You will no doubt have seen or heard the news bulletins today about the DCLG Select Committee’s report on the draft National Planning Policy Framework, in which it describes the document as ‘unhelpfully vague’, calls for a more ‘inclusive definition’ of sustainable development as well as a transitional period for implementation and advocates a return to brownfield first.
The Home Builders Federation has responded, rightfully drawing attention to the lack of homes being built currently and therefore the need to press on urgently rather than start to unpick the draft.
This is the report in full, although the document is over 200 pages long as it includes the minutes of sessions and evidence submitted as well as the report itself. As such, We’ve pulled out what we can see as the main points:
- There is little evidence of any desire to retain existing system or to start again on the NPPF
- The report says the draft NPPF does not necessarily achieve clarity through brevity and gaps in policy could lead to huge increase in size of local plans
- The report believes this could lead to ambiguity and ‘planning by appeal’
- The default ‘yes’ to development should be removed
- A welcome indication from Ministers of rethink on brownfield first policy
- ‘Sustainable development’ is poorly defined and needs to be extended and strengthened
- ‘Presumption in favour of sustainable development consistent with Local Plan’ is suggested as a way to emphasise primacy of Local Plans
- A spur to local authorities to develop local plans is needed
- A transition period to NPPF is essential to allow local authorities time
So, what’s the reaction been? Its early days, but these are the responses we’ve picked up so far:
British Property Federation: The BPF supports many of the report’s findings, particularly the reintroduction of brownfield and town centre first policies. It says the property industry is not at odds with the committee’s proposed definition of sustainable development and the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development consistent with a Local Plan’, as long as there is a suitably robust mechanism to ensure that, in the absence of a Local Plan, development can continue. The BPF also believes that it is imperative that there is a suitable incentive for local authorities to produce a plan – seven years on from legislation requiring local authorities to do so, most authorities still do not have finalised plans in place.
Local Government Association: The LGA has also placed emphasises on the importance of Local Plans, with the report raising concerns that the proposed ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ may undermine the importance of these. The LGA also supports calls for clarity to ensure that Local Plans continue to determine what developments occur in neighbourhoods. It welcomes the report’s call on the Government to establish a timetable for implementation of Local Plans, citing the bureaucratic approval process of the Planning Inspectorate for the delay in their delivery. The LGA also agrees that the Inspectorate should be given the resources they need to process the Local Plans to avoid any future delays.
Town and Country Planning Association is pleased to see that the report has made a number of recommendations around what it sees as central TCPA concerns on the draft NPPF, such as the definition of sustainable development, transitional arrangements and the vulnerability to litigation from imprecise language.
British Chambers of Commerce feels that the suggestion by the committee that the draft needs significantly altering, including the removal of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, risks the ability of businesses to grow, and the economy to recover. It describes how the current system has developed into an overly complex, costly, uncertain and time-consuming process that discourages investment. It feels that the Select Committee has failed to recognise the extent to which the planning system is a constraint on economic growth – “We all want to protect areas of the countryside, but business’s experience of planning on even the most modest developments shows that the system, and its bureaucracy, is a serious brake on economic growth, prosperity and jobs. Further consultation will just result in greater delays when reform is needed now,” said Adam Marshall, the Chambers’ Director of Policy.
Time will tell what, if any changes are made going forward.