Ministers consult on rationalising planning guidance after damning report

The Government has launched a consultation on rationalising planning practice guidance, after an external review concluded that the current system was “no longer fit for purpose”.

The report, published before Christmas by a review group led by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, said: “It is currently neither an effective suite of planning practice guidance to support plan making and development management by the sector as a whole, nor is it in a form which can be effectively managed and kept up-to-date by Government.”

Lord Taylor’s report called for an altogether new approach to guidance, rather than the simple removal from current guidance that which is most redundant, contradictory or out-of-date.

It found that:

• A vast range of material had all counted as ‘guidance’ simply by virtue of carrying a DCLG stamp. “These have never been effectively managed as a whole. This is a critical consideration for the future if we are not to end up here again and if there is to be effective management of the guidance suite”.
• Some documents were “wildly out-of-date”. A number that were described as ‘living documents’ had not been amended since first publication. The DCLG and its predecessors had meanwhile never had the resources to maintain the material. “A critical issue for the future is that there must be a managed process for updating or cancelling documents as time passes”.
• Given that many organisations provided case study based advice, it was not obvious why the Government should retain or in future produce this material. This should instead be sector led.
• In future there needed to be an editorial process that identified and updated essential items, and offered this as guidance, “excluding all that is unnecessary, if well intentioned”.
• In some cases a particular piece of guidance might only be explicable and complete if several documents were cross-referenced, “making it unusable to those without specialist knowledge and potentially (if the unamended document is relied on) misleading and even dangerous”. It should be the responsibility of the DCLG – through the office of the Chief Planner – to ensure that in future guidance is kept easily accessible, explicable, and in a coherent form when updated.
• Guidance encouraged lazy legislative thinking. “If statute, regulations and Statutory Instruments were clearer, the wording would not need to be pieced together or clarified in guidance”.
• The practice of using Chief Planner’s letters and sometimes circulars to highlight and explain changes or current issues can confuse the waters. It should be possible to draw attention to or explain new guidance or address current issues without adding to the body of formal guidance.

The report said: “Across all those we met there is a clear understanding that the historic accumulation of out-of-date, contradictory and unmanageable material must be brought to an end, whittled down to an essential, coherent, accessible and well- managed suite of guidance that aids the delivery of good planning. It must then be maintained as such. Where there is a will, we believe there is a way.”

It recommended cutting guidance to that which is essential and clearly defined as 'Government Planning Practice Guidance'.

However, the report warned that guidance could never replace local judgement and the application of professional expertise. Best practice material should be managed by professional bodies, rather than by the Government.

The report said there was a role for Government Planning Practice Guidance in explaining regulatory and policy requirements, but suggested that it should not unnecessarily restate regulations and statutory instruments – “rather these should be written clearly in the first place”.

It added that live management of the set of guidance – through a web-based resource on a single site – should be the core task for the Government. “The presentation, processes for updating, and the range of essential material should be managed as a coherent suite by DCLG: this must be the only place that determines Government Planning Practice Guidance, with a clear management line of responsibility – we suggest through the Chief Planner.”

Planning Inspectorate guidance should be incorporated into the single set of guidance, it suggested. The new site would signpost organisations providing best practice guidance but not endorse specific documents.

The report continued: “It needs to be much clearer what is formal Government Planning Practice Guidance supporting the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning management.

“Anything Government says or produces may be taken into account by the courts or others, but formal planning guidance should be recognised as such through being clearly identified, referenced, dated and accessible in one place as a coherent and understandable suite - whether by planners, developers, NGOs, community groups or the general public.”

Lord Taylor said: “It is very clear that the old way of doing things is no longer fit for purpose. We have made recommendations for a modern web-based resource that is clear, up-to-date, coherent and easily usable, not just by planners and developers, but the public too.”

Planning Minister Nick Boles said: “We will carefully consider the report’s recommendations and I would urge other users of the planning system to have their say by responding to the consultation.”

The Taylor report suggested that the majority of the work should be completed by July 2013, subject to necessary consultation, legislative and EU processes and so on. “At that point all the existing guidance should have been, or be, cancelled – so there is one up-to-date web-based Government Planning Guidance resource.”

A copy of the report can be viewed here. 

The Government consultation on the report’s recommendations can be viewed here. The consultation runs until 15 February.

Philip Hoult