Regional strategies - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 299

As noted previously the arrangements introduced in 1999 created a somewhat
ambiguous relationship in the English regions between the Regional Development
Agency (RDA) responsible for the Regional Economic Strategy and the Regional
Assembly responsible for the Regional Spatial Strategy. (In London the Mayor has
responsibility for both.) Structural change to secure better integration was a logical
development. However the manner in which the Government proposed to do this
was highly controversial. Consistent with its emphasis on economic development the
Government proposed to give the RDA responsibility for preparing a single strategy
and to abolish the Regional Assembly. The RDA would become the regional planning
body (RPB) and the IRS would then incorporate all strategies currently prepared at
regional level, not merely RES and RSS/RTS. The IRS would assume the status of
the regional component of the 'development plan' and thus form part of the statutory
framework for local development planning and development control.
If proceeded with this would mean the role of RPB being transferred to a body
which

a is in the nature of an executive agency traditionally concerned with short/

medium-term delivery rather than longer-term planning

b is business-led in character, charged with pursuing a particular sectoral objective

(promoting sustainable economic growth) rather than managing the interplay
between a range of objectives

c is run by a board of Government appointees rather than by an assembly of elected

representatives from within the region.

To maintain the link with elected representatives (following the abolition of
Regional Assemblies) the leaders of councils in each region were expected to organise
themselves into a 'forum' which would 'sign off' (i.e. agree to) the draft IRS before
it was submitted to Ministers. Following consultation however the Government has
accepted the case for a collaborative approach to producing the draft regional strategy
with the RDA and the Local Authority Leaders Board having joint responsibility for its
drafting, implementation plan and monitoring of delivery (BERR and DCLG 2008b).
The IRS are intended to be 'succinct documents setting out the regions' vision for
how and where sustainable growth should be delivered'. They are also intended to
be produced according to a 'streamlined' process taking just 25 months to ministerial
approval (Figure 18.2) - i.e. about two-thirds of the time set for the current RSS.
The practicality of these two aspirations is scarcely credible - or if they are to be
achieved then they imply much more cursory intelligence gathering and stakeholder
involvement.
The SNR Consultation Paper does not refer to any 'separately identifiable' RTS
component (though transport will be one of the mechanisms for delivering growth) nor
to sub-regional strategies forming part of the IRS. If omitted this would remove the
more detailed area-specific policies which are critical for effective local development and
transport planning. (In the current draft RSS for South East England this sub-regional
component occupies almost a third of the 340-page Core Document.) Such omissions
would merely defer consideration of cross-boundary issues and provoke additional
uncertainty, contention and delay within the overall planning process. It is possible that
these voids might be filled by joint local authority working but whether and how the
various pieces of the jigsaw for economic development, spatial planning and transport
might be made to 'fit' in time and place at the sub-regional level is unclear.