership. I am glad to see that in some quarters, planning is recovering its leadership role and championing the virtues of planning in England and in designated landscapes.
It is necessary for all of us charged with temporary guardianship of the land to show appropriate leadership, always remembering that social equity and a vibrant economy within a cared for environment are central to the way forward.