Think it through

Planning
Greater clarity,a more considered tone and addressing the lost details would make the draft national planning policy stronger, judge MPs. Report by Eleanor Young

A committee of MPs taking evidence on the draft National Planning Policy Framework has raised further questions on this drastically compressed text. The communities and local government committee’s report, published just before the Christmas break, stated that sustainability must be clearly defined, the ‘vague’ language throughout needed to be tightened up, and a clear strategy was needed for supporting advice. The department was advised ‘not to make a fetish of how many pages it is… If the NPPF is to assist practical decision-making, rather than be a lawyers’ charter or an easy-to-read guide to the planning system, it must be more precise and consistent, and sufficiently detailed to enable local authorities to write their own local plans.’

Much of the popular opposition to the NPPF has centred on the term ‘a presumption in favour of sustainable development’, a phrase the committee usefully unpicked. The conflation of ‘sustainable economic growth’ and ‘sustainable development’ plus economic pronouncements means it reads as a bullish statement about the importance of the growth which should be considered above other planning concerns. The committee said: ‘By the use of such phrases as “where reasonable”, and “where practical”, it gives the impression that the “sustainable” part of “sustainable development” can be jettisoned almost at will.’

A fine balance
The committee noted that minister Greg Clark’s oral statement ‘was couched in terms of localism and transferring power to communities, and did not refer to economic growth’. But to make the balance clear, it said the government should avoid using ‘growth’ and ‘sustainable’ development interchangeably.

Parliament’s environmental audit committee pointed to ongoing discussion of the phrase sustainable development beyond the 1987 Brundtland definition as that which ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. The report recommends adopting the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy guiding principles (point one: ‘living with environmental limits’). The committee called for ‘an explicit statement of the need to address and seek to achieve all aspects of sustainable development’, and not to assume that ‘one can be traded off against another’.

The RIBA has drawn attention to the NPPF’s inadequacy in the absence of local plans – critical when 47% of councils have no core strategy (and even fewer an adopted one). In this case the ‘presumption for development’ would remain unchecked by other local issues.

Also controversial is the proposed reform of supporting documents like planning policy guidance (6,000 pages, over 160 documents). The government wants outside organisations to put them together but the committee is clear that the government must own them and ensure consistency of approach, whatever their genesis. And despite the desire to cut red tape the committee’s many witnesses appreciated the guidance that was relevant to them.

Three big issues provoked clear concern over changes in definitions and detail, prompting the committee to recommend a return to earlier wordings or something closer to them. The first was affordable housing where the eligibility changed in the redrafting. The town centre first test was also watered down and the emphasis on brownfield land removed in planning policy statement 3 along with all the other planning policy statements.

If the government does take the concerns of the committee seriously – and Clark’s comments do suggest some humility – it is unlikely the NPPF will hit its April publication target or its super-low page count. In fact the committee suggests further consultation and it does seem that more reflection, and a good dose of clarification, could go a long way.

In brief

Under review
In Wales an independent advisory group has been formed to propose options for the country’s planning system. It is chaired by former Welsh director of the planning inspectorate John Davies. The group will report back this summer and form part of the consultation process for a new planning bill, or you can respond directly by
5 March.

See details at tiny.cc/vd3h4

Poor planning
Northern Ireland is facing a crisis of confidence in its planning system according to a survey by Queen’s University Belfast for Friends of the Earth. Out of 544 respondents, 78 per cent believe that Northern Ireland’s planning system serves people poorly or very poorly. The survey included planners and politicians. tiny.cc/r0l4p.

Shopping
The Portas Review for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills has made a number of recommendations about re-invigorating high streets to retain their social and economic capital. Suggestions include encouraging town centres to be run like businesses and an emphasis on the town centre first planning policy. tiny.cc/pa5w0