The next ty years307Commentators on the announcement variously cautioned that tying the resources to performance could entrench the ick-box and bean counting culture�and leave poor performing authorities without the resources to improve (Dewar, 2002d), whilst the lack of ring fencing might ensure that the extra funds are siphoned off to other local authority priorities (see Fig 16.5). It is hoped, however, that the extra resources for planning, alongside those for housing, represents the start of a longer-term recognition that as public interest services, planning and housing will only ever be as effective as the resources invested in them, and that to deliver anything other than the most basic of statutory responsibilities, more resources are required. The 2002 Comprehensive Spending review represented a step in the right direction. The research revealed that a superior service is demanded by all stakeholders. The next ty years So will planning in England play its part in meeting the housing challenges over the next ty years If the 2003 legislative changes are to be as long-lasting in their inence as those in the 1947 Act, then the ideas contained in the 2001 Planning Green Paper will have been truly far-reaching in their impact. A comparison of the key provisions in the Planning Green Paper against the e fundamental principles outlined in Chapters 11 to 15 indicates that in principle (if not yet in detail) much of the new agenda espoused by government will take forward the key recommendations emanating from this book (see Table 16.3). To conclude, however, it is instructive to brie examine four key responses to the consultation exercise held on the Planning Green Paper, representing the views of planners, private housebuilders, RSLs and amenity interests. The st three of these constituents (the main subjects of this book) were largely positive about the changes, although each with their own reservations (see Fig. 16.6). The RTPI (2002, paras 12�4), for example, argued that: Government has wrestled with the shortcomings of the development plan system since the 1991 Planning and Compensation Act introduced the lanled�system. Over this period, the Institute has argued consistently that the changes that can be achieved on the margin, without resort to new primary legislation, are insufient to make any real impact. . . . The radical changes proposed in the Green Paper clearly recognise this. . . . In contrast, the Green Paper proposals for the reform of development control, and the processing of planning applications, are less than radical, and represent a missed opportunity. For the RTPI the restatement of the importance of planning and renewed faith in a planled system were important, although for them and the HBF, the constant review proposed for the new forms of plans and three year anticipated life spans would not offer the certainty required for development. Perhaps responding to the criticisms, these latter proposals were dropped in the subsequent Planning Policy Statement in favour of a xible system of review and updating as necessary (ODPM, 2002a, para. 35). The HBF (2002d, para. 1) commented he recognition by Government of the need for reform of the planning system is welcome, as is the shared commitment to bring greater simplicity, speed, predictability and customer focus to the system.�They, in common with the RTPI and CPRE supported the maintenance of some form of subregional planning, in their case to ensure that adequate allocations were made at the district scale, and argued strongly in favour of measures to streamline development
