HC 1526 Communities and Local Government CommitteeWritten evidence from the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

CIWEM welcomes the opportunity to comment on sustainable development in the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). We have set out our comments beneath the Committee’s questions and provided the summary below.

The NPPF is the most radical reform of the planning system for decades and will have unprecedented implications for the environment and sustainable development. CIWEM considers the Framework is seriously deficient: it does not integrate with other Coalition policy goals and frameworks; it fails to recognise the role of land use planning in democratic decision-making; it lacks a regional and strategic dimension; it offers an impoverished view of sustainable development, equating it to all intents and purposes with “growth”; and it reduces “the environment” to a marginal set of designated protected zones.

Summary

The definition of sustainable development is weak and fails to take sufficient account of the growing evidence of serious ecological disruption and risks (not confined to climate change) or of the extremely radical gains in material, water and energy efficiency needed if we are to have economic growth and sustainable use of ecosystems and resources.

The NPPF gives the impression that the Government sees the environment in the context of planning as simply the sum total of designated areas of countryside and greenbelt, whereas it needs to be seen in holistic terms as a dynamic set of ecosystems interacting with human systems.

The NPPF is skewed to favour economic over social and environmental considerations because it presumes that development equals growth.

The NPPF creates opportunities for those with less honourable intentions to take over the planning process for their own short-term commercial ends.

It is unclear how the NPPF relates to other key Government policy frameworks, notably the low-carbon transition strategy for energy, infrastructure and manufacturing; the Natural Environment White Paper and the recent National Ecosystem Assessment.

The abolition of regional governance in England has left a planning vacuum between the local and national level. This will have serious shortcomings for strategic decisions about resource use and ecosystems beyond the local level—such as renewable energy, waste policy, river catchment management, integrated transport, food production and so on.

There does not seem to be a driver to link how local actions relate to the wider strategic decisions that should be taken to deliver sustainability nationally and internationally.

All policies relevant to our wider sustainability (food production, water supply, waste management, energy supply etc) should be integrated within this Framework and not added when it is convenient or simply made to have “due regard”.

The Framework appears ignorant of modern day requirements and ignores a host of competing factors which will determine what sustainable development looks like in this country; factors such as climate change, population growth and diminishing resources.

Ultimately, the NPPF reads as a series of headline-grabbing buzz-words and sound-bites providing no further depth with the use of illustrative examples or guidance against which proposals could be realistically assessed.

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?

CIWEM is deeply concerned at the streamlining of the national planning policies (of more than 1000 pages to perhaps 50 pages) and associated guidance. Whilst there is some merit in simplification and resolving any existing conflicts within guidance, the new framework is very light on details, examples and guidance. It may be that critical detail is lost which is important for protecting the environment and for giving planning officers and committees enough evidence from which to work upon.

CIWEM believes that without comprehensive guidance a void will be formed between the NPPF and its delivery. It is likely that existing guidance will have to be “reinvented” with the third sector having to step in to create pseudo-statutory guidance and advice. Whilst it is part of the remit of professional bodies to provide public education and support, we are simply not resourced to produce guidance and are not in a position to take financial liability for any guidance given. We can assist in its production but we believe that it is the place of government to produce and accept the liability for any guidance.

Without the current range of guidance it is likely that there will be a lack of national consistency in planning and there will be a greater burden on planners and planning inspectors, rather than the intended reverse. CIWEM believes that it is inevitable that there will be insufficient detail, insufficient clarity or sufficient “fog” to create opportunities for those with less honourable intentions to take over the planning process for their own short-term commercial ends. There is a real danger that the majority of this will occur as a result of the way “sustainable development” is defined and used in the Framework (please also see the response to the next question).

Whilst the suite of existing planning policies is long, they provide the necessary detail and support for planners when they are preparing plans. Major issues such as the green belt, building on flood plains and restrictions on granting consent for out-of-town supermarkets are all set out in planning guidance.

We consider that it is misguided and dangerous to state that planning permission will be granted “where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date”. Fewer than 30% of Core Strategies have been adopted leaving vast areas open to debate. Decision-making on this basis is not sustainable and will allow interventions by any developers with the means to develop without a care for local communities. The Framework states that these policies (of approving all individual proposals wherever possible) should apply unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against this framework. The problem is that the policies are so light in their coverage, and lack so much rigour, that it would be difficult to assess anything against them.

The NPPF states: “Up-to-date Local Plans, ie Local Plans which are consistent with this Framework, should be in place as soon as practical”. This leads us to question the incentive to produce Local Plans when planning permission is allowed to be permitted in their absence?

Increasing communities’ involvement in planning is a positive move, however if neighbourhood plans are given significant powers it may generate a large number of questions about national consistency. Proposals for neighbourhood plans could allow development on the approval of self-appointed local people of questionable provenance and purpose. An articulate minority may have considerable and unacceptable influence on the look and feel of settlements. Local Enterprise Partnerships too, may have a large influence on neighbourhood plans and skew development towards business interests.

Using natural resources prudently, mitigating, adapting to climate change and moving to a low carbon economy should be the role of the economy per se and should feature centrally in discussions of economic development. There is a real danger that neighbourhood plans will not address this and not produce the desired outcomes. Unless the key drivers and challenges of the future (population growth, diminishing resources and climate change) are addressed at national, county and local level then neighbourhood plans will simply compromise and create more difficulty for those that follow in the future.

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?

The presumption in favour of sustainable development is to be warmly welcomed; if only it were adequately defined, explained and unequivocal. Planning is critical to delivering sustainable development spatially. The principles of living within environmental limits, balancing economic growth, protection of the environment, and social equity are all key components and need to be delivered through the planning system.

The definition of sustainable development in the Ministerial foreword is unsatisfactory. It seems to be ignorant of what sustainable development means. The first sentence of the Ministerial Foreword says:

“the purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development”.

The above statement is accurate and appropriate. Sadly, the following paragraphs undermine that simple and effective statement:

“sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves [sic] don’t mean worse lives for future generations”.

The definition for development says “development means growth”. There have been several studies to show that development does not necessarily mean growth (see Prosperity without Growth, written by one of the Sustainable Development Commission commissioners) and some countries have recognised that there is more to development than simply growth.

The Ministerial Foreword continues that: “development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay—a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis of every plan, and every decision”. There should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development and it should be the basis that every plan and every decision, but it should not address these deficient definitions.

The description in Paragraph 9 has a much better understanding of sustainable development but this does not produce a definition that is used elsewhere in the Framework. It is quite telling that neither “sustainable”, “development” nor “sustainable development” is explained in the glossary. The core term of the whole document is only explained once in the Foreword. The Framework is peppered with “sustainable” prefixes and it does tend to become quite meaningless with a sense of fatigue about the continual use of the word sustainable in front of everything. We would also question the need for a new definition of sustainable development when it has been well defined in Securing the Future (2005).

It is a concern that the Government appears to make a distinction between sustainable economy and sustainable economic growth. There is a clear tension between economic growth and sustainable development in this document and it does not provide adequate guidance on either. The aspiration towards “growth” means that creative and innovative thinking is marginalised and a model of expansion is resorted to; this is instead of looking at renewal and more innovative and smarter ways of developing business to secure a firm economy.

CIWEM is deeply concerned by the contradiction to sustainable development that is revealed later in the Framework: “significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system”. This is in contrast to balancing economic, social and environmental needs and shows that economic considerations trump all others. The Government has simply not learnt that economic growth is not a panacea to our problems.

It is not clear what evidence the Government is drawing on when it argues that the current planning system has held back economic growth. To justify this, the Government needs to provide proper evidence that planning regimes have unjustifiably blocked developments that would have generated “sustainable economic growth”.

The connection between a strong economy and developing more land is continually suggested throughout the NPPF. A strong responsive and competitive economy is not a land issue. It is about creativity, innovation, ideas and does not necessarily mean building acres and acres of hard infrastructure. Naturally it may mean using some land and providing the adequate infrastructure (eg the right mix of road, rail, ports and local networks) but it does not necessarily mean seizing endless land because land equals success. There is considerable existing infrastructure that needs renewal and the emphasis should be on upgrading and improving what we have first.

Planning for people is not just about providing an increased supply of housing to meet the needs of the present and also any future generations. Planning for people is so much more. It is about building communities, not just building houses. Furthermore there is a big difference between urban and rural living, and in this Framework neither is adequately addressed.

Implications of the Definition

The definitions are flawed and misleading. The Framework gives way to focus decision-making in planning largely or solely based on economic growth. This could be qualified by reference to “low- or zero-carbon” growth or “growth decoupled from increases in resource use” but as it stands, the proposals are a builders’ charter. The strong impression is given that any proposed development should be presumed acceptable unless it contradicts a Local Plan. Since many Plans (over 70%) are absent, incomplete or out of date, this is a charter for unrestrained development that could subvert policy goals for climate change mitigation, adaptation, nature conservation, energy saving, water saving and waste reduction. It is also a clear affront to the Natural Environment White Paper which promised to reverse the decline in our natural capital and not accelerate it. We believe that urban sprawl of the type seen in the pre-war and post-war periods will return.

Communities engaging in neighbourhood planning will have to understand both sustainable development and the concept of presumption of sustainable development. This is confusing when communities could promote more development than set out in the Local Plan. Another problem that we face is that local authorities do not have the necessary resources to assess locations and developments for their sustainability.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed?

The first principle is that “planning should be genuinely plan-led, with succinct Local Plans setting out a positive long-term vision for an area. These plans should be kept up to date and should provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with high degree of certainty and efficiency”. We agree with this.

Sadly, one of the worst statements in this Framework is the second principle where it says “decision takers at every level should assume that the default answer to development proposals is yes…” This is a very dangerous assumption and this principle is open to all sorts of misinterpretation and potential abuse.

The third principle misunderstands the concept of development. The allocation of sufficient land is not a criterion for good development. There is a fundamental flaw in this Framework which continually considers that development is building something: houses, business offices or structures, infrastructure. There are many, many publications discussing what development means in terms of sustainable development and it is not just about building houses.

The core principles and the Framework rely on a series of headline-grabbing buzz-words and sound-bites providing no further depth with the use of illustrative examples or guidance against which proposals could be realistically assessed.

Apart from the eclectic definition of sustainable development, this Framework appears ignorant of modern day requirements. It seems to ignore a host of competing factors which will determine what sustainable development looks like in this country; factors such as climate change, population growth and diminishing resources. If sustainable development continues to be looked at through the lens of 20th century planning then not only will UK development be unsustainable, but also it will stagnate. This Framework is an opportunity to set the UK on a path not only to a sustainable future but also a development path which could bring prosperity to all corners of society. This Framework misunderstood its remit and as a result is a missed opportunity.

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?

It is unclear how the NPPF relates to other key Government policy frameworks, notably the low-carbon transition strategy for energy, infrastructure and manufacturing; the Natural Environment White Paper and the recent National Ecosystem Assessment. The draft NPPF gives the impression that it could easily undermine all of these. Moreover, it gives the impression too that the Government sees the environment in the context of planning as simply the sum total of designated areas of countryside and green belt, whereas it needs to be seen in holistic terms as a dynamic set of ecosystems interacting with human systems.

Indeed the Natural Environment White Paper realised the importance of a holistic view of nature by acknowledging the findings of the TEEB study that “the loss of land-based ecosystems has already cost around €500 billion over the last ten years. Maintaining nature’s capacity to provide the functions upon which we rely is often cheaper than having to replace them by investing in heavy infrastructure or technical solutions.” This foresight is completely lost in the draft NPPF.

It is unclear how the new Framework relates to proposals for “Big Society”, Localism and more local democratic say in planning. Localism must involve the ability to reject or place suitable social, aesthetic and ecological conditions on proposed development. As it stands, the NPPF makes it clear that such conditions are overridden by a central presumption in favour of anything that promotes economic growth. The existing planning system has failed to prevent much ugly and energy-intensive development for decades, and it is right that it be reformed radically. However, there is nothing in the new Framework to ensure it will promote sustainability, improve aesthetic and environmental standards in design of developments and enable a richer civic conversation about the quality of places and developments and their implications for the environment and future generations.

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning?

Abolition of regional governance in England means that there is now a planning vacuum between local plans and the national Framework. This has serious implications for policy where decisions need to be made about resource use and ecosystems beyond the local level, such as renewable energy, waste policy, river catchment management and integrated transport systems.

In general, the NPPF tends to use words which are unhelpful. A plan is something which is quite definite, clear and actionable. A strategy is more of an aspiration and a direction. Yet in this Framework, it is quite clear to see that the plan is considered to be a strategic document rather than a planning document. There is a need for strategic priorities but this should not be in a plan, what is needed is a local strategy in which a local plan provides actionable detail.

We do not disagree with the strategic policies identified except to say that aspects are missing: the need to recognise the true implications of population growth, and recognition of diminishing resources. Climate change mitigation and adaptation, which have the potential to undermine everything, are oddly placed last in the strategic policy list. It is very clear from many sources, including the Foresight Programme of UK Government that we do have extreme challenges to face now in order to allow future generations to have a sufficient chance of developing their own future. We have issues of: land space, water supply, food security, energy security and so on. These are all issues because of population and where it is. Therefore, we cannot have local decision-making, making critical decisions about where people live completely ignorant of the future effects of climate change and resource constraints.

We agree that local plans should have a 15 year time horizon however there should be a local strategy which has a much longer time horizon into which the plan is embedded.

It is acknowledged that there are no specific waste policies and there is little mention of waste infrastructure in the NPPF. Of course everything can be done in parallel and made to “have due regard” to other policies. However this approach, in the past, has always led to manipulation at local level when making planning decisions. What is needed in an overarching planning framework (which this is striving to be) is that all relevant policies; food production, water supply, waste management, energy supply and so on are all integrated within this Framework, not tacked on when it is convenient or running in parallel.

We do not consider that the duty to cooperate will have any significant affect on changing neighbouring authority’s plans and interests.

CIWEM considers that having a Local Plan nominally decided by an independent inspector is inappropriate. In our past experience independent inspectors are often poorly informed on sustainable development and tend to be extremely conservative. They are not usually well-read on matters of climate change or population growth and we doubt whether they have the necessary competencies to examine the Local Plan strategically. We believe that Local Plans should be determined by a panel consisting of neighbourhood representatives supported by independent professional advisers, though these should not be local planning officers.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based?

We agree that each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate up-to-date and relevant evidence. We believe that this evidence should be publicly available and rigorous. It should be intellectually robust, and the evidence base should be scientifically-based in terms of sustainable development.

We agree that planning policy should aim for balance of land uses within their area. However, we would request that deeper and further insight is obtained into what balance of “land uses” looks like in terms of food production, energy production, water management, waste management and so on. There are several UK Government Foresight documents which help in this regard.

The evidence base supporting business needs should be as for the general evidence base; rigorous and scientifically based in terms of sustainable development, and taking full account of population growth, diminishing resources and climate change. Simply building infrastructure for businesses is not about creating economic development. So this paragraph is essentially flawed because it seems to suggest that the solution to business requirements is simply building infrastructure. Economic development is far more than the bricks and mortar in which a business operates.

We agree that local planning authorities should use the best available information to develop and maintain an understanding of the extent and location and mineral reserves in areas and assess a projected demand for the use. But there is more. This assessment must be done in the light of general diminishing resources and therefore should place far greater emphasis on reuse of existing materials before extracting new minerals.

If a plan is well created, well formulated and well resourced it will be deliverable. The reason that plans have not been deliverable in the past is that they have not been well thought through, and the outcomes of those plans have been fairly poorly identified. Consequently, there are the many objections to poorly proposed development. This paragraph should be unnecessary because if the plan is good, has taken into account local requirements (and future stresses) is fully resourced, is intellectually rigorous and scientifically based, then it would be delivered.

26 August 2011