Communities and Local Government CommitteeWritten evidence from South Bucks District Council
Summary
This Memorandum responds specifically to the following questions:
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?
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?
Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed?
Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning?
In summary, South Bucks District Council is concerned that:
The much briefer statement of national planning policy in the draft NPPF is likely to result in the local plan making process taking longer to effectively complete, with more matters of principle to be resolved (and evidenced) by each local planning authority at the local level. The relationship between Local Plans / Local Development Framework Documents and Neighbourhood Plans requires further clarification.
The proposed definition of Sustainable Development (and related supporting guidance) appears to give too much emphasis to economic growth and development, at the expense of environmental considerations.
Although each of the core planning principles has merit, the wording (when read in the context of the objective to promote growth and development) appears to give undue weight to promoting growth and development, at the expense of protecting the environment.
The duty to cooperate will not adequately address the gaps that will be left by the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies—leading to significant delays in the plan making process, and a likely return in many parts of the country to planning by appeal.
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?
1.1 In keeping with the wider localism agenda, the introduction to the draft NPPF states:
“The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s requirements for the planning system only to the extent that it is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so. It provides a framework within which local people and their accountable councils can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities.”
1.2 South Bucks District Council welcomes the objective of reducing the amount and complexity of national planning policy, and the aim of giving local planning authorities more flexibility to prepare locally distinctive plans, which reflect local needs and priorities. In addition, in theory, further flexibility will be afforded by the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (through enactment of the Localism Bill). However, there is the potential downside that with less policy and guidance at the national level, and no regional tier of planning policy, the local plan making process will take longer to effectively complete, with more matters of principle to be resolved (and evidenced) by each local planning authority at the local level. The need for additional evidence will also result in increased costs for local planning authorities.
1.3 In relation to giving local communities sufficient power over planning decisions, South Bucks District Council believes that further clarification is required over the relationship between Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans. The draft NPPF suggests that Neighbourhood Plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan, although the draft NPPF then goes on to confirm that “….when a neighbourhood plan is made, the policies it contains take precedence over existing policies in the Local Plan for that neighbourhood, where they are in conflict”.
1.4 This places considerable importance on the examination process for Neighbourhood Plans, ensuring that policies and statements in the Neighbourhood Plan do not intentionally (or otherwise) undermine the “strategic” policies in the Local Plan. Clarification is required over whether the reference to the “strategic policies of the Local Plan” relates to just those policies that are truly strategic (for example, those relating to the overall scale and distribution of development in the District) or whether the statement relates to all policies that apply to an area beyond that to be covered by the Neighbourhood Plan.
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?
1.5 No on both counts. The Foreword to the draft NPPF from Greg Clark MP emphasises the role that planning has to play in achieving sustainable development. The Foreword states:
“Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don’t mean worse lives for future generations.
Development means growth. We must accommodate the new ways by which we will earn our living in a competitive world. We must house a rising population, which is living longer and wants to make new choices. We must respond to the changes that new technologies offer us. Our lives, and the places in which we live them, can be better, but they will certainly be worse if things stagnate”.
1.6 Whilst the first part of the definition is similar to that which has been used in the planning system for many years, the second part has a noticeably stronger pro-growth message. It suggests that growth is non negotiable, leading to the inference that in seeking to deliver sustainable development (through the plan making process), local planning authorities may be “forced” into making more compromises in relation to environmental considerations (than in relation to the economic and social aspects of sustainable development).
1.7 In the main body of the draft NPPF (section on “Delivering Sustainable Development”) reference is made to the longstanding definition of Sustainable Development—“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
1.8 In relation to the presumption in favour of Sustainable Development, the draft NPPF states:
“Local planning authorities should plan positively for new development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible. Local planning authorities should:
Prepare Local Plans on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, and with sufficient flexibility to respond to rapid shifts in demand or other economic changes.
Approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay.
Grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date.
All of these policies should apply unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”
1.9 Whilst in the current period of economic uncertainty South Bucks District Council understands the Government’s general wish to promote growth and development, there is concern over how this desire is articulated in the draft NPPF, and the implications it may have for Green Belt Districts such as South Bucks. It is felt that the Government’s objective to promote growth and development could be retained, but expressed in a more proportionate, less unequivocal way, which would allow for the consideration of legitimate local concerns.
1.10 The first bullet above relates to the preparation of Local Plans. It proposes that these plans should be prepared on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Although some comfort can be taken from these words, it is likely to mean that rather than coming at the issue of future development needs from the perspective of what can be accommodated given the development constraints in any particular District, in moving forward, Councils may need to demonstrate why development needs cannot be reasonably met, with reference to the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighing the benefits. This is a subtle shift, but the balance of consideration now weighs more in favour of growth and development.
1.11 South Bucks District Council is also very concerned about the proposal that local authorities should approve all development on which their plan is silent (or indeterminate) or where relevant policies are out of date. The section of the draft NPPF dealing with “Plan-Making” provides further guidance in this regard, stating that “….in the absence of an up-to-date and consistent plan, planning applications should be determined in accord with this Framework” (ie the NPPF). Whilst South Bucks remains in the minority of local authorities who have an adopted Core Strategy, it is clear that it will take some time to prepare and adopt Development Management policies for the District. In the interim period and subject to what happens to the saved policies in the 1999 South Bucks Local Plan, the current wording of the NPPF will provide most applicants for planning permission with a more attractive policy context for their proposals (given its pro-development stance). This policy context is not one that is directly capable of reflecting local circumstances.
1.12 More generally, the proposal in the draft NPPF that local authorities should approve all development on which their plan is silent, will encourage authorities to try and draft plans which anticipate every eventuality, working against the goal of speeding up the planning process and having shorter Local Plans.
Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed?
1.13 South Bucks District Council feels that although each of these broad principles has merit, the wording (when read in the context of the objective to promote growth and development) appears to give greater weight to promoting growth and development, than protecting the environment.
Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning?
1.14 No. It appears that via the proposed duty to cooperate, the Government is intending that development needs will be considered over an area beyond local authority boundaries, and that as was the case with the Regional Spatial Strategy, development needs across a wider area will be assessed and the spatial distribution of development agreed, taking into account development constraints (including the Green Belt).
1.15 South Bucks District Council is concerned that this duty to cooperate will not adequately address the gaps that will be left by the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies. In relation to development needs, the approach presupposes that there is always a consensus waiting to be arrived at. The reality is that some strategic issues will not be readily resolved, and it would therefore be helpful if the draft NPPF could advise on what should be done in the event of such an impasse.
1.16 The practical issues associated with the duty to cooperate should not be underestimated. Local authorities are likely to have fewer resources in moving forward, and will inevitably have different priorities given the different stages they will be at in the plan making process. This is likely to mean that either the effectiveness of the cooperation will be compromised, or there will be significant delays as one authority waits for one or more other authorities to be in a position to effectively resource a particular piece of work or study.
1.17 As importantly, given the highly contentious nature of the matters to be discussed, it will take a number of years for Council’s to work up an appropriate evidence base, agree (or be forced to agree) a distribution of development across the wider area, and enshrine this level of development in their Local Plan. In those areas that are yet to adopt a Core Strategy document, some form of transitional arrangements could usefully maintain the Regional Housing targets until such a time as each local authority area (acting within the duty to cooperate) has a new (locally evidenced) housing target in place. Without any transitional arrangements proposed (following abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies), the concern must be that in those areas without an adopted “Local Plan” there is a period of planning by appeal—contrary to the stated intentions of the draft NPPF, and in all likelihood, resulting in a less sustainable form of development than could be achieved through plan-led development.
September 2011