by Ian Collinson and Stewart Ross
Over the next 18 months those concerned with property and development in the old metropolitan county areas, including Greater London, will experience a new kind of development plan emerging from the district planning authorities. These new plans, known as unitary development plans (UDPs) when adopted will become the sole development plan for the whole of a particular district or borough council area. They will operate for a 10-year period, and will supersede all existing plans, whether prepared at district or county level, with the result that in many cases the assessment of planning policy framework will be made much simpler.
Background
Following the abolition of the six metropolitan county councils and the Greater London Council on April 1 1986, the Government issued a consultation paper entitled The Future of Development Plans which proposed that, within these areas, the two-tier system of structure and local plans proposed by the Planning Advisory Group in 1965 and established under the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 be replaced by a single plan — the UDP.
To ensure that the new UDPs could fulfil both a strategic and local planning function, the Secretary of State undertook to provide guidance on the strategic issues to be covered by the new plans. Consequently, the district and borough councils in metropolitan areas were asked to indicate to the Secretary of State the strategic matters on which they required his guidance. In Greater London the requirement on the boroughs to formulate draft strategic guidance was put on a statutory footing under section 5 of the Local Government Act 1985, which provided for the establishment of the London Planning Advisory Committee (LPAC). The committee presented the Secretary of State with its recommendations last October.
Unitary development plans
In February 1988, under section 4 of and Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act 1985, the DOE issued regulations and a circular (DOE Circular 3/88) which explained the new UDP system. In summary:
(1) It is intended that they should be a framework for development control and conservation. Most policies are expected to last for a period of 10 years from the base date of the plan. Some policies, for example conservation or the safeguarding of minerals, would warrant a longer time-scale. Any material which does not form the basis of development control such as promotional or illustrative information, should be excluded from the plan.
(2) No local authority can start preparing a UDP until it has been issued with a commencement order by the Secretary of State. These orders trigger the relevant provisions of the 1985 Act and have the effect of treating as “abandoned” any local plans prepared by local authorities which have not been adopted or approved. As a result, some commencement orders may exclude specified local authorities in order to allow them time to adopt appropriate policies. This latter provision is necessary because without it some local authorities could find themselves without an adopted or approved policy document until the UDP had gone through the statutory adoption procedure.
(3) The Secretary of State is looking to local authorities to have a draft UDP placed on deposit within two years from the commencement order, but where an authority has an up-to-date local plan it is expected that this period can be cut to one year.
(4) The plans themselves are to be in two parts: in Part I local authorities must have regard to current national and regional policies, and to any strategic guidance issued by the Secretary of State, so as to ensure that land use matters which need to be considered on a wider geographical area can be dealt with in an appropriate strategic context. This part of the plan is intended to provide a framework for the detailed proposals in Part II.
Part II must conform to the broad framework set out in Part I: it should not include policies on matters which are not land use related and should include the reasoned justification for both parts of the plan.
(5) Local authorities must also have regard to the policies and proposals contained within local plans which are already adopted or approved. Such local plans can be incorporated in the new UDP in an unaltered form and, in such cases, the sections derived from the old local plans will not be open to objection during the adoption/consultation procedure.
The ability of local authorities to incorporate adopted or approved local plans in this way may — depending on the age and relevance of the existing local plan — mean that some first-round UDPs could be nothing more than amalgamations of existing plans.
(6) With regard to the more detailed content of UDPs, the circular refers local authorities to the memorandum on structure and local plans attached to Circular 22/84 as well as to the various Planning Policy Guidance Notes. The regulations do not specify a set format for the plan, but the circular emphasises that the final document should be “clear, brief and easily understood by the reader”.
(7) If a UDP is to be prepared for an area which contains an urban development corporation (UDC), as in the case of the London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets or Newham which embrace parts of the London Docklands Development Corporation, then the local authority must consult the UDC and take account of their proposals when formulating the plan. If necessary the Secretary of State will use his reserve powers to ensure that the local authority takes the aims and objectives of the UDC properly into account.
(8) A UDP can be prepared by two or more authorities, but only where the authorities concerned are in the same metropolitan area. The adoption procedure for joint plans is the same as for single UDPs.
Adoption procedure
UDPs will normally be prepared and adopted by district/borough planning authorities, but the Secretary of State retains a power of call-in covering the whole or any part of the plan.
Currently the procedure for adoption of a UDP follows the same course as for a conventional local plan, ie:
(a) Publicity and consultation of draft plan (six weeks) — there are no requirements for authorities to consult specific bodies or organisations, but adequate publicity must be given to the contents of the plan, and any person or body who might be expected to make representations must be made aware of their right so to do.
(b) Deposit of draft plan (six weeks) — in which formal objections and representations can be made.
(c) Local public inquiry into the draft plan — no inquiry need be held if all the objectors indicate, in writing, that they do not wish to appear.
(d) Consideration of inspector’s report by local planning authority — the Secretary of State may direct the local authority to modify the plan.
(e) Adoption of plan by local authority — only when: (a) all objections have been considered; (b) where Part II of the plan is in general accord with Part I; (c) where the Secretary of State has not called-in the plan; and (d) any modifications directed by the Secretary of State have been incorporated.
To hasten the process the recent Government White Paper entitled The Future of Development Plans has proposed a shortened adoption procedure as follows:
(a) Publication and deposit of the draft plan with six weeks for objection or representation.
(b) Local public inquiry.
(c) Publication of any modifications to the draft plan and of the authority’s intention to adopt the modified plan, with a single six-week period for objection either to the modifications or the adoption.
UDPs in the metropolitan areas
The first metropolitan areas to be issued with formal strategic guidance and commencement orders were the West Midlands and Merseyside in February and August of last year. In the case of the West Midlands, only six of the seven metropolitan boroughs which make up the conurbation were issued with commencement orders. The remaining borough, Dudley, wished to promote two local plans to formal adoption before embarking on the preparation of a UDP, consequently a commencement order is expected to be issued to the authority in June. At the time of writing, of the four remaining metropolitan areas three — Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear — were at the draft strategic guidance stage, with South Yorkshire expecting draft guidance during this spring.
As might be expected, the authorities in the West Midlands are progressing fairly rapidly with preparation and Solihull BC hopes to have a draft plan prepared by the end of this year. Even at this early stage there is evidence that the seven borough councils within the West Midlands have been drawn closer together following the abolition of the metropolitan county council. Their commitment to reaching agreement on strategic policy seems to be driven not only by a concern about what the Department of the Environment might impose if agreement cannot be reached but also by a recognised need to maintain the momentum of economic growth and regeneration within the metropolitan area. Accordingly closer working links have been forged at both member and officer level in order to reach agreement on problem areas.
In London, though the establishment of LPAC is intended to fill the void following the abolition of the GLC, there is concern that it may not provide an adequate forum within which boroughs can settle practical problems on the formulation of a strategic policy.
One idea could be to split the capital into strategic sectors and solve any problems sector by sector. Chief among the reasons why strategic guidance has been made to work so far in the West Midlands and Merseyside is that there are only seven and five authorities respectively in each metropolitan area.
Draft strategic guidance for Greater London
Draft strategic guidance for Greater London was issued at the beginning of March, and set out six objectives which should be reflected in UDPs:
(1) To facilitate development and employment, bearing in mind the importance for the national economy of London’s continuing prosperity.
(2) To contribute to the regeneration of rundown urban areas.
(3) To maintain the vitality and character of established town centres.
(4) To sustain the amenity of residential districts.
(5) To allow for a wide range of housing provision.
(6) To give high priority to the environment by maintaining the green belt and metropolitan open land and preserving fine views, conservation areas and surrounding countryside.
As a general point the draft adds that “… inevitably these objectives generate diverse pressures. It is the function of this strategic guidance and the planning process to strike the balance between the needs of development and the interests of conservation”. The principal points of the draft guidance may be summarised as follows.
On business and industry the draft advises boroughs to “adopt a positive, flexible and realistic approach” and to identify well-serviced accessible sites for job-creating development rather than confining development to growth points. It explains that business development should not be restricted to a core zone, and that development associated with the financial sector can help to regenerate older areas such as those boroughs around the City of London, which are urged to provide for such opportunities.
With regard to development within the Business Class B1, the draft urges boroughs to ensure that UDPs do not distinguish between light industrial and the other business uses. The draft advises boroughs that sites will be needed for development within Class B2 (general industry) but that they “should not reserve land for general industrial use when there is no realistic prospect of such uses materialising”. It is emphasised that using land for other uses is preferable to allowing it to lie vacant. The DOE advises that, where appropriate, derelict vacant or underused land in built-up areas should be used for housing.
Boroughs are asked to support small firms and to provide for warehousing, but not where the latter would lead to the loss of good-quality business or industrial sites or would have adverse environmental or traffic implications.
On the issue of planning gain the draft advice dismisses the LPAC’s suggestion that planning gain should be sought in relation to major developments. It states that “a local planning authority is not entitled to treat an applicant’s need for permission as an opportunity to obtain some extraneous benefit or advantage or exact payment for the benefit of rate-payers at large”.
As to transport, the boroughs are referred to a statement made by the Secretary of State for Transport in January which emphasised the need for a safe and efficient transport system with proper regard for the environment. Boroughs are urged to consult British Rail and London Regional Transport when considering local transport needs within their UDPs. The Government reminds boroughs that it has recently undertaken a number of major transportation studies, including the London Rail Study and the East London Rail Study, both of which should be taken into account when preparing UDPs. The Department of Transport is involved in a number of traffic management initiatives designed to obtain better use from the existing road system, and boroughs are urged to publish their own initiatives.
With regard to car parking standards it is suggested that boroughs should continue to regard the normal maximum parking provision for business and retail development as one space for every 12,000 sq ft of floorspace in the central area, and one space per 8,000 sq ft in Inner London. In outer boroughs the existing standards of one space per 5,000 sq ft in the more important town centres and one space per 2,000 sq ft in other areas can be varied to suit particular requirements.
UDPs should take account of all the schemes included in the present trunk road programme in London, and where the detailed line of the proposed road is known this should be drawn on the proposals map as the route to be safeguarded. Where the precise route is not known, boroughs should define the area of land over which they intend to apply a safeguarding policy.
With regard to housing, LPAC’s advice is accepted and 260,000 extra dwellings will have to be provided by the year 2001 (for a borough-by-borough breakdown of the 1987-2001 projections see the table on p 26). The bulk of this accommodation is expected to be provided through the conversion and subdivision of existing housing units as well as the construction of new dwellings on underused and recycled urban land. The boroughs are advised to respect established conservation policies and the interests of existing communities when providing new housing.
The Secretary of State recognises that the complex factors affecting land availability for housing in London means that it is not possible for the London Boroughs to identify a five-year supply of sites as in the rest of the country.
On the green belt, national policies are firmly applied, with changes in the green belt having to be endorsed by Whitehall and then only in exceptional circumstances.
The presumption against development in the green belt is also extended to cover metropolitan open land, and the draft advice states that boroughs should reaffirm the status of such land and clearly define its boundaries.
On minerals the draft accepts that deposits in London are limited, yet demand is likely to remain high, with the consequence that London must contribute as much as possible to its needs. The DOE advises boroughs to identify areas for mineral working or to safeguard mineral resources against surface development within their UDPs. It is acknowledged that “mineral extraction in the green belt or on metropolitan open land need not be incompatible with the objectives of these policies, provided that high environmental standards are maintained and sites are well restored to appropriate open land uses”.
With regard to retail policy, the draft directs boroughs to Planning Policy Guidance Note number 6, and suggests that “in general planning policies should respond flexibly and positively to market forces and new types of retailing”. The advice reaffirms that there is no place for new freestanding retail schemes in either the green belt or metropolitan open land.
Conclusions
The draft advice outlined above can be regarded as something of a watered-down version of the document issued by LPAC last October. In places the guidance represents no more than a reiteration of national policy which provides boroughs with considerable scope for the formulation of strategic policy in Part I of their UDPs.
The removal of the need for boroughs to prepare five-year housing supply figures puts the onus solely on monitoring as the means of ascertaining how far a particular authority has proceeded in meeting its individual housing allocation.
With so much political and public attention being focused on the state of London’s transport system, it is disappointing to note that the guidance gives no indication on how land use policies are to interact with the various transport policies contained in the recent strategic studies.
The development industry should welcome the Government’s stance on planning gain and should also applaud the advice on development within Class B1. If the latter is transferred into the final draft, it will go some way to clarifying the “B1 issue” in London.
