Transcript The Planning White Paper: misconstrued problems, misinterpreted evidence, misconceived solutions Roger Levett Partner, Levett-Therivel [email protected] June 2007

The Planning White Paper:
misconstrued problems,
misinterpreted evidence,
misconceived solutions
Roger Levett
Partner, Levett-Therivel
[email protected]
June 2007
1
Levett-Therivel
On the bright side ...
The Planning White Paper (PWP) includes:
• Sensible procedural improvements (though
many just undo problems created in 2004)
• Role for planning in carbon reduction, energy
efficiency, renewables (though no concrete
actions beyond those aready announced in
Ruth Kelly’s Dec 2006 package)
• Excellent rhetoric on the value and importance
of planning for sustainability.
BUT ...
2
Levett-Therivel
Infrastructure
Rationale: decisions too slow, costly, uncertain:
Creates blight, delays / prevents projects we need.
Proposed solution:
• National policy statements define infrastructure
needed
• Independent Infrastructure Commission applies
policy to decide individual cases
Model:
• Government sets inflation targets
• Monetary Policy Committee controls Bank of
England interest rate to deliver the targets.
3
Levett-Therivel
Some
evidence
(from PWP)
4
Levett-Therivel
Speed: is there really a problem?
‘The [planning] process can take too long to
deliver decisions, impose substantial costs’
Really big, complex cases are a tiny minority.
Of Barker’s 6 picked examples, only 2 took over
43 months: Heathrow T5 and Dibden Bay.
Ministerial decision often adds months. Often
because of funding, wider policy consequences.
This will still take time … unless the Commission
has power to commit major public expenditure?
5
Levett-Therivel
Misleading case: Dibden Bay port
Barker presents as example of delay (over 3 1/2
years) and costs (£45M). But:
•Environmental downsides well known before
•Costs show how long and hard the developers
fought despite knowing these
•Time reflects planning’s fairness & transparency:
weighing all evidence, not ‘bought’.
Developers should ask themselves whether it was
responsible to try so hard - not criticise the
planning process for scrutinising thoroughly.
6
Levett-Therivel
Blight?
‘… generate large amounts of uncertainty. This
can extend planning blight, severely affecting the
lives of individuals directly affected by proposals.’
MIPs usually ‘in the air’ for decades:
•W Oxfordshire reservoir discussed since 70s
•All London airports threatened since 60s
•Central Rail on and off since 80s
Planning time only a fraction of total gestation,
often concurrent with funding (etc) negotiations.
It’s the threat of development that causes blight,
not planning for it. If we want less blight, the
answer is less new development.
7
Levett-Therivel
Diminishing returns
Infrastructure inevitably gets harder to fit:
• The best sites get used first: eg valleys where a
small dam and a small area stores lots of water
near consumers; flat direct transport corridors
with least landscape and community damage.
• Each increment inevitably does more damage
per unit of benefit.
• Land fills up (often around infrastructure)
because of population and prosperity growth.
• Health, environmental, amenity standards rise.
8
Levett-Therivel
Holding back the UK?
‘… can delay delivery of key infrastructure, with
harmful knock on effects for communities,
business, the economy and the environment. And
it can, in some cases, deter promoters from
bringing forward projects in the first place,
threatening our ability to deliver the infrastructure
we need to continue to thrive as a nation.’
9
Levett-Therivel
Infrastructure gives us ...
Road (inc motorway) ‘improvements’ to:
•allow & stimulate traffic growth (inc long trips)
•erode local cohesion and distinctiveness
•deepen the disadvantage of not having a car
Airport expansion to:
•increase net outflow of tourism spend
•stimulate a totally unnecessary ‘air culture’
•grow energy intensive food imports
•make negligible difference to business
Gas power stations to:
•squander premium fuel at low efficiency
•make us dependent on ex Soviet bandit states
•encourage energy waste from low prices
•dump social costs (eg mining communities) 10
Levett-Therivel
Climate change
‘National policy statements would need to address
the vital issues of mitigation and adaptation to
climate change. The potential impact of
infrastructure on carbon dioxide emissions, and
how to minimise this impact as far as possible,
would have to be considered in developing national
policy statements …
National policy statements would also need to
reflect the physical impacts of climate change on
projects and the need for resilience throughout
their lifespan …’
11
Levett-Therivel
Climate change: realities
IPCC, Stern etc, acknowledge:
• Risks of catastrophic climate change greatly
increase above 2° temp rise / 450 ppm CO2
• Averting this requires at least 80% cut by 2050
Politically easy options won’t achieve this:
• Eco-efficiency improvements are at best
preventing further emissions increases
• Emissions Trading Scheme ineffectual (EAC)
• Carbon offsetting often a sham … or a scam
• Anyway trading only moves the problem around:
someone, somewhere, has to actually cut CO212.
Levett-Therivel
Implications for infrastructure
Serious emissions cuts necessitate much less
•motor traffic
•energy consumption
•air travel (people and goods)
•rubbish needing disposal.
Resilience requires much less reliance on long
distance trade, resource flows, travel.
We’ll need less centralised infrastructure not more.
For National Policy Statements to genuinely
‘address’ climate change, they must presume
against growth in centralised infrastructure.
13
Levett-Therivel
A really sustainable approach?
(1) Obviate infrastructure:
• Buildings comfortable with less energy
• Good local services that people don’t need to
‘choose’ to avoid:
(2) Local, distributed, closed loops
• Microgeneration, district heat / cooling / power
• Market gardens, local food processing
• Waste digestion, pyrolysis, gasification, burn
• Rainwater, grey water, purification, recharge
(3) Sustainable methods:
• renewable energy
14
• walking, cycling, light/heavy rail
Levett-Therivel
The shape of things to come?
‘The 2003 Air Transport White Paper explained the
need to expand our airports but to do so in a way
that took account of environmental and other
considerations.’
On Government/industry scenarios, aviation
growth will cause 1/4 of UK total climate impacts
by 2050. Independent scenarios: up to 4X total.
BAA argue Stansted expansion inquiry should not
discuss climate change because ATWP already
‘takes it into account’.
National policy statement invoked to suppress
examination of a huge policy contradiction.
15
Levett-Therivel
Misleading case: gas storage
Barker: ‘the UK is moving towards increasing [gas]
import dependence ... new infrastructure is
needed to increase the UK’s capacity to import and
store gas, with the market planning to deliver
some £10 billion of projects by 2010.’
Implies it will be planning’s fault if stops ‘the
market’ reacting quickly to keep us secure.
Actually, gas insecurity was a widely predicted
result of Thatcher privatisation. If 20 years later
‘the market’ is only now responding, we need
more energy planning not less. And better to
reduce demand than hustle for supply.
16
Levett-Therivel
An unsuitable model
Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee pulls
one policy lever to manage one numerical variable.
All collateral effects left to other instruments.
Barker sees infrastructure planning by analogy as
a one-dimensional task of clearing developers to
pour concrete fast enough to keep up with
business demands.
This ignores all the complexities and conflicts that
make planning necessary.
17
Levett-Therivel
Conclusions on infrastructure
The country’s economic well-being is not
imperilled by an inability to make snap decisions
to build ports, airports, railway lines, motorways,
reservoirs, power stations and such like in places
nobody had ever thought of doing so before.
If current planning process really has ‘deterred’
some infrastructure, this is a benefit.
Putting the word ‘sustainable’ in front of aviation
expansion, energy supply, economic development
(etc) does not magically make them so.
White Paper’s climate change rhetoric bears no
relation to its proposals.
18
Levett-Therivel
Damage limitation
New process could be made less damaging if:
• Commission appointed by local government,
environmental / social NGOs, academia - not
ministerial patronage.
• Wellbeing as prime test of development. Growth
or commercial profitability not assumed to be
identical to or even consistent with wellbeing.
• Independent sustainability appraisal of national
policy statements, with teeth.
• Options hierarchy: (1) avoid / obviate, (2) local
close loop solution, (3) most sustainable mode /
trechnology.
19
Levett-Therivel
Economic development
‘We will amend the statement of general principles
to … recognise the benefits that development, if
properly planned for, can bring, including those
that can flow from economic development ... in
determining planning applications, local planning
authorities must pay full regard to the economic,
as well as the environmental and social, benefits
of sustainable new development.’
Barker asserts that planning system is biassed
against economic development. Example: IKEA
expansion thwarted by planning.
20
Levett-Therivel
Misleading case: IKEA
‘With average 750 staff per store, would have
increased employment and driven competition in
the sector.’ But IKEA is competitive because
•standardisation/automation allows low staffing
•sourcing from low cost countries
So more IKEAs likely to mean:
•net loss of UK retail and manufacturing jobs
•existing retailers forced to copy or go bust
•less in-town retailing, more out of town.
Job losses might be offset by sector growth. But:
•no attempt to compare + with 21
•does more Weetabix furniture make us happier?
Levett-Therivel
Misleading case: IKEA
‘[IKEA expansion] also had potential to lower longdistance drive times: over 30% customers drove >
2 hours due to lack of local stores.’
Yes, some of them will probably drive less far.
But more people will drive to the new IKEAs …
And more still will have to when new IKEAs have
killed their town centre competitors.
Again Barker makes no attempt to compare + and
- effects.
22
Levett-Therivel
Misleading case: IKEA
‘… despite some local authorities wanting to
attract to their area.’
Doesn’t mean more IKEAs makes UK better merely that if you’re going to get the disbenefits
anyway, you may as well try to get benefits too.
‘IKEA has now changed its business model,
making a major retailer cause less traffic and
inequity is a success!
but this may lead to higher construction and
operating costs and lower capital returns …’
ie lower multinational profits, better communities,
buildings, lower externalities. This too is success!
23
Levett-Therivel
Misleading case: waste projects
Barker: ‘90% of waste applications are granted
[but] there is some anecdotal evidence that a
number of applications for waste disposal or
recovery do not come forward at all.’
No end of applications are possible. If any ‘do not
come forward’ because everyone sees they cannot
meet requirements on (eg) noise, smell, traffic,
access or proximity, planning both prevents
undesirable development and saves everyone time.
Principle applies to all kinds of development.
Barker presents no evidence that any proposals
deterred by planning would have been desirable.
24
Levett-Therivel
The ambiguity of refusals
Barker and PWP assume that refusal of planning
permission means loss of economic benefit.
High refusal rate could mean:
•plan unreasonably restrictive
•plan unclear, ambiguous, poorly explained
•planners make capricious/inconsistent decisions
Or that potential profits are so high that
developers keep ‘trying it on’ (Eg London?)
25
Levett-Therivel
The ambiguity of refusals
Low refusal rate could mean:
•plan effectively encourages good development
•good planner-developer partnership
•development the plan seeks is also profitable
Or plan is too weak, planners overstretched,
councillors too craven, to stop bad development.
26
Levett-Therivel
The ambiguity of refusals
Refused development may be a net loss to the
community whose planners foolishly spurn it.
Or it may:
•avoid blocking something more beneficial
•go somewhere else more suitable
•come back improved, and be accepted
•be good riddance to bad rubbish.
Barker:
•only acknowledges a few of these possibilities
•makes no attempt to assess relative prevalence.
… so no meaningful conclusions can be drawn
27
about whether refusal rates are good or bad news.
Levett-Therivel
Benefits or disbenefits?
Barker: ‘The planning system will rightly have a
negative impact on investment in some
circumstances due to its need to consider
economic, environmental and social objectives.
Turning down applications that will have a net cost
to society is an important function of the planning
system. An application likely to damage the local
environment, or impose a poor quality of design
on a community, may often be correctly refused.’
Quite so.
But ...
28
Levett-Therivel
Benefits or disbenefits?
Barker quotes evidence only business downsides.
Even this is either pre-2000 or uncorroborated,
uncontextualised business anecdotes.
No attempt to identify or assess the social or
environmental benefits of planning, let alone
compare these with the business costs.
… a staggeringly unbalanced and flimsy basis for
arguing that the planning system needs to be
rebalanced in favour of development!
29