1 Introduction
1. "Planning is part art, part science and part
politics, quite rightly, and there will be uncertainties, difficulty
and argument all the time".[1]
Planning has to balance the development, use and preservation
of land for this and future generations, within the wider context
of social, environmental and economic needs. The proposed National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a key part of the Government's
overall programme of reform of the English planning system.
2. The Coalition Agreement (published in May 2010)
committed the Government to present to Parliament
a simple and consolidated national planning framework
covering all forms of development and setting out national economic,
environmental and social priorities.[2]
In December 2010, the Department for Communities
and Local Government (DCLG) published a general consultation,
inviting organisations and individuals to suggest ways in which
to make the planning system more streamlined and more decentralised.
DCLG received around 3,426 responses by the deadline of 28 February
2011. Also, in December 2010, the Minister for Decentralisation
and Cities, the Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, set up a 'Practitioners
Advisory Group' (PAG) to prepare a first draft of the NPPF.[3]
The PAG published its draft on 20 May 2011. Subsequently, in July
2011, the Government published its draft of the NPPF for consultation.
The consultation ended on 17 October 2011 and DCLG received over
10,000 responses.[4] DCLG
has indicated that the new national planning policy will be published
by April 2012[5] and that
the finalised document will replace all current Planning Policy
Statements (PPSs) and Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs).[6]
If this happens, over 1,000 pages of documentation will be replaced
by around 50 pages.[7]
Our inquiry
3. The Minister invited us to comment on the draft
NPPF as part of the consultation process and, when giving evidence,
he assured us that he would take our views into account.[8]
Given the importance of the changes proposed, their objectives
and the critical impact they may have, we were anxious to accept
the Government's offer and altered our programme to carry out
this inquiry, the focus of which was mainly on the content of
the draft NPPF itself rather than its rationale. We duly launched
our inquiry in July 2011. On 25 July, we issued a call for evidence
asking whether:
- the NPPF gives sufficient guidance
to local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others,
including investors and developers, while giving local communities
sufficient power over planning decisions;
- the definition of 'sustainable development' is
appropriate and whether the presumption in favour of sustainable
development is a balanced and workable approach;
- the 'core planning principles' are clearly and
appropriately expressed;
- the relationship between the NPPF and other national
statements of planning-related policy are sufficiently clear,
and whether the NPPF serves to integrate national planning policy
across Government Departments;
- the NPPF and the 'duty to co-operate' provide
a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning; and
- the policies contained in the NPPF are sufficiently
evidence-based.
We also invited those submitting evidence to offer
a brief general assessment of the fitness for purpose of the draft
NPPF as a whole. Because of the constraints of time, we did not
invite comments on the range of policy contained in the NPPF,
except where policy changes raised specific issues, and we did
not invite comments on the wider need for, and scope of, planning
policy guidance, except for guidance on the NPPF itself.
4. We received over 130 written submissions and we
held four oral evidence sessions in October and November, inviting
witnesses from a range of sectors and interest groups: academics;
the planning sector; local authority representatives; environmental
groups; organisations whose interests were not explicitly included
in the NPPF, but considered that they should be; the property
sector; and business representative organisations. We are grateful
to all those who gave evidence, and we would also like to thank
our specialist advisers, Kelvin MacDonald and Richard Bate.[9]
5. The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) also launched
an inquiry, with the more specific remit of examining the extent
to which the NPPF reflected sustainable development principles.[10]
This followed on from its earlier inquiry on sustainable development
in the Localism Bill, which discussed the need for the legislation
to provide a statutory duty to apply the principles of sustainable
development in the planning system.[11]
The EAC held one oral evidence session, and set out its conclusions
and recommendations in the annex to a letter to our Chair, dated
9 November.[12] We thank
members of the EAC for their constructive contribution; it has
been of considerable assistance in our deliberations and in drafting
our Report, particularly providing the backbone to Chapter 4 in
our Report on the definition of sustainable development. It is
our intention to monitor the effect of the finalised Framework
published by the Government, and later in this Parliament we expect
to examine the impact of the changes to planning.
6. We can report that most witnesses to our inquiry
were broadly content with the concept and approach of the NPPF
in simplifying planning guidance and did not want a wholesale
re-write. We recognise that the draft NPPF is just that, a draft,
and not finalised. A significant part of inquiry therefore has
sought to suggest improvements. Central to our consideration of
the draft NPPF was an examination of the way in which it will,
as guidance, interact with the statutory position of Local Plans
as the bedrock of the planning system. Much of the country is
not at present covered by a Local Plan prepared under the 2004
legislation. The NPPF seeks to stimulate the production of Local
Plans, and also to provide both a policy context within which
new plans should be developed, and a basis for decision-making
in the absence of a Local Plan. In this report we consider first
the Government's justifications for introducing the NPPF. We then
go on to consider whether the content of the draft NPPF provides
a clear basis for balanced decision-making, the processes by which
Local Plans will be compiled, their relationship to the NPPF and
the transition to the new system, and finally we look at some
individual policy changes which have a bearing on the potential
impact of the new planning regime.
1 Q 51 [Hugh Ellis] Back
2
HM Government, The Coalition: our programme for government,
May 2016, p 11 Back
3
PAG had four members: Pete Andrew (Director of Land and Planning,
Taylor Wimpey UK); Simon Marsh (Acting Head of Sustainable Development,
RSPB); Cllr Gary Porter (Leader of South Holland District Council
and then Chair of LGA Environment and Housing Programme Board);
and John Rhodes (Director of Quod planning consultancy). Back
4
HC Deb, 20 October 2011, col 1077 Back
5
DCLG, Business Plan 2011-15, November 2010, p 26 Back
6
DCLG, Draft National Planning Policy Framework: consultation,
July 2011, p 34 Back
7
DCLG, Draft National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF],
July 2011, p vi Back
8
Q 337 Back
9
Kelvin MacDonald declared the following interests: Chief Policy
Adviser to the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) which involves,
inter alia: (i) working with Government Ministers, CLG civil servants,
other interested groups, and members of the House of Commons and
the House of Lords in relation to the planning related Clauses
of the Localism Bill; this work includes preparing briefings,
suggesting amendments and attending meetings with all the groups,
above, as part of RTPI delegations; (ii) acting as the RTPI's
representative on a Planning Sounding Board first established
by the Conservative Party before the 2010 election and now chaired
by John Howell MP, PPS to Decentralisation Minister, Rt. Hon.
Greg Clark MP; this group is considering the Localism Bill and
the nature and content of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Registered Commissioner on the Infrastructure Planning Commission
(IPC), which meant he cannot, therefore, express opinions on the
merits of any nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP)
that may come before the IPC currently or in the future. Senior
Visiting Fellow at the Department of Land Economy, Cambridge University;
Member of the Enabling Panel for the Design Council - CABE; Member
of the Board of Trustees of Shelter.
Richard Bate declared the following
interests: Town planning consultant and member of the Royal Town
Planning Institute who has been employed over the years by many
clients, including Government Departments and Agencies, seeking
advice on current and future national planning policy and has
provided advice on national planning policy to organisations such
as the National Trust, Minerals Industry Research Organisation,
Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Campaign to Protect Rural England,
and National Housing Federation, though he is not retained by
clients relevant to this inquiry, adviser to the Kent Downs Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty Unit on the NPPF and provision of
advice to clients with a direct or indirect interest in the Framework.
At July 2011 completing one very small relevant task (two days)
for one client on maintaining the interests of statutorily protected
landscapes through the planning system. He is a partner in the
consultancy Green Balance. Back
10
Environment Audit Committee, Sustainable Development in the
National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1480 Back
11
Environmental Audit Committee, Third Report of Session 2010-12,
Sustainable development in the Localism Bill, HC 799, 22
March 2011 Back
12
Environment Audit Committee, Sustainable Development in the
National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1480, p 4 Back
|
