We are approaching the endgame at least so far as the emerging National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is concerned.
The word on the street, confirmed by a Communities and Local Government spokesman, is that we will see the second iteration by month end.
But does anyone really know, outside of the Chancellor and the Treasury, what is really going to emerge this month?
There is certainly a lot of spin and wishful thinking from various commentators and interest groups doing the rounds; some of which may be by way of leaks to test possible reaction. “Let’s run it up the flagpole and see who salutes” as our American cousins might say.
On the one hand, the suggestion is that property developers will be forced to build in town centres and on brownfield land before being allowed to dig up the countryside. On the other hand, George Osborne is said to be determined to include the reforms in the Budget and some ‘sources’ have confirmed that there would be no “significant” changes to the original document.
Opponents see the resulting presumption in favour of ‘Sustainable Development’ as a massive opportunity for commercial developers and house builders, as long as they are able to demonstrate the sustainable credentials of a scheme coupled with a willingness to engage with local neighbourhoods at the planning stage.
Leaving aside the question of just what any of these terms actually mean, planning policy, at the end of the day, needs to reflect and balance the competing interests of the economy, the environment and local communities.
The Coalition says that this is what it wants to try and do.
The Conservative Party’s ‘Open Source Planning ’ Policy Green Paper No 14 raised the concept of ‘localism’ where there is “…a basic framework of planning priorities and policies, within which local people and their accountable local governments can produce their own distinctive policies to create communities which are sustainable, attractive and good to live in…” based, at least in part, on the abolition of what was thought of as restrictive regional planning approach including Regional Spatial Strategies and national and regional building targets. The Green Paper also set out the commitment to “… publish and present to Parliament for debate a simple and consolidated national planning framework, which will set out national economic and environmental priorities, and how the planning system will deliver them”. In addition the Green Paper pledged to “…issue a reduced number of simplified guidance notes, setting out minimum environmental, architectural, design, economic and social standards for sustainable development…”.
This was seen as creating a huge expectation that the concept of ‘localism’ would allow local people to have more control over their own areas. Others saw it as nothing more than a NIMBY’s charter. The proposals were however tempered by the, often overlooked, confirmation that the intention was to create a system of approvals which is much more open and responsive by “establishing a presumption in favour of sustainable development…”.
Remember David Cameron in his Countryfile interview earlier this year when he asserted that the NPPF would give local communities “much more say, much more control”. And of course he asked us to accept that he would no more put the Cotswolds at risk “than I would put at risk my own family”. Well, I for one believe him, at least in respect of the Cotswolds; but what about the rest of England
The concepts of localism have very largely been followed through in the Localism Act 2011 but there is secondary legislation and detailed guidance to come. There are complicated processes to be undertaken and it will be interesting to see how many neighbourhood plans come to fruition.
The road towards the consolidation of the NPPF has been much rockier. The Coalition is faced with replacing over 1,200 pages of planning guidance with a new 52 page document in order to “…clear away red tape and to stimulate development and economic growth”.
I know what they mean. When I first started out as a fresh faced and some might have said “devilishly good looking” ‘Article Clot’ (but more of that in later blogs) the planners’ bible was the Encyclopedia of Planning Law and Practice. In those days it was a two volume loose leaf work easily transportable to outlying cold and draughty village halls for planning appeal public inquiries. Nowadays, with the effects of successive governments of different political persuasions and differing degrees of dogma coupled with an EU hell bent on micro legislation, it is in nine volumes with a separate tenth volume for the Tables and Index. “elf n’ safety” risk assessments are now required before you embark on such an ‘ambitious’ expedition these days.
Levity aside, serious and genuine campaigners are concerned that the draft NPPF and the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, puts communities and rural England
But whatever the various arguments, my own personal view is that the NPPF needs to be a document that allows the right development in the right place and which gives equal weight to social, environmental and economic considerations. Long experience tells me that this is not a decision that we, as a country, can afford to get wrong. The results of what is decided will, in all probability, in one way or another affect generations to come. Remember the 1960’s messianic worship of tower blocks as the antidote to the chronic housing shortage and its associated social ills.
If however we don’t get the NPPF right and it becomes a battlefield then the planning lawyers can look forward to a bonanza (I still haven’t got that Maserati Eric…yet!) and it will inevitably become much harder to bring forward the development that the country really needs.
