Comments by the Planning Officer's Society

1. The Planning Officers Society (POS) represents the most senior professionals and managers of planning services in the English Local Authorities. The Society aims to:
   
   
   • Act as an advocate and promoter of Local Government planning
   • Assist and advise the Government and the Local Government Association on planning matters and any related issues
   • Act as a centre of excellence, undertake research and promote best practice in planning matters
   • Promote all aspects of the built and green environment by working closely with other organisations and profession
   
   
2. This response draws together the responses of the Society’s Topic Groups. The Development Control Topic Group provided a detailed response which helpfully amplifies the general points made in this response and forms part of the Society’s response to PPS1.
   
   
3. The Society welcomes the emphasis PPS gives to proactive planning, particularly spatial planning, sustainable development and community involvement. We are also pleased to see the lead role given to planning for the delivery of the sustainable communities agenda. The link with Community Strategies should be made earlier in the PPS rather than left to the very last sentence. This link is critical to the new planning regime and this needs to be recognised earlier in the Statement.
   
   
4. In developing long term plans, paragraph 1.25, in addition to involvement with existing communities regard has to be had to the needs of communities of the future who cannot have a voice in the process.
   
   
5. We are concerned about the lack of specificity in the guidance compared to the current PPG1. Also it fails to fulfil the government’s own declared objective for PPSs i.e. clarity and separation of guidance from policy. Even as a Statement of planning principles there are inconsistencies within the document; for instance the four aims of sustainable development are set out in paragraph 1.13.but in paragraphs 1.15 onwards the four aims are expressed differently.   
   
   
6. We are concerned that the PPS does not take a stronger approach on design matters and see design as an integral part of planning. The status of design policies in development plans and that such policies will be supported on appeal needs to be clearly stated. With CABE and others we jointly agree the importance of design and the proposals made in that response to strengthen the approach to design.
   
   
7. We consider that there is insufficient in the statement about sustainable design and construction in a planning context.
   
   
8. Paragraph 1.22 should be stronger and require mitigation not just that mitigation be considered.