National Planning Policy Framework - A help or a hindrance?

Mrs M and I took ourselves off for a trip to Italy for a couple weeks. Take in the sights, sounds and smells of Venice, Florence and Rome I thought. Some fresh pasta, delightful breads with olive oil dips and wine. Oh the wine…. (This is a blog post all of its own and which I will leave for later.)

But all this was brought to an abrupt halt as I discovered that the Coalition was pressing ahead with its proposals for reform of planning policy and this was something that I would need to get to grips with PDQ.

I remember seeing a recent quote, but can’t for the life of me remember who said it (it will come back to me in due course), to the effect that “We no longer expect our politicians to help; we just hope that they won't hinder”.

What a wonderful sentiment and I suppose as good a measure as any against which to test the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

So where to start?

Well, Planning Minister Greg Clark, in a statement to MPs on Tuesday 27th March published the revised NPPF. This came into immediate effect for plan-making and planning decisions although there are to be transitional provisions (more of this later). 

As a result, the current Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) are revoked and replaced by the NPPF. Annex 3 contains a list of documents replaced by the NPPF. The only PPG/PPS survivor is PPS 10. Circular 05/05 on planning obligations goes but Circular 11/95 on conditions remains. Planning: General Principles survives to be read in the context of the NPPF Annex 1 and the Eco Towns Supplement to PPS1 also stays.

Clarke said the wording had been amended significantly from the original draft as a result of a huge consultation exercise and considerable debate. Furthermore he asserted that the Coalition had accepted “in whole or in part” 30 out of 35 recommendations to amend the draft NPPF proposed by the House of Commons select committees. 

The document therefore comprises 219 provisions set out in only 49 pages coupled with Implementation and Glossary appendices and is to be read as a whole. 

In addressing the Commons, Clarke identified three 3 fundamental objectives to the Coalition’s reforms to planning policy as follows: 

• To put unprecedented power in the hands of communities to shape the places in which they live; 
• To better support growth to give the next generation the chance that our generation has had to have a decent home, and to allow the jobs to be created on which our prosperity depends; and 
• To ensure that the places we cherish - our countryside, towns and cities - are bequeathed to the next generation in a better condition than they are now. 

So the approach comes with its own inbuilt tensions. On the one hand raised expectations that local communities are going to influence and determine what happens in their own areas while on the other hand raised expectations that house builders are going to be able to build houses and create jobs. And tacked onto that already incendiary conflict; a suggestion that this can all be achieved and that the end result will somehow be better than it would otherwise have been. 

Clarke is of course right in some respects. The national guidance had become bloated with reams of often contradictory advice to local planning authorities and developers alike. But the source of all of this guidance was central government. And I for one don’t lay the blame at the door of just one of the political parties. They are all equally to blame; as they sought to impose their own idiosyncratic will on the process. 

In other respects however Clarke and the Coalition are, in my view, quite wrong. Communities saw planning as a process they participated in. Having been directly involved in four different development plan inquiries I have witnessed first hand the contribution, often very helpful, never un-entertaining, that locals bring to the process. To suggest otherwise does this contribution a disservice. But the new reality is that local communities are going to have to be sure to engage with the local plan-making process from the outset. This process will be ramped up as local planning authorities move quickly to ensure up-to-date plan coverage. There will therefore be very real opportunities to engage with, and influence, the future development in those areas.

Furthermore, the suggestion is that the complexity of the planning system in itself has led to its ineffective slowdown. This is just not true. The failure of local planning authorities to prepare, consult on and adopt a development plan is equally about resources and local planning authorities’ ability to deal with the continually changing requirements of successive governments as much as anything.  Although to be fair it is true that only just over half of all local planning authorities have a development plan in place at present.

And what of housing numbers? Well developers build houses and there is clearly benefit in controlling the number of houses built for sale. There are significant land banks in place and the economics of supply and demand and the impact of the relationship thereof on pricing are only too obvious to see. But it was Government who promoted, and a Conservative Government to boot that actively promoted, the ‘Right to Buy’ scheme. Is it any wonder that there is a shortage of good quality housing stock for rent? This coupled with the shift in the provision of social housing from local housing authorities to Housing Associations and Registered Social Landlords has had a significant impact on housing numbers. It is disingenuous therefore to lay the blame at the door of the planning system alone.
  

Now where do we go from here? 

Clarke says that the reforms to the planning system (note not to policy) address all of the concerns.

He says that the local plan, to be produced by local people, will be the keystone of the planning system. But neighbourhood plans apart (with all their costly complexity); the local plan will generally still be produced by the local planning authority. It is to be hoped that local planning authorities really do approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development and that they look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.
  

He says that planning will be simpler and more accessible because of the reduced volume of guidance. But this simply accepts the reality that there will be gaps in the guidance that will be open to different interpretations and exploitation. Hardly a recipe for quick easy decision making. More of a lawyers’ charter for argument, challenge and counter challenge. 
   

The presumption in favour of sustainable development is, Clarke tells us, going to mean quicker development. At least there is recognition that this embraces social and environmental as well as economic objectives and does so in a balanced way and explicitly refers to the five principles of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy. 

But local planning authorities in areas with development plans adopted pre-2004 and which do not make provision to meet more recently assessed needs are very likely going to struggle to resist anything other than significantly harmful development particularly where there is a need case and nothing by way of nationally important designation to prevent it. Hidden in the footnotes to the presumption is the statement that it applies “unless material considerations indicate otherwise” and it is not sure how the relationship between Local Plans, the presumption and other material considerations will work in practice.

Planning decisions will still have to be taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Clearly the process requires a degree of flexibility to accommodate a position where the development plan is not appropriate or directly relevant and circumstances require an alternative approach. But the underlying tenet is that proposed development that accords with an up-to-date local plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. This of necessity demands that local people should have involvement in the plan-making process very high on their agenda to ensure that the positive attitude toward sustainable development is reinforced for the future.

Critically and I suspect as a result of the sustained campaign waged against the original draft NPPF document, there are going to be robust protections for our natural and historic environment, and additionally the provisions will require net improvements to remedy previous neglect. This will, we are told, be coupled with the most exacting design requirements ever contained in the English planning system. The provisions make explicit that the presumption in favour of sustainable development works through, not against, local plans. Furthermore Clarke says that relevant policies - such as those protecting the Green Belt, SSSIs, National Parks and other areas - cannot be overridden by the presumption and equally importantly there is said to be a recognition that the intrinsic value and beauty of the countryside (whether specifically designated or not) will be material. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances and this protection is retained from the long standing guidance in PPG 2: Green Belts. 

But this familiar “exceptional circumstances” test only applies to boundaries “once established”.  It is therefore unclear whether this is only forward looking or embraces existing detailed boundaries. The question is whether a pre-NPPF detailed Green Belt boundary sets the framework for “Green Belt and settlement policy” or is a new exercise now to be required in order to fully conform?
  

The document now makes explicit what Clarke says was always implicit: that council policies must encourage brownfield sites to be brought back into use. Furthermore, it is said to underline the importance of town centres, while recognising that businesses in rural communities should be free to expand. Hardly encouraging to those who have long argued that these should be given priority (a sequential test requirement if you like) over virgin, greenfield sites. Local authorities can of course go there with their local plans but those without plans will not be able to pray available brownfield sites in their defence. As for town centres, the message is clear that retail and leisure needs should be met “in full” with the corollary that town centres may need to be expanded to “ensure a sufficient supply of suitable sites”.  The sequential test remains and has been stated in more robust terms. It now applies to offices as well as retail and leisure. The impact test has been clarified so that the main focus is the first 5 years. 

There are also going to be requirements that create a buffer of housing land supply over and above 5 years, and which deal with windfall sites. The difficulty is that for many authorities with pre-2004 plans and a record of persistent under delivery there will be nothing to move forward and no means of complying with the 120% requirement other that granting planning permission. Their policies will be out of date and the presumption in favour will apply. 

Clearly there is a potential problem for all of those local planning authorities without the necessary development plan in place. Clarke however says that it was always his intention that councils who have done the right thing and either adopted, or have made good progress towards adopting local plans, would not be disadvantaged by the change to the new policy. 

That being the case there are transitional arrangements which accord weight to plans according to how advanced they are. In addition there is a 12 month period for existing plans to be adjusted to be in complete conformity with the framework. This provides some breathing space for local planning authorities who will continue to apply current policies to planning applications. However, if a development proposal is supported under the framework, but this gives rise to more than a limited conflict between the local plan and the framework, the question of degree will come in to play. The very old plans adopted and unaltered since 2004 still out there may come under particular scrutiny. It is now also made clear that weight can be given to emerging plans including any emerging core strategies or other local development framework documents. The weight to be attached increases the more advanced the document is toward adoption. 

So has the Coalition helped or hindered?

The consensus seems to be that while the final version of the document was a considerable improvement on the draft, it remains both more developer friendly and more open to legal challenge than before. Clearly many planning applications will be fought on the basis of differing interpretations of the document at various levels. Certainly a majority of planning professionals surveyed recently by Planning magazine take the view that it will lead to an increase in the number of appeals and I think by extension to the number of challenges in the courts where opponents are sufficiently well financed. Only time however will tell before we can determine the NPPF’s true impact.

The NPPF can be found here. Technical guidance to the framework can be seen here.