TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

8. Most planning authorities have a substantial body of planning policy and guidance which has been developed at considerable cost and taken through the proper procedures to adoption, including public consultation and inquiry.  They will be very concerned about two matters in the transition from the old system to the new -
   
   
   • that they should not lose or see put at risk the ground that has been gained in development plan policies and in established supplementary guidance, and
     
     
   • that important ongoing policy provisions, such as defined Green Belt boundaries, should not be opened up to challenge as part of preparing an LDF where there is no need to do so
     
     
9. Our understanding of the transitional proposals raises a number of concerns, together with some important questions to which we cannot find the answers in the current drafts. 
   
   
10. Saved plans - Some of these concerns arise out of the approach to saving existing development plans pending the preparation and adoption of LDFs.  In the past when changes were made to the development plan system, existing plans remained in force until replaced by a new plan under the changed system.  By contrast, this time the Government proposes that saving of existing plans should be limited to three years, unless the Secretary of State agrees to their extension for a further period.  We can understand the Government's wish to move from the existing to the new system as soon as possible, and to see a cut-off on saving plans as an incentive to get on with LDFs, but feel there are real risks in what is proposed.
    
    
11. This raises our first question.  If the Secretary of State does not agree to an extension, or the planning authority does not make application for an extension in time, (or does not get a decision from the SoS in time), what happens to the existing plan?  Does it effectively disappear in its entirety, leaving nothing behind?  If the answer is "Yes", allocated sites for housing and other development will no longer be so allocated, important policies will disappear, and so will key policy boundaries, such as the detailed boundary of the Green Belt.
    
    
12. There are other potential implications.  Since LDFs will be folders of plan documents, which may be prepared over a period of time, that is likely to mean that some DPDs will be prepared after the three year cut-off.  This could require planning authorities to seek approval to extend parts of their existing plans, where other parts have been replaced by provisions of LDDs.  This must be likely if authorities prepare their core policies first, in advance of area action plans or other legitimate LDDs.  Authorities will need to be very alert and careful in tracking through their existing policies and proposals, and making sure that significant provisions which are not fully replaced by new DPDs remain saved, and that appropriate and timely application is made to the SoS where the three year period has expired.  There is clear potential for debate and confusion here, with the resultant risk that authorities, the communities they serve and landowners will inadvertently lose an important aspect of planning policy.