Conclusions and recommendations
How much planning guidance is needed?
1. We
welcome the fact that the Minister is receptive to specific suggestions
for improvements to the NPPF. We consider that there needs to
be a clear narrative at the start of the NPPF, stating: where
planning policy has stayed the same, but has been simplified or
summarised; where new policy has been introduced; where current
policy has been changed or removed; and the relationship of the
NPPF to other national policy documents, including National Policy
Statements and the Natural Environment White Paper. There is no
harm in increasing the length of the document moderately, if that
results in a more comprehensive and less ambiguous document. (Paragraph
23)
Clarity and terminology
2. Brevity
and simplicity are to be applauded in any document. However, we
consider that the NPPF does not achieve clarity by its brevity;
critical wording has been lost and what remains is often unhelpfully
vague. If the NPPF is to be a document that assists with practical
decision-making, rather than a lawyers' charter or an easy-to-read
guide to the planning system, its drafting must be more precise
and consistent, and sufficiently detailed to enable local authorities
to write their own Local Plans. The Government should carefully
consider the alternative drafts, submitted by many organisations
as part of DCLG's consultation, in order to produce a tighter,
clearer document, and should not make a fetish of how many pages
it is. Examples of such words and phrases needing tighter definitions
in the NPPF include: 'significant weight'; 'great weight'; 'substantial
weight'; 'considerable weight'; 'significant flexibility'; 'a
high degree of certainty'; 'sustainable economic growth'; 'absent';
'silent'; 'indeterminate'; 'out-of-date'; 'certificate of conformity',
'where practical'; and 'where reasonable'. (Paragraph 29)
Additional guidance
3. At
least until new guidance is produced, the continuing relevance
and force of the body of current planning guidance under the NPPF
needs to be clarified and secured. We recommend that once the
NPPF is published, all guidance and advice documents be reviewed
by DCLG—in consultation with local authorities—item
by item, so that the content of the documents that local authorities
find operationally and technically useful can be retained for
reference in some form, lest councils spend valuable time reinventing
numerous wheels. New guidance produced by third parties or groups
of practitioners should have government ownership, to ensure consistency
of approach. (Paragraph 33)
4. The Government's
documents relating to the NPPF risk creating confusion. Any such
ambiguities must be resolved within the document itself, as supporting
statements made to explain or moderate its meaning are unlikely
to remain reference sources in the years ahead. (Paragraph 37)
Policy topics not covered in the NPPF
5. We
conclude that without lengthening the Framework excessively it
should be possible for the Government to allay fears about a lack
of detail and omissions from the NPPF, by cross-referencing other
documents and by adopting a more inclusive definition of sustainable
development. The revised NPPF should also reassure local authorities
that they are permitted to take into account in their Local Plans
issues that are not explicitly referred to in the Framework. (Paragraph
40)
6. We do not support
the change in the definition of affordable housing represented
by the wording in the draft NPPF. We recommend that the current
definition of 'affordable housing', contained in Planning Policy
Statement 3, be reiterated in the draft NPPF to avoid any confusion.
(Paragraph 41)
7. The NPPF should
refer to the role of statutory consultees as a safeguard for community
amenities, such as playing fields. We recommend also that the
revised Framework should reinstate the requirement for equivalent
or improved replacement sports facilities to be provided if they
are lost to development, where a deficiency would otherwise result.
(Paragraph 43)
8. The Government
should review the NPPF as a whole, to check that there are no
other relevant, specific issues that are either omitted or adversely
affected by the changes in the Framework. (Paragraph 43)
Spatial planning
9. There
is evidence of concern that the draft NPPF is largely "placeless".
While we recognise that it was never the intention of the Government
to issue the draft NPPF as a 'spatial' plan, we consider that
its impact and effectiveness would be improved if the possibility
of differential impacts of its policies on different parts of
the country were to be recognised in the Framework and that where
a local authority seeks to recognise local variations, the NPPF
encourages local authorities to ensure that there is a robust
evidence base in place to justify these variations, and thus,
that it serves the Government's stated intention to re-balance
the national economy. (Paragraph 47)
Conclusions on the definition of sustainable development
10. 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. (Paragraph 66)
11. 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. (Paragraph
68)
The presumption in favour of sustainable development
12. We
agree with the Environmental Audit Committee that local planning
authorities "need an NPPF which does not push them to regard
[the] economic dimension as predominant", and we consider
that the NPPF, as currently drafted, does run this risk. We consider
that it is reasonable and practical for the NPPF to have as an
overarching principle a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
However, the draft NPPF conflates the term 'sustainable development'
and 'sustainable economic growth', thereby making the document
unbalanced; the two terms are distinct and should be kept separate
in the Framework. (Paragraph 75)
Default 'yes' to development proposals
13. The
sentence "decision-takers at every level should assume that
the default answer to development proposals is 'yes', except where
this would compromise the key sustainable development principles
set out in this Framework" should be removed from the NPPF.
It is weighted too far towards a single interest that the planning
system must address, and is inconsistent with both the plan-led
system and the more measured presumption in favour of sustainable
development. (Paragraph 77)
'Presumption in favour of the Local Plan'
14. It
is sensible that planning should support a presumption in favour
of sustainable development as a strategic purpose, but that presumption
is not precise enough to be used as a tool for decision making.
Where there is an adopted Local Plan in place, the Local Plan
should be the starting point for planning decisions. Local Plans
should be based on robust evidence, transparent, capable of providing
the development needed in an area, reflective of local circumstances,
and offering as much certainty as planning reasonably can. The
presumption in favour of sustainable development should be redefined
as 'a presumption in favour of sustainable development consistent
with the Local Plan.' In our view, this will not only firmly anchor
sustainable development to local circumstances, but will also
provide a spur to local authorities to prepare their Local Plans.
(Paragraph 80)
'Significantly and demonstrably'
15. The
phrase 'significantly and demonstrably' should be removed throughout
the document; we prefer the simpler test of significance. Indeed,
the alternative wording from the Practitioners Advisory Group's
version—"this presumption should apply unless to do
so would cause significant harm to the objective, principles and
policies set out in this National Planning Policy Framework"—encapsulates,
in our minds, a clearer, more balanced approach to the presumption
in favour of sustainable development. Such new wording should
also place the burden of proof of the presumption not causing
significant harm onto the developer or applicant, not on the planning
authority. (Paragraph 86)
Viability
16. From
the definition of 'viability' in the draft NPPF, many have concluded,
which we fully understand, that the NPPF would allow unsustainable
development to go ahead if measures to make it sustainable were
also deemed to make it unviable for the developer. We welcomed
the Minister's clarification and we recommend that the NPPF make
it clear that calculations of viability presuppose requirements
to provide infrastructure and other measures necessary to the
development, not simply returns deemed acceptable by the developer.
(Paragraph 91)
Illustrating the problem of balance: transport
in the NPPF
17. We
consider that the transport section of the NPPF is a good illustration
of lack of balance in the document as currently drafted; 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. Local authorities
should be able to expect that they can reject or enforce changes
to development on transport or environmental grounds, not just
where the impact would be 'severe', but where it would run counter
to local priorities and wishes, or where an individual development
might contribute to a 'severe' cumulative impact caused by several
developments. This example serves to illustrate the difficulties
local authorities may have in making a determination on particular
applications. (Paragraph 95)
Statutory status of Local Plans
18. We
recommend that the NPPF unambiguously reflect the statutory supremacy
of Local Plans, in accordance with the 2004 Planning Act. The
prominence given to the presumption in favour of sustainable development
risks presenting it as a decision-making mechanism on a par with,
or superior to, the Local Plan. In view of the fact that the Local
Plan is a keystone of the planning edifice, it is crucial that
local authorities have Local Plans in place as soon as possible.
(Paragraph 101)
Absent, silent, out-of-date or indeterminate Local
Plans
19. There
is a tension between the advice in the NPPF that Local Plans should
be succinct, and the need for local authorities, in the absence
of national guidance, to produce comprehensive plans tailored
to local circumstances. We share the Government's desire for succinct
Local Plans, but accept that somewhat longer Local Plans are inevitable
because they will fill significant gaps left by the loss of regional
plans and by the substantial reduction in detail of national policy.
(Paragraph 104)
Tensions between the NPPF, Local Plans and Neighbourhood
Plans
20. The
relationship between the NPPF, Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans
needs to be set out clearly and cogently within the body of the
NPPF, including the way in which strategic and local priorities
are to be taken into account, especially when these priorities
conflict. The NPPF must clarify whether the Local Plan or the
Neighbourhood Plan takes precedence. It should also define what
constitutes 'strategic issues'. The NPPF should confirm that,
in all planning decisions, it is a well-evidenced Local Plan that
provides the operational expression of the general presumption
in favour of sustainable development. (Paragraph 112)
The duty to co-operate and evidence bases for
Local Plans
21. Consistency
between local authorities in assembling evidence bases for Local
Plans is crucial to the effective functioning of the duty to co-operate.
While we understand that the Government believes the Duty to Co-operate
contained in the Localism Act 2011 coupled with other developments
such as the creation of Local Enterprise Partnerships will ensure
that spatial planning is adequately addressed, we share some of
these concerns. Without consistency, it will not be clear what
benchmark the Planning Inspectorate will use for judging the 'soundness'
of plans, especially when neighbouring local authorities have
been unable to reach agreement about the need for or location
of new housing. Therefore we recommend that the guidance being
produced by practitioners on assembling an evidence base for housing
be officially adopted by the Government. We also recommend that
the Government commission groups of practitioners to produce similar,
authoritative guidance on assessing needs for other types of infrastructure.
(Paragraph 117)
22. Waiting until
and relying upon the Planning Inspectorate's judgement about 'soundness'
seems to us an inadequate means of enforcing the duty to co-operate.
We consider that the Government should set out an alternative
means of ensuring that local authorities demonstrate successful
outcomes from their co-operation. This alternative method should
be informed by a report from the Planning Inspectorate on the
existing degree of co-operation in development plans and, thereafter,
by an annual report on the effectiveness of section 110 of the
Localism Act in respect of development plans. (Paragraph 118)
23. Finally, it was
clear to us that the absence of Local Plans was a contributory
factor to the shortage of homes that have been built over many
decades in England, and it is reasonable to expect that a requirement
on local authorities to adopt Local Plans based on sound evidence
of need will help facilitate an improvement to this situation.
(Paragraph 119)
The transition to a new system
24. We
recommend that the Government establish a timetable for a transition
period in consultation with local government. We consider that
clarity and reassurance are urgently needed by local authorities,
communities and developers on the status of existing arrangements
for development control during this transition. The Government
has several choices on how to achieve this. (Paragraph 131)
25. We recommend that,
in the interests of ensuring that authorities put in place Local
Plans compliant with the NPPF expeditiously, a strictly limited
period is allowed during which the presumption in favour of sustainable
development is not applied in cases of absent, silent or out-of-date
plans until councils have had a realistic chance of putting such
plans in place. (Paragraph 132)
26. We observe that
the Government may wish to allow those authorities that have recently
adopted or are at present in the process of adopting new plans
a lighter touch path to examination and approval of those parts
of their plans that require any amendment as a consequence of
revisions to national policies introduced through the NPPF. (Paragraph
133)
27. We believe that
if Local Plans are to be able to remain at the centre of decision
making over a plan period, there needs to be a mechanism by which
they can be kept up to date. This will help maximise certainty
and minimise challenge. We recommend the adoption of a 'light
touch' system of approval for changes to Local Plans to be used
at the discretion of the Local Authority as they judge necessary.
(Paragraph 134)
28. We further recommend
that the Government consider as a matter of urgency whether the
resources of the Planning Inspectorate are sufficient to prevent
a bottleneck of unapproved plans building up, particularly given
the scope for a short term increase in challenge to Development
Control decisions. (Paragraph 135)
Development on brownfield land
29. We
welcome the Government's openness to reinstating the familiar
and well-understood term 'brownfield' in the NPPF, whilst recognising
that more sophistication is needed in its definition to avoid
unintended consequences. There is a danger, nevertheless, that
the removal of the brownfield target and the 'brownfield first'
policy—in conjunction with the introduction of the presumption
in favour of sustainable development and changes to requirements
for allocating land for housing—will result over time in
less importance being attached to the use of previously-developed
land first where possible. This principle should be strongly stated
in the NPPF, and reiterated by requiring local authorities to
set their own targets for the use of brownfield land. This would
allow for adaptation to particular circumstances and would in
addition be a useful mechanism for local accountability. (Paragraph
143)
The supply of sites for housing
30. Asking
local authorities to identify six years' rather than five years'
worth of sites for housing carries an inevitable risk that the
total supply will contain a greater proportion of greenfield sites,
which developers will prefer. We recommend that it should be made
explicit that local authorities which adopt a local target for
the use of brownfield land can prioritise it within their six-year
supply, which we urge the Government to confirm and clarify in
the NPPF. (Paragraph 149)
31. We recommend that
the Government allow windfall sites to be included alongside identified
brownfield land where local authorities can demonstrate a track
record of such sites coming forward for development, as this will
achieve the aim of satisfying the need for land supply while minimising
the need to allocate greenfield sites. The Government should have
more confidence in the continuing replenishment of brownfield
sites as a source of land for new development. (Paragraph 150)
32. Some local authorities
may, in good faith, be unable to identify six years' worth of
land supply appropriate for housing. We recommend that the Government
clarify that unsustainable development will not be allowed to
proceed as a result of appeals against local authorities which
have not allocated the full six year supply. (Paragraph 151)
Town Centre First
33. The
NPPF should reflect the existing Town Centre First policy by bringing
offices back within its ambit, in a form that allows exceptions
that make a specific contribution to rural sustainability. We
recommend that application of the sequential test for development
remains a requirement rather than a preference, and developments
that fail the sequential test should be deemed unsustainable.
We further recommend that the Government clarify the policy position
on town centres with respect to arts, culture and tourism uses,
to ensure that they are included in the Town Centre First policy.
(Paragraph 157)
34. We recommend that
the NPPF include a provision to allow communities, in certain
exceptional circumstances, to adopt an absolute protection of
a town centre from out-of-town retail development. (Paragraph
158)
Further consultation
35. We
see a strong case for a short consultation to allow practitioners
to make comments on the technical aspects of the revised NPPF.
This would help avoid confusion at a later date. The Government
should also consider carrying out a brief but wider consultation
if it makes substantial changes to what might be reasonably regarded
as key principles in the final NPPF. (Paragraph 164)
| 
