4 The definition of sustainable development
48. As we have already noted, the NPPF is a document
that both guides the writing of Local Plans, and is intended to
be used as a substitute Local Plan where none has been produced
by a local authority.[92]
Assessing the suitability of the NPPF for this task involves looking
both at its sufficiency—addressed in the previous chapter—and
at the appropriateness of its content. In the following two chapters
we examine two aspects of that content: the definition of sustainable
development, and the overall balance of the document.
The NPPF definition
49. The draft NPPF defines sustainable development
as:
Development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs. It is central to the economic, environmental
and social success of the country and is the core principle underpinning
planning. Simply stated, the principle recognises the importance
of ensuring that all people should be able to satisfy their basic
needs and enjoy a better quality of life, both now and in the
future.[93]
50. The definition of sustainable development is
at the heart of our discussions on the NPPF. The Framework states
that the presumption in favour of sustainable development, "should
be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and
decision taking."[94]
If that is the intention, then the role of sustainable development
(considered in Chapter 5) and the way in which the concept is
defined become crucial to the document as a whole. We recognise
that, if the final NPPF contains an agreed definition of sustainable
development which is balanced and comprehensive, then the 'presumption
in favour of sustainable development' becomes a very constructive
part of the Government's wider environmental, social and economic
agendas, rather than solely some sort of stick to compel the completion
of Local Plans or, as some of our evidence argues, simply a presumption
in favour of development.[95]
51. However, one of the first difficulties encountered
is that, on the one hand, the NPPF contains the definition of
sustainable development quoted above, but, on the other, the draft
Framework also states that:
When taken as a whole, the policies in this Framework
set out the Government's view of what constitutes sustainable
development in practice and how the planning system is expected
to deliver it.[96]
As Stuart Hylton, representing the Planning Officers
Society, stated, "What that is saying is you have a definition
that runs to 52 pages whose conclusions will inevitably point
in all sorts of different directions."[97]
Whilst we can appreciate the thinking behind an approach that
encourages users of the NPPF to read it as a whole, we consider
that this approach will lead to far more uncertainty and, possibly,
legal challenge. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)
took legal advice on this, among other aspects of the NPPF, and
its Chief Executive, Shaun Spiers, stated:
On the question on sustainability, what the NPPF
says is that the sustainable development is the 52 pages. What
our lawyer, John Hobson, says is that the problem with this is
that the 'key sustainable development principles are not easy
to identify or extract from the text of the NPPF'.[98]
52. We agree that the Government's statements relating
to the need to look at the NPPF as a whole in order to ascertain
its view of sustainable development are not helpful in this context.
The Government should focus on arriving at an agreed, succinct
and useful definition which is clearly identified as such within
the NPPF.
53. The evidence we received which addressed the
definition of sustainable development can be grouped into five
categories: those who deemed it an almost impossible job to define
sustainable development; those who felt that the definition in
the draft NPPF was sufficient; those who wanted the addition of
material from other recent Government documents; and those who
felt that the NPPF should present a more positive approach to
the environmental aspects of sustainable development. Overlaying
these were those who considered that the definition in the NPPF
needed to be framed in a way that encouraged local authorities
to set out their own definitions in their Local Plans. We deal
with each of these approaches in turn. We have also taken into
account the conclusions reached by the Environmental Audit Committee
which took evidence on this specific issue.
Is the 'Brundtland' definition
in the draft NPPF adequate?
54. The evidence to this inquiry has, amongst other
things, demonstrated the difficulty of setting down any agreed
definition of sustainable development. John Rhodes of Quod told
us that:
Everybody has a different view of sustainability.
It is possible I could give you any case study for a development
proposal and we could all disagree about whether or not it was
sustainable. Trying to identify what sustainability really means
is almost the holy grail.[99]
The difficulty of clarifying the concept in a way
that could shed light on practical circumstances was reinforced
to us by statements such as "sustainable development is development
that is sustainable, we would argue."[100]
We do not want to underestimate the difficulties
of drafting a definition, but we are of the opinion that a clear
definition is a vital component of the NPPF. The definition in
the draft NPPF clearly draws on the definition put forward in
the 1987 report from the UN World Commission on Environment and
Development, the 'Brundtland Report'.[101]
This is development that "meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs".[102]
Professor Paul Cheshire queried, "Who could be against the
Brundtland formulation of sustainable development? My worry is:
how do you translate that into actual decision making about parcels
of land?"[103]
The combination of the clarity of the Brundtland definition and
the difficulty of adding to it was brought out clearly by Stephen
Wright of the John Lewis Partnership:
I think the NPPF does set out a Brundtland definition;
it makes it clear it is about social, economic and environmental
considerations. It is very difficult then to come up with a more
technical and detailed definition that applies cross-sector and
that will pass the test of time.[104]
55. The 'Brundtland' definition of sustainable development
has the advantages of being succinct, of encompassing a number
of concepts within one sentence and of being recognisable not
only to those most directly involved in seeking to achieve sustainable
development but, to an extent, to the wider public. We consider
that any definition in the NPPF needs to build on the 'Brundtland'
definition rather than starting from scratch.
Should the definition go further?
56. The Environmental Audit Committee, however, found
that several groups argued that thinking on sustainable development
has moved on somewhat from 1987.[105]
A number of witnesses to our inquiry have referred, for example,
to the benefits of drawing on the principles in the 2005 Sustainable
Development Strategy.[106]
The Government set out five guiding principles of sustainable
development in that Strategy:
- Living Within Environmental
Limits;
- Ensuring a Strong, Healthy and Just Society;
- Achieving a Sustainable Economy;
- Promoting Good Governance; and
- Using Sound Science Responsibly.
Dr Hugh Ellis of the TCPA said that:
Brundtland is an interesting starting point,
but it is now more than 30 years out of date. It is very surprising
to see it represented in the NPPF. The 2005 definition is not
a partisan one; it represents 25 years' experience of what sustainable
development is. I think the five ideas around sustainable development
remain critical, but there is one very important principle that
the NPPF deliberately ignores: the concept of environmental limits.[107]
57. Tony Burton of Civic Voice pointed out that "there
was a lot of consensus about the 2005 Strategy and the key principles
around social justice and environmental limits", which he
considered needed to be embodied in the Framework.[108]
Sustainable development was defined in Planning Policy Statement
1 in terms similar to that of the 2005 Strategy, and the same
principles also underpinned the February 2011 Defra document,
Mainstreaming Sustainable Development.[109]
During a debate on the Localism Bill in the House in November
2011, the Minister, Greg Clark, said: "I could not have been
clearer when I said that we have no difficulty with the 2005 strategy
or its wording."[110]
We agree, and consider that the five guiding principles from the
2005 Sustainable Development Strategy are useful in identifying
key aspirations against which development proposals should be
judged. We have heard from a number of witnesses that the concept
of 'living within environmental limits' is a particularly useful
in this respect.[111]
58. We welcome the constructive approach that the
Minister has taken in respect of the definition of sustainable
development and, in particular, the fact that he has encouraged
us and all those concerned about this issue to go beyond existing
definitions. Indeed, the Minister told the Environmental Audit
Committee (EAC) that:
I think some of the recent thinking in the Natural
Environment White Paper […] goes beyond some of the thinking
in 2005 to talk not just about a sort of defensive not breaching
limits, but being more ambitious than that, saying we should have
net gain, that development and other activities should result
in net gain to the environment. We have many habitats in our country
that have been despoiled over the years. My view is that we should
take the opportunity to restore them. I would not want to set
down a definition that was less ambitious than, for example, would
have been in the Natural Environment White Paper.[112]
59. The Government's 2011 Natural Environment White
Paper states that:
Through reforms of the planning system, we will
take a strategic approach to planning for nature within and across
local areas. This approach will guide development to the best
locations, encourage greener design and enable development to
enhance natural networks. We will retain the protection and improvement
of the natural environment as core objectives of the planning
system. [...] we will improve the quality and increase the value
of the natural environment across England.[113]
60. We see great value in an approach to sustainable
development that seeks to enhance the value of the natural environment
through the development process instead of just protecting it,
as valuable as that latter activity is. We share the views of
the EAC that:
the NPPF should embrace a wider definition of
sustainable development than just the Brundtland definition. It
should include or refer explicitly to the 2005 Sustainable Development
Strategy [...] But it should go further still, and reflect the
primacy of environmental limits, couched more firmly in terms
of seeking environmental improvement. By doing so, it would encourage
local authorities to include in their Local Plans a requirement
for some types of development to include environmental gain.[114]
The adaptation of a sustainable
development definition by local authorities
61. We considered whether there was a tension between
a strong national definition of sustainable development in the
NPPF and the need for local authorities to set their own definition
according to local circumstances and priorities. Dr Adam Marshall
of the British Chambers of Commerce provided an example of contrasting
local circumstances:
I like the fact that local communities will be
able to determine for themselves to a certain extent what constitutes
'sustainable'. I have spent a lot of time in chambers of commerce
around the country. When you go to many authorities in the North
of England, for example, which have long taken a very positive
approach to planning, for them sustainability at the end of the
day is about jobs and economic activity. Many years ago one council
leader said to me that the best thing in the world that could
happen to him was that a B&Q shed should open on a piece of
contaminated brownfield land, because it creates jobs and economic
activity in the area. Southern local authority representatives
have said to me, 'The worst thing that could happen to me is the
opening of a B&Q shed in this area, because it will create
enormous amounts of traffic, pressure on local infrastructure,
etc.'[115]
This was echoed by John Slaughter of the Home Builders
Federation who agreed that:
You have to allow for the fact that circumstances
do vary from area to area. In terms of balancing sustainability,
a point we made in our written evidence is that, in some areas,
you would probably in practice give more weight to environmental
factors.[116]
62. We agree that it is both good practice and in
the nature of localism that local authorities should be encouraged
to apply the definition of sustainable development in a way that
meets their local circumstances. The EAC expressed the clear view
that a definition of sustainable development in the NPPF that
captured the fundamental principles in the 2005 Sustainable Development
Strategy would enable "local authorities to interpret sustainable
development for the circumstances of their particular areas."[117]
Environmental, social and economic
aspects
63. There are other issues considered elsewhere in
this report that impact directly on the formulation of a definition.[118]
These are the need for balance between the 'elements' of sustainable
development, and the question of whether the definition should
make explicit reference not only to environmental, social and
economic aspects, but also to cultural aspects. When giving evidence
to the EAC, the Minister stated that "the economy has always
been a part of the definition of sustainability and we do need
homes and jobs", but gave the reassurance that any appearance
in the NPPF of giving greater weight to the economic pillar was
"not intentional".[119]
This stance reflects that taken by the Prime Minister in a letter
to the National Trust in which he stated that:
I believe that sustainable development has environmental
and social dimensions as well as an economic dimension, and we
fully recognise the need for a balance between the three. Indeed,
the purpose of the planning system as a whole, and of our proposals
for it, is to achieve such a balance.[120]
The Environmental Audit Committee recommended that
the Government ensure in the revised NPPF that there is "no
potential for confusion about the equal importance of all three
aspects of sustainable development."[121]
64. As seen in Chapter 3 of this report, we received
strong evidence that the NPPF did not pay sufficient attention
to the cultural aspects of planning policy and decisions. Witnesses
spoke of culture in terms of sport and of the arts[122]
but we recognise that the concept of culture can be extended to
include all aspects of community life. In the light of these representations
we see a compelling case for the definition of sustainable development
to include a cultural dimension as part of the social pillar of
the definition of sustainable development.
Conclusions on the definition
of sustainable development
65. We welcome the Government's willingness to look
again at the definition of sustainable development contained in
the NPPF. In the course of a debate on the Localism Bill, the
Minister for Decentralisation told the House that:
A cogent case has been made—let me put
it that way—for expanding and strengthening the definition
in the NPPF. I hope that that demonstrates, on the basis of this
House's experience of the scrutiny of the Bill and the commitments
the Government have made, that there is no difference in our commitment
to the matter. Indeed, I have expressed a personal view that I
think we could go a little further than the 2005 strategy. We
will reflect on these contributions in the consultation on the
NPPF and respond in due course.[123]
66. Any new definition of sustainable development
must contain the following elements:
a) the clear and identifiable use of wording
from the Brundtland report as this is well known and understood;
b) the restating of the five guiding principles
from the 2005 sustainable development strategy; and
c) an explicit statement of the need to address
and to seek to achieve all of the aspects of sustainable development,
and not to start by assuming that one aspect can be traded off
against another.
67. The definition below is put forward as an example
of how these elements may be incorporated into a definition.
Sustainable development is development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of existing communities and future generations to meet their own
needs. It is central to the economic, environmental and social
success of the country both that these three aspects of development
are addressed positively and equally and that planning both serves
to protect and to enhance and add value to the environment. This
is the core principle underpinning planning.
Policies in plans and decisions on development
should be assessed against the principles that the nation and
areas within it should live within their environmental limits;
should achieve a sustainable economy and should seek to ensure
a strong, healthy and just society.
The achievement of sustainable development
through planning should be based on the responsible use of a sound
evidence base and developed through an open and democratic system.
68. We consider that the definition of sustainable
development must give a clear indication of what constitutes sustainable
development, while encouraging local authorities to apply this
definition to their own local circumstances and allowing them
the scope to do so.
92 Draft NPPF, para 26 Back
93
Draft NPPF, para 9 Back
94
Draft NPPF, para 14 Back
95
Ev w11 [Cutting Edge Planning and Design]; Ev 108 [The National
Trust]; Ev 128 [Civic Voice]; Ev 139 [The Campaign to Protect
Rural England] Back
96
Draft NPPF, para 12 Back
97
Q 139 Back
98
Q 241 Back
99
Q 23 Back
100
Q 48 [Alex Morton] Back
101
Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development,
Our Common Future, 1987 Back
102
Draft NPPF, para 9 Back
103
Q 48 Back
104
Q 197 Back
105
Environment Audit Committee, Sustainable Development in the
National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1480, para 29 Back
106
Defra, Securing the Future: The UK Sustainable Development
Strategy, Cm 6467 Back
107
Q 48 Back
108
Q 192; see also Q 229 [Emmalene Gottwald]. Back
109
Environment Audit Committee, Sustainable Development in the
National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1480, paras 31-32 Back
110
HC Deb, 7 November 2011, col 123 Back
111
See for example, Ev 92; Ev w286. Back
112
Environment Audit Committee, Sustainable Development in the
National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1480, Q 52 Back
113
Defra, The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature,
Cm 8082, June 2011, pp 3, 6 Back
114
Environment Audit Committee, Sustainable Development in the
National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1480, para 35 Back
115
Q 23 Back
116
Q 102 Back
117
Environment Audit Committee, Sustainable Development in the
National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1480, paras 31-32,
39 Back
118
See chapters Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference source not found.,
Error! Reference source not found.. Back
119
Environment Audit Committee, Sustainable Development in the
National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1480, Q 56 Back
120
www.nationaltrust.org.uk Back
121
Environment Audit Committee, Sustainable Development in the
National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1480, para 10 Back
122
See, for example, Qq 197 and 181. Back
123
HC Deb, 7 November 2011, col 123 Back
|
