Campaign to Protect Rural England
Question: What is the Planning Disaster Coalition? And why is it necessary?
Neil Sinden:The Planning Disaster Coalition is a group of environmental and civic NGOs who have come together to campaign against some of the government's proposals for planning reform.
The coalition is uniting environmental groups, such as CPRE, the Woodland Trust, Friends of the Earth, the RSPB, but also others, such as the Civic Trust.
The aim is to create a united voice of opposition against some of the key planks of the government’s proposals, particularly in relation to the some of the major infrastructure proposals set out in the white paper.
Question: From the Woodland Trust's perspective what are the main aims of the coalition?
Ed Pomfret:The main aims, as I see them, are to stop the damaging proposals the government is supporting, but also to put forward a positive view of the planning system which ensures local involvement in decision-making and proper protection of the environment.
We believe the government is proposing economic development at the expense of local people and the natural environment.
Question: Why is the CPRE giving its backing to the planning disaster coalition?
Neil Sinden:From the CPRE's point of view, the planning system is one of the key tools for achieving sound environmental objectives and to accommodate necessary development in ways that respect and enhance the environment.
We are keen to voice our concerns with others and present a united voice in Parliament. We are very pleased to be working in partnership with groups who share our views.
Question: What is the relationship between planning, sustainability and development?
Ed Pomfret:I think I would turn that around and say planning is the key to delivering sustainable development and by sustainable development we mean something that integrates economic, social and environmental concerns.
We believe you should take a holistic approach to development, a sustainable environment and social concerns. Planning is one of the most powerful tools to deliver that.
What the government seems to be aiming towards is sustaining development rather than sustainable development. The planning system really is the way to deliver sustainable development.
Question: The Planning Disaster Coalition takes issue with both the Barker and Eddington planning proposals - why?
Neil Sinden:The first thing to say about the Barker review of planning is that the remit Kate Barker was given by the Treasury was very focused on looking at planning as a means of encouraging economic development and increasing economic performance and productivity.
It was a very narrow in terms of reference from our point of view, especially as it only skimmed the topic of sustainable development and the environment. If you look at the report produced by Kate Barker, that dimension was a very minor 'add on' to the main thrust of her analysis, which is all about how planning can facilitate economic development. Therefore we argue that from the very start that the review was biased.
Because it was flawed from the start, we believe, many of the recommendations that flowed from the report are highly questionable.
Moving onto the Eddington report, which focused largely on major transport infrastructure projects, we felt that this review was also flawed. It didn't embrace the big challenge facing the transport agenda, which is the climate change agenda.
We felt the Eddington review didn't look radically enough at how we can alter our transport needs and our modes of transport in the light of the challenge proposed by climate change.
So we feel that both those reviews were problematic from the start, as were the recommendations that flowed from them. We feel this has limited a fair debate on planning reform. The CPRE, for example, brought out a paper called Deconstructing Barker, which looks at Kate Barker's report in detail and challenges many of her recommendations. This report is available here.
I think other members of the coalition agree with us on this.
Ed Pomfret:Yes we agree and feel the Deconstructing Barker analysis is a very comprehensive one.
Question: Has the government been listening to your arguments, or are you fundamentally at odds with them?
Ed Pomfret:If you listen to what the government is saying you get the impression the government is actually listening. There is a lot of rhetoric about democracy and how it will be integrated into the system they are proposing, there is also a lot of talk about sustainability.
I still think the government has not fundamentally grasped what we are concerned about.
Our concerns are centred around the proposal to rebalance the planning system so that it is actually just a driver of economic growth, and we believe this is being done over and above local concerns and protecting the natural environment. I still think we are somewhere off the government actually listening, I don't think they have really taken on board our arguments yet.
Neil Sinden:I agree entirely with Ed. I do think it is important to say that despite all of this we have enjoyed good access to ministers and senior officials in the debates surrounding the planning reform agenda.
There is very little evidence that our concerns have been properly understood, however, and this is disappointing. But we are hopeful that we can continue that dialogue and we hope to see some progress as the bill moves through Parliament.
The other thing to add is that it is not just the planning reforms to be set out in the bill that we are concerned about: there is actually a wider set of reform proposals which do not require primary legislation.
One worth mentioning is the sub-national review, which came out of the Treasury a few months ago. It is proposing to radically alter the basis on which regional planning takes place.
The proposal here is to give the regional development agencies responsibility for planning and take the emphasis away from regional assemblies, which although flawed in some respects have a broader view than the RDAs.
Ed Pomfret:If I can just add to that, on the question as to whether we are at fundamental odds with the government, it's important to say we shouldn't be and the government shouldn't be at odds with us because everyone is keen to achieve a sustainable future and society especially with the challenges of climate change and biodiversity degradation.
So the government probably aggress with us, but the real problem is that certain parts of government don't seem to have grasped the issue.
Question: Your initial joint statement suggested that the planning system is not currently a problem. Doesn't the eight-year inquiry into Heathrow's Terminal 5 suggest otherwise?
Neil Sinden:We see planning as an essential tool for securing consent over appropriate patterns of development in ways that protect the environment and enhance sustainability. That it is not to say that on the ground the planning system is doing as much as it can do in this respect.
From our point of view there is a lot that can be done to improve the planning system so it promotes sustainability. Regarding the issue of delays in the system, it's in no one's interest that the planning system takes longer than it needs to take in coming to decisions on critical infrastructure, but a system that is about securing democratic involvement will necessarily take some time.
The democratic space that is needed to allow for consensus to be built is vital. Without it we will see a return to less effective planning decisions, for example planning by appeal - and this could also lead to more direct action by groups who feel their views have been overlooked. The decision-making process needs to be swift and focused of course, but it is going to take time.
The evidence of delays in the Barker review is an exception to the norm. For example the enquiry into Heathrow's terminal five was actually less than four years – not eight years as some suggest. Many would argue that because of the complexity and scale of these schemes it is inevitable that it will take that amount of time.
Our argument is that the planning system does need improving but in a way that secures more sustainable development outcomes. The proposals that the government is bringing forward on this aspect are pretty skimpy. Also, the planning system has seen a raft of recent reforms, which the government hasn’t allowed to bed down.
Question: Are you seeking to achieve through the planning system aims - about the balance between economic growth and environmental protection - which should be subject to a wider political argument?
Ed Pomfret:All of these arguments, social, political, economic, sustainable development, are for the government to balance and integrate.
We have the departments for transport and communities, now we have the RDAs as well - these are all supposed to be covering, in theory, sustainable development.
I think the planning system is one tool in achieving and delivering this. It is after all about how we use our land and as time goes on the issues around how we use our land become more and more important, be that for agriculture, food, fuel, and housing.
All of these issues are of vital importance in a country like Britain which has limited amounts of land.
Question: Looking at the relationship between the environment and the economy, is it really a case of environment versus economy?
Neil Sinden:The whole concept of sustainable development is one which seeks to integrate environmental, social and economic objectives. The idea is that you can pursue objectives under those three headings in ways which enable the environment to be protected, economic performance to be improved and social cohesion and welfare to be secured at the same time.
CPRE doesn't believe these objects need to be in conflict and it's quite disappointing that much of the good work that Defra has done on the sustainability agenda seems to have been sidelined in the debate about reform of the planning process.
Ed Pomfret:I think that is exactly right. I think some people do see a distinction between all three agendas, environmental, social and economic. But fundamentally, you have to have economic development with in environmental limits.
You have to have sustainable housing and development within the limits that we are dealing with. You need to account for all three in decision-making: it is all part of the same coin. It's a case of integrating these. I absolutely agree with Neil's point that government are some way off getting their head round this.
Question: Ministers talk a lot about protecting the environment, do you believe their actions are failing to match up to their words?
Neil Sinden:I think it is fair to say their actions do not always match their rhetoric and that the government's record on the environment is mixed. We recognise however the efforts that ministers have made recently in relation to tackling climate change.
The Climate Change Bill announced in the Queen's speech has to be welcomed, although there is a question about whether it is going far enough, quickly enough. But that shouldn't detract form supporting the steps the government has taken.
What is important from CPRE's point of view is that concern for the environment is not just about the impact of climate change, but also the character of the landscape, the health of the countryside and the quality of the natural environment.
Whilst it is undeniable that climate change is the biggest threat, the government worryingly seems to equate the environmental agenda with the climate change agenda.
It is failing to understand the importance of the wider environmental quality issues that are concerning many people, including those represented by the coalition. Government needs to adopt a broader approach to its environmental responsibilities.
Question: What's your vision for an Independent Planning Commission?
Ed Pomfret:Ideally, from our perspective we would like to see one not set up, we would like to see it killed off at birth. If they are going persist they must build into it the democratic element.
I don't think it is possible to govern in a way where you can impose major infrastructure on local communities without getting their consent first. People need to be involved and people need to have a say in their local environment and its protection. The only way such a body could be legitimate is if it has democratic accountability.
Neil Sinden:To add to that, I would expect there to be some kind of commission set up in a year or two's time and whilst I agree with Ed that we need to make sure it is accountable, our key point is that the new body should be, primarily, advisory rather than decision-making.
We do see some merit in there being increased institutional capacity, perhaps in the shape of an Independent Planning Commission to enable the difficult issues and evidence testing around projects to be examined in a more balanced and transparent way.
But essentially, we believe decisions should remain with ministers who are accountable to Parliament.
We also believe that the enquiry procedures to be used by the commission should be effectively probed and critiqued. There are serious concerns about proposals set out in the white paper, for example it may be possible for a commission to avoid holding a public enquiry at all.
If that were to happen that would be a huge loss to public involvement in decisions on big planning projects. As the bill goes through Parliament we want to encourage ministers to address some of these questions.
Question: How is the Planning Disaster Coalition going to proceed in 2008?
Ed Pomfret:I think the coalition is fundamentally there to put forward a positive view of planning and oppose the damaging proposals the government has put forward. So over next year we will be working through the bill process and try and reform the bill so it actually achieves a sustainable planning system. In terms of our future we will fight for as long as we need to in order to achieve a positive and stable planning system.
Neil Sinden:I totally agree. Although we will undoubtedly be a around for the passage of the bill through Parliament, after that we will probably want to sit down as a coalition and see to what extent we want to influence the new institution and processes once they have been put in place and to monitor performance. I hope we don't get to this stage but if the government doesn't address our concerns seriously, I can foresee battles ahead.