Cities and Devolution Bill
RTPI Evidence to the CLG Select Committee
1 September 2015
Introduction
The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) has over 23,000 members who work in the public, private, voluntary and education sectors. It is a charity whose purpose is to develop the art and science of town planning for the benefit of the public. The RTPI develops and shapes policy affecting the built environment, works to raise professional standards and supports members through continuous education, practice advice, training and development.
Summary
· Devolution is important to better delivering homes and jobs through urban planning.
· Solutions need tailoring to local circumstances, especially the contrast between met and non-met areas.
· Devolution may assist in integrating new housing and health provision more effectively.
· Relations between devolved areas (city regions, counties) are vitally important to housing delivery. They may be assisted by having single leaders who can negotiate with other areas and with government.
CLG Committee Questions and Answers
· How far does the Manchester devolution deal provide a model, and how much is this applicable to other areas?
1. The RTPI has argued that institutions at local, regional, city, national, and international level should be equipped to make and implement decisions if devolution is to be effective.[1] We have commended the Manchester method of joint working on strategic urban planning in our recent paper on this topic[2]. Both before the move to an elected mayor, and now with that approach, it meets various criteria we have identified as necessary for success in city-region governance and urban planning:
· Benefits for all parts of the conurbation/all areas thinking of the whole not just their part
· Bottom-up, locally designed
· Covering a wide-range of public policy areas eg including public transport management
· Strong local political buy-in
· Good links with business
2. We showed how that in the spatial planning arena, the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities has successfully arrived at a point where the key officials advising it – whilst formally employed by the constituent councils - are able to think effectively of the conurbation as a whole as well as about their own home authorities. Under the previous strategic planning arrangements of a county and 10 district councils which operated from 1974 to 1986 such an approach would have been less likely and districts tended to be at odds with the county.
3. It is clear that the current Manchester deal has only become possible through 20 years of patient growth in working together strategically. We think it may also have benefited, although this is speculative, from the strong attractiveness of Manchester to individuals of high ability. The City’s cultural offer, its universities, and its connections all contribute to assisting it to attract and retain talent. Another factor in the success of cooperation in Greater Manchester could be the relatively small size of the City, barely one fifth of the total population. (This may be of significance in the ease with which an elected mayor is accepted.)
4. To what extent is this replicable? It is clear that it is generally city regions which some affinity with Greater Manchester that have moved furthest in the direction of the Manchester model. These places should be able to match the attractiveness of Manchester to talented individuals. The balance of local authority sizes is not so often favourable in other city regions (e.g. Birmingham) and would be more of a challenge although one which other places are rising to. The 20 years of preparation are not so easily bypassed, although the example of Greater Manchester means that what works can be observed, and the prize of devolution now available may focus minds and act as an incentive not to be left behind.
5. Our work on strategic spatial planning has alerted us to the importance of the non metropolitan areas. In our view there are key priorities for these:
· Achieving county-wide agreement on land for sufficient housing (especially in counties with an underbounded city at their heart)
· Alignment of housing planning with transport planning and economic planning (the latter currently done by LEPs)
6. Given the importance of the non-metropolitan economy to the English economy, especially in the London-and-South-East region, and given what we have said about the need to align investment strategies for all infrastructure (including health and education) we think the devolution to counties is a key challenge. However a model based on a metropolitan area may have some limitations. Devolution is vital to non-met England but an appropriate style needs to be found for it. As we have demonstrated, the best devolution is locally-devised.
· How will the devolution of health spending to Greater Manchester affect the delivery of health services locally? What are the merits of extending this model to other cities and counties?
7. On Christmas Eve 2014 the Guardian reported a “6.45 am wait at one Surrey practice for appointments”. The Sunbury health centre was designed for 6000 patients but is now serving 19000 “with new housing expected to increase that number by 4000”. The health centre “complained of the council approving new housing without consulting the surgery”. [3]
8. Councils are being urged by the Department for Communities to make provision for more homes. However from a strictly health perspective this may not necessarily be good news. The practical outworking of Department of Health guidelines [4]is that any new health premises and the staff to run them (at first) should be financed by landowners accepting lower prices for land, and effectively deeding the balance to finance health care. However the development industry does not necessarily work in such a theoretically elegant fashion: prices for land cannot be retrospectively changed once deals have been made. And there are many calls apart from health services on the potential uplift in land values that occurs if planning permission is granted.
9. This is why we consider that there could be advantages if decisions on the scale and location of development in an area are coordinated with the budget for providing health – especially the construction and manning of primary health care facilities. This would not ensure that silo thinking on health and housing stopped, but it would allow a greater range of experimentation to occur in different cities and counties, and it would mean that the necessary link-ups could be made within the area rather than in Whitehall.
10. From our perspective then the question is not so much what is the impact of devolving health on health as what is the impact of this on the city as a whole¸ including health and future housing supply.
11. Spatial planning emphasises the role of planning in attempting to integrate policy between different sectors and geographical scales, and breaking down departmental and organisational barriers. Ideally, planning can bring together different kinds of investments in single places in order to provide for the future.
12. As part of any policy-making process it is crucial to identify decisions with a primarily national impact and those with a primarily subnational impact, and put in place appropriate governance arrangements so that these decisions can be made and implemented in the most effective way possible.
13. In order to address major challenges it is essential to align policy objectives and allow decisions to be made on the basis of the actual places where policies interact, rather than on the basis of individual policy objectives.[5]
· How the Bill will build on existing local accountability structures and ensure appropriate governance mechanisms are put in place for devolved functions
14. No response
· How the range of models available in the UK and abroad may suit the needs of different authorities, including all areas which have or intend to have a combined authority
15. We have indicated above that whilst there is a case for devolution in all areas, a model based on metropolitan areas may have limited applicability elsewhere. It appears from the Cornwall agreement made in July 2015 that the Treasury would allow alternatives to elected mayors in non metropolitan areas. On the other hand there are strong strategic advantages in having a single individual democratically mandated (one way or another) to speak for and negotiate on behalf of the area. Our work on strategic planning[6] has shown that it is best practice for areas undertaking strategic planning to have effective discussions with adjacent areas. For example coordination between city regions on the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds/Sheffield axis is important. And there is a very urgent need for better and more effective discussion on planning the London-and-South-East region. This latter could be assisted by the Mayor of London being able to negotiate with single representatives of surrounding counties.
16. Given that even the Prime Minister is not directly elected, it would seem suitable that a county leader could arrive at his or her position through an indirect route such as being chosen by constituent councils of a combined authority. However, taking national government as a model, it might arguably be helpful to electors to know who they are likely to get as their representative. This would require a single date for elections and clarity from all constituent councils in an area as to which county leader would be put forward if a given party were to win. This option however would have limited applicability in counties with districts with widely differing political control.
· How appropriate are current devolution plans for London and how do these relate to the legislation?
17. Our comments are generally confined to England-wide matters but a key concern for us is how devolution in London works in relation to the position in the surrounding areas. The establishment of the London Mayor in 2000 arguably weakened relations across the London boundary as it created an imbalance. This may have further exacerbated by firstly removal of county structure plans in 2004 and subsequently removal of the regional planning bodies designed to replace them (2012). Yet the continued pressures on the housing situation in both London and surrounding counties (whose own housing need is sometimes forgotten in debates) is our view making a proper debate between equals necessary in order for effective transport and housing planning of the region to move forward.
· What lessons can be learnt from the City Deals programme?
18. City Deals have been used successfully to incentivise coalitions of local state actors in several areas to develop strategies and identify and prioritise ‘asks’ of central government. This has led to the funding, financing and delivery of infrastructure and to the formulation and implementation of new initiatives in policy areas such as skills and business support. We think they could go much further, especially in the housing arena.
19. And we could also learn from the experience of Growth Deals with local enterprise partnerships. On this latter point we are concerned that some LEPs have posited levels of economic growth which are quite outside what can be supported by the level of housing growth agreed by the constituent local planning authorities. This is very inefficient to say the least, and could result in seriously increased levels of long distance commuting, if not seriously reduced growth locally. It is also arguably highly irresponsible to poach labour from other areas.
20. At the same time concern has been expressed regarding the “duty to cooperate” between planning authorities introduced in 2012. In some cases difficulty with meeting this requirement has caused delays in the local plan process. We argue that government could see more land for housing coming forward where it is needed if cooperation was incentivised. [7] This is not simply a lever to secure compliance. The incentives would be government support for front loaded investment in transport, health and education linked to the additional housing growth proposed.
21. A clear lesson that can be derived from the successful aspects of the programme is that when there is a positive reason offered to Local Authorities to cooperate, rather than just a requirement places on them to do so (as is the case with the “Duty” to cooperate), more constructive outcomes are achieved.
This evidence is prepared by Richard Blyth, Head of Policy, Practice and Research:
020 7929 8178
Royal Town Planning Institute
The RTPI is a charity registered in England (262865) and Scotland (SC 037841)
page 1
[1] RTPI Planning Horizons Making Better Decisions for Places (2014) see http://bit.ly/1JiSrbU
[2] http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1230885/RTPI-Strategtic%20Planning-Brochure%20FINAL%20web%20PDF.pdf
[3] http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/23/gps-warn-sunbury-predawn-queues-reflect-rising-pressure-family-doctors
[4] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/414138/hbn08-addend2.pdf See page 6 and following
[5] RTPI Planning Horizons Making Better Decisions for Places (2014) see http://bit.ly/1JiSrbU
[6] http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1230885/RTPI-Strategtic%20Planning-Brochure%20FINAL%20web%20PDF.pdf
[7] http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1230885/RTPI-Strategtic%20Planning-Brochure%20FINAL%20web%20PDF.pdf p 25