HC 1526 Communities and Local Government CommitteeWritten evidence from Adrian Penfold
Introduction
The Government’s planning reform package contained in the Localism Bill, the Plan for Growth and the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is, when taken as a whole, avowedly “radical”.
Key Points
The NPPF should I believe be considered in this context, ie, the wider package of reform and the intention to decentralise, or localise. With that in mind, it appears to me to have a number of objectives and would benefit from these objectives being set out in the document, and from a clearer narrative describing how each of these objectives is intended to be met. The objectives could be described as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The document could be strengthened to clarify the main purposes of the planning system, providing a stronger foundation for the core principles and policies that follow, and a clearer vision to inform all those who operate in the planning system. In particular that foundation, or vision, might include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Response to Questions
1. Does the NPPF give sufficient guidance to local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others, including investors and developers whilst at the same time giving local communities significant power over planning decisions?
The NPPF is part of a wider package of reform, much of which gives significantly greater power to local communities, through neighbourhood planning, local referenda, designation of Assets of Community Value etc. Additionally, more of the value created by growth will be retained at local level through the New Homes Bonus, Business Rate Retention and CIL.
A key role for the NPPF should be to ensure that plan making takes place within a properly considered evidence based policy context. As I explain above, I believe the document could be strengthened to improve its usefulness to local planning authorities when producing their local plans.
Developers and investors look to the planning system for clarity on what development will and won’t be allowed. Policy which is consistent, coherent and readily interpretable is therefore important. Localism will inevitably lead to wider diversity of policies and community organisation structures from area to area; the better developers appreciate that they need to respond to this and, where possible, operate as a part of the local community where they are investing. Some consistency in the preparation of the evidence base for planning is though required and this is an area where further guidance will be needed.
2. 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?
I have explained above that I believe the description of “sustainable development” should be strengthened, particularly to assist local planning authorities when producing their plans. The most important definition will though be contained in those local plans, when broad principles are applied at the local level to local circumstances.
As an example, it is important that previously developed land and land of low environmental quality is preferred when allocating sites for development. There may though be local circumstances where such an approach is not the best solution when considering all the environmental, social and economic factors: where perhaps an urban extension site is preferable to a previously developed site many miles away from any existing settlement, because of the availability of schools, shopping centres, extendable bus, train or tram routes etc. That decision should be taken locally within a non-prescriptive national policy framework.
On the Presumption, the main feature is I believe the reliance on policy; the plan or, where there is no plan, the NPPF. This doesn’t seem to be a major shift from present practise, rather a clarification of much of what happens now when, in the absence of an up to date plan, the 1,300 pages of existing PPS’s and PPG’s are brought to bear on the decision. I do though believe that paragraph 14 could be amended to clarify what applies to plan making and what to development control. I would also add the words “and other material considerations” to the end of the paragraph as there may well be other factors to consider when determining planning applications, particularly in the transition period before the adoption of a new generation of local plans.
The word “indeterminate” is I believe unhelpful. Most plans in my experience require the interpretation and balancing of policies in order for the decision maker to reach a conclusion. They are rarely absolutely determinate when applied to a specific proposal.
3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed?
I recognise them as important principles for the planning system. I have three comments:
(a)
(b)
(c)
4. 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?
All policies affecting development, not just planning policies, work best if they are integrated across Government. The final Report of my review for Government of Non-Planning Consents
5. Does the NPPF with the ‘Duty to Cooperate’ provide a sufficient basis for larger than local strategic planning?
Cooperation between local authorities, and indeed other agencies (see below), is important to the delivery of wider than single local authority infrastructure, much of which is crucial to supporting development. The London-wide CIL which part-funds Crossrail is a good example of this. In my experience though, a Duty to Cooperate is unlikely to be effective unless there are reasons for authorities to cooperate. Local Enterprise Partnerships may have a role in this, and the proposed Enterprise Zone retention of business rate growth at wider than local authority level is an interesting initiative in this area. Perhaps a proportion of CIL could be required to be targeted at cross boundary projects in a similar way to the “meaningful proportion” required to be spent at the community level.
The Town and Country Planning Association in its response to your Committee recommends that the Duty to Cooperate be extended to include other public bodies and privatised utilities. I support this recommendation because many of these bodies have a key role in plan making and development control. Their engagement, or lack of it, can compromise the effectiveness of both processes.
6. Are the policies sufficiently evidence-based?
No response.
Conclusion
The draft NPPF is to be welcomed as an opportunity to simplify and streamline planning. It can also bring greater coherence to the existing overlong and sometimes confusing policy statements and guidance. The Government also has the opportunity to introduce a number of policy changes and, most importantly, to emphasise the need for a positive attitude to plan making and development control, to meet objectively assessed, evidence based needs unless there are sound reasons not to.
There are areas that can be strengthened, particularly the vision and objectives for the planning system and the importance of sustainability as a guiding principle. The operation of the presumption in favour of sustainable development could also be clarified, particularly in relation to plan making. Finally, the various proposed policy changes are quite rightly the subject of intense debate. It is for the Government and Parliament to decide on what, if anything, in the draft, should be changed. I have attempted to address some of the points that have been raised but have not felt it appropriate to submit my own detailed assessment of all of the proposed policy changes.
October 2011