Communities and Local Government CommitteeWritten evidence from Leicestershire County Council
Summary
Leicestershire County Council welcomes the substantial reduction in the quantity of national guidance which has been achieved by the production of the draft NPPF. Such a reduction in guidance is a necessary prerequisite of the Government’s localism agenda and its stated intention to give local communities substantially more power over decisions affecting their areas.
The Council wishes to see in place a NPPF which strikes the right balance between meeting economic and development needs, and respecting and meeting the aspirations of local residents and communities regarding the future development of their neighbourhoods. The right balance has not been struck in the draft NPPF.
The draft NPPF does not in the Council’s view give local communities sufficient power over planning decisions, contrary to previous Government statements and publications on planning reform which have emphasised giving local communities real influence over development decisions affecting their areas.
The guidance underplays the importance of actively engaging and involving local people about planning decisions affecting their areas, and in doing so engaging with local people about the economic and development needs of wider economic and housing market areas.
The presumption in favour of sustainable development is supported in principle but such a presumption can only be balanced and workable if there is a clear definition of what is meant by “sustainable development”. Such a clear definition is not provided.
The influence over local communities will be particularly limited in those situations where an adopted local plan is not in place or where there does not exist a five year supply of housing land. In these circumstances local councils and communities will be almost powerless to prevent development being approved across large parts of the County with key decisions being taken by Government appointed Inspectors not accountable to local communities. At the very least the Government should delay introduction of the NPPF to enable local plans to be put in place.
The “duty to cooperate” and the encouragement given to local planning authorities to collaborate on strategic issues across administrative boundaries is welcomed. The draft framework needs to go further, however, to ensure that such collaboration involves key partners such as county councils and local enterprise partnerships and that sub-regional strategic planning and infrastructure co-ordination provide a sound context for local plans.
1. Introduction
1.1 Leicestershire County Council welcomes the substantial reduction in the quantity of national guidance which has been achieved by the production of the draft NPPF. Such a reduction in guidance is a necessary prerequisite of the Government’s localism agenda and its stated intention to give local communities substantially more power over decisions affecting their areas.
1.2 The Council fully supports the Government’s localism and decentralisation aspirations and has pro-actively taken forward the Big Society agenda through a range of activities. It is also supporting a neighbourhood planning frontrunner initiative in Blaby in the County, and has recently carried out a comprehensive engagement exercise with residents and communities across Leicestershire to identify particularly valued green spaces.
1.3 The Council also, however, recognises and supports the need for economic growth and the infrastructure provision, including new homes, needed to support such growth. The Council is a leading participant in the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership and has been a housing growth location (including as a New Growth Point under the previous Government) over many years. It has recently earmarked all the New Homes Bonus it has received in 2011–12 to support affordable homes provision in rural communities.
1.4 The Council wishes to see in place a NPPF which strikes the right balance between meeting the economic and development needs of the nation, of our Local Enterprise Partnership area and of our local communities, and respecting and meeting the aspirations of local residents and communities regarding the future development of their neighbourhoods. The right balance has not been struck in the draft NPPF and the comments which follow explain why.
1.5 More generally the Council considers that a much shortened national planning policy document needs to be very clear and precise if it is to simplify and speed up the planning process. Any lack of clarity in the NPPF, whether in the policies it sets out, or in making clear where local areas have discretion, will only create uncertainty and prolong debate and disagreement at the more local level. This clarity and precision is not apparent throughout the document with large numbers of policy statements being accompanied by “hedging” phrases such as “when practical” or “in a reasonable manner”.
Response to the Select Committee’s Questions
2. Does the NPPF give sufficient guidance to local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others, including investors and developers, while at the same time giving local communities sufficient power over planning decisions?
2.1 The draft NPPF does not in the Council’s view give local communities sufficient power over planning decisions. This is disappointing as the Government has clearly signalled in its earlier statements and publications about planning reform that it is committed to giving to local communities real influence over development decisions affecting their areas.
2.2 It is instructive that not one of the ten core planning principles set out in the NPPF refer to localism or to the key principle of giving local communities a greater say over what happens in their neighbourhoods. This contrasts with firmly worded principles about the importance of meeting the nation’s development needs and allocating sufficient land to meet these needs.
2.3 Neighbourhood Plans are the main planning mechanism granted to local communities, but their role is limited to “shaping and directing” development, with the opportunity to increase, but not decrease, the quantity of development agreed through the Local Plan. The County Council is supporting one of the neighbourhood planning frontrunner schemes approved by the Government and is keen to see neighbourhood planning succeed but the prospects of this will be diminished if local control over decision-making is limited in this way.
2.4 The power of local communities is also diminished by the provisions proposed for those situations where an adopted local plan is not in place or where there does not exist a five year supply of housing land (in reality a six-year supply given the need to make an extra 20% allowance). In these situations local councils and communities will be almost powerless to prevent development being approved across large parts of the County with key decisions being taken by Government appointed Inspectors not accountable to local communities. At the very least the Government should delay introduction of the NPPF to enable local plans to be put in place.
2.5 In terms of housing such an approach would be inappropriate even if it were to lead to an immediate increase in the supply of new homes to meet housing demands and need. The availability of land with planning permission is not, however, a major constraint on housing delivery at the current time and is unlikely to be so in the near future. Much land with planning permission, including on Greenfield sites, lies undeveloped. It is current economic conditions and the availability of finance which is preventing new homes being built. Implementation of the NPPF may lead to developers securing planning permissions from development, potentially in inappropriate locations, but this does not mean that they will immediately construct homes on then. Given this the case for delaying the NPPF, to give local authorities the opportunity to put local plans in place, is even stronger.
2.6 The balance between promotion of economic growth and empowering local communities to shape their areas is, therefore, considered to be skewed heavily in favour of the former. Growth will be needed, and indeed Leicestershire has accommodated much growth in the past, but such growth needs to be managed with the consent and input of local communities if genuine localism is to be achieved, The NPPF as drafted runs the risk of facilitating development against the wishes (or at least without the consent) of local communities and will perpetuate the widespread opposition to development which arose in response to the top-down targets imposed through Regional Plans. The role of local communities in making planning decisions should be enhanced and embedded throughout the document to address this imbalance. This will bring the NPPF into line with the Government’s own statements and publications about planning reform.
2.7 The NPPF could also say more about the importance of actively engaging local communities about development in their areas. The County Council has recently carried out a green spaces engagement exercise across the whole of the County which involved interactive sessions at 27 community forums and the use of an online map-based engagement tool. This provides one successful model of how communities can make clear their views about land-use issues in their areas to inform the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans. Such exercises are valuable, but are also resource intensive, and the NPPF could usefully emphasise the benefits of local planning authorities, county councils and other bodies collaborating on such engagement activity as part of the duty to co-operate.
3. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach?
3.1 The definition of sustainable development is not sufficiently detailed or explicit to provide sufficient guidance to local planning authorities, Inspectors, local communities and developers. The short definition set out in paragraph 9 of the draft NPPF balances the economic, social and environmental dimensions of development In the Ministerial Foreword to the document, however, the definition is interpreted in a very particular way, equating “development” to “growth”. This illustrates how a lack of clarity about what is meant by “sustainable development” is likely to lead to different interpretations of it; a recipe for confusion, prolonged debate and delay at the more local level where planning decisions are made.
3.2 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is supported in principle but such a presumption can only be balanced and workable if there is a clear definition of what is meant by “sustainable development”. In the context of the rest of the draft NPPF which tends to put economic and housing growth ahead of other considerations there is a danger that it will, in practice, be a presumption in favour of economic growth. Any such definition should be based on the Brundtland definition which balances economic, social and environmental considerations, and its application should take account of local circumstances.
3.3 Decisions about how economic, social and environmental considerations are balanced are best made at local level in the context of robust evidence and a clear understanding of the views and aspirations of local people. The draft NPPF if implemented in its current form runs the very real risk of imposing growth on local communities regardless of the wishes of local people and with insufficient heed to social and environmental considerations.
4. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed?
4.1 The County Council’s main concerns are that the core planning principles:
Do not strike an appropriate balance between economic, social and environmental considerations. The tone and wording of the second principle which focuses on meeting needs and delivering growth is much more strident than that used for the other principles;
Make no reference to the importance of local communities making decisions about development proposals which affect their areas, previously understood to be a key component of the Government’s localism agenda; and
Require decision-makers to “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”. This will be difficult to achieve in a balanced way given, as has been previously noted, that sustainable development is not clearly defined.
5. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments?
5.1 There are two key areas which raise concerns for the County Council regarding policy coherence across Government. These relate to localism, and to sub-regional working and the duty to co-operate.
5.2 On localism there is inconsistency between the Government’s intentions to shift power from central government back into the hands of individuals, communities and councils and the way the draft NPPF plans to put this into practice. As discussed above it is not at all clear how the views of local communities will be factored into decision-making given the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the advice to approve development proposals when an adopted local plan is not in place or there is not a five years supply of housing land.
5.3 On sub-regional strategic planning the draft framework is not consistent with the references to planning made in the Local Growth White Paper. This issue is covered in section 6 below.
6. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning?
6.1 The “duty to cooperate” and the encouragement given to local planning authorities to collaborate on strategic issues across administrative boundaries is welcomed. The NPPF should, however, strengthen these provisions to give further guidance on the management and resolution of strategic issues across LPA boundaries in two tier areas (and wider), where a common approach cannot be agreed voluntarily. To assist this, the key role upper tier authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships can play in coordinating and brokering evidence and strategic policy preparation should be reinforced through the NPPF. In particular in two-tier areas county councils should have a formal and statutory role in the planning system to address sub-regional planning matters particularly in relation to strategic infrastructure provision to inform local plans. This could take the form of county councils being required to produce statutory Strategic Infrastructure Assessments to influence and inform the preparation of local plans and to set a context for local authorities and agencies to pool and jointly deploy available funding (including Community Infrastructure levy and New Homes Bonus).
6.2 At a more detailed level it should be made explicit in paragraph 28 that county councils and LEPs will have a role in assessing future housing requirements to match the reference in paragraph 29 to their involvement in identifying business requirements.
6.3 The draft Framework does not follow through earlier Government statements, including in the Local Growth White Paper, about LEPs having a key role in the planning system. Whilst the draft NPPF is unashamedly pro economic growth there is a real risk that unless LEPs have a role in strategic planning the growth will not happen in the right form and in the right places to meet locally agreed priorities. Indeed decisions made on appeal in the absence of a Local Plan could work directly against the interests of the local economy if it were, for example, to involve the loss of employment sites to other uses.
September 2011