National Planning Policy Framework

Written evidence from the British Property Federation

Introduction

1. The British Property Federation (BPF) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee o n the draft N ational Planning Policy Framework .

2. The BPF is the voice of property in the UK, representing companies owning, managing and investing in property. This includes a broad range of businesses – commercial property owners, the financial institutions and pension funds, corporate landlords, local private landlords – as well as all those professions that support the industry.

3. The BPF is very supportive of the thrust of the draft NPPF but, recognising that certain bodies have some misgivings about aspects of the propos ed policies , we have sought to put forward in this evidence some suggestions for allaying those concerns.

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?

Does t he NPPF give sufficient guidance?

4. We believe that the objective should be to c reat e a national planning policy framework which:

· is as clear and succinct as possible

· enables the creation of jobs, homes and necessary infrastructure without undue delay and expense

· takes proper account of the principles of sustainability.

Against this broad objective , we feel that the Government has largely succeeded in producing a draft document which is succinct, balanced and comprehensive.

5. The draft NPPF rightly stresses that we must have a planning system which facilitates the development needed to enable us to house our population and earn our living in the world. However, it stresses, too, that growth must be delivered in a way that meets the principles of sustainable development.

6. We do not believe that the NPPF will obviate the need for more detailed formal guidance from Government on a number of issues. For instance, the Localism Bill may give rise to a need for some additional guidance on the process of neighbourhood planning. However, any such guidance should sit firmly under the NPPF and every effort should be made to keep such guidance to a minimum.

7. The Government has made it clear that it will in future largely be up to industry bodies and associated professions to produce whatever ‘informal’ guidance or good practice that they feel may be needed. We are aware of and involved in current projects to produce good practice guidance in two areas: the historic environment and the production of housing market assessments. A key question, however, is what status such ‘informal’ guidance will have; in particular what weight will decision-makers (local authorities, CLG’s Secretary of State and the Planning Inspectorate) attach to it? Our view is that these decision-makers are likely to attach greater significance to such guidance if it can be demonstrated that the guidance:

· has been produced in response to widespread feeling that there is a need for it;

· has been drawn up by a broad and inclusive group of bodies, rather than a particular interest group;

· is clearly evidence-based; and

· has been the subject of widespread consultation.

8. The concerns that we have about the concept of industry / planning bodies producing sets of guidance are that:

· There is a danger that there could be a proliferation of guidance which over time could lead to a re-creation of the PPSs and PPGs that are being cancelled. It will be important to be aware of the danger of ‘guidance creep’.

· Producing evidence-based guidance that has been subject to widespread consultation is a costly business and the kind of planning and other bodies best placed to produce it have very limited funds available to enable them to do so. It is not surprising, therefore, that the emerging heritage guidance referred to above is being facilitated by English Heritage. It may be that other arms of Government will need to offer some support to enable guidance to be produced in areas where it is deemed to be useful.

· Some co-ordination of guidance would be helpful so that we do not see over-lapping and unco-ordinated sets of guidance that would simply cause confusion. It would also be helpful to have a central repository where such guidance could be lodged.

The role of local communities

9. We believe that the NPPF gives local communities important powers over planning decisions as it:

· reinforces the development plan-led nature of the planning system, with local plans prepared by democratically elected local authorities in consultation with their relevant communities;

· stresses the new system of neighbourhood planning which should give local communities greater decision-making powers over such matters as where development should go and what it should look like; and

· emphasises the need for Local Plans to reflect the needs of local communities for housing, employment, etc through evidence-based analysis.

Interaction of the NPPF, Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans

10. A key question is whether the NPPF, Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans complement each other or create contradictions . In particular , is the pro-growth message in the draft NPPF compatible with the delegation of planning powers to neighbourhoods who may not nece ssarily welcome new development?

11. We understand that the Government believes that these various elements are compatible because:

· The NPPF requires loc al authorities to put together Local P lans that are based on a rigorous evidence-based assessment of their future needs for housing and economic growth. Whilst things like housing targets are no longer imposed on local authorities from above as was the case under the former regional planning regime , local authorities will still be required to act responsibly. Ignoring the future needs of their communities is not an option.

· Neighbourhood Plans have to be compatible with Local Plans and cannot therefore opt for less development than that envisaged in Local Plans. Ministers do not believe that this undermines localism because they feel that most local communities are not intrinsically opposed to new development. It is the lack of control that they can exercise over its location and appearance that is instrumental in stok ing opposition. Giving communities much greater control over where development goes and what it looks like , therefore, should make those communities much more willing to accept development. Ministers also believe that neighbourhoods will be more willing to accept developments if they can see clear benefits flowing from it for their communities. Hence their enthusiasm for measures such as allocating a proportion of the Community I nfrastructure Levy for community use.

12. Much of the above makes good sense . However, there are many in the development community who , nonetheless, see some conflict between the growth and localism agendas. They are n ot convinced that local communities will be as welcoming of new development as Ministers expect. Indeed, t here is an irony in that many conservation bodies are suggesting that the Government’s planning reforms are a ‘ licence to develop ’ whilst most developers are yet to be convinced that the new regime, taken as whole, will make development easier to achieve.

Is the definition of 'sustainable development' contained in the document a 9 ppropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach?

13. It is disappointing that the debate over the draft NPPF has become so polarised. Since its publication, the draft NPPF has been subject to strong criticism from a range of bodies who have argued that the NPPF and, in particular, the proposed presumption in favour of sustainable development, will fundamentally change the balance of the planning system, allowing almost untrammelled development in the countryside. The National Trust has even suggested that it could herald Los Angeles-style urban sprawl with the clear implication that it poses a particular threat to the Green Belt. We believe that this criticism is very misleading. It is quite clear, as Ministers have reiterated, that there is no threat to the Green Belt or other protected areas.

14. Much of the criticism has centred around the introduction of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Whilst the presumption is an important aspect of the emerging NPPF, we do not see it as marking a radical change to the existing planning system. The crucial point which so many of those attacking the draft NPPF have ignored, is that the presumption should not be exercised in a vacuum but within the context of a Local Plan drawn up by an elected local authority following extensive consultation with their local community. That Plan must reflect an evidence-based assessment of the future economic, housing and other needs of that community. It must also be drawn up paying full regard to the principles of sustainability which involves balancing environmental, economic and social considerations. The point is not that new development will be sanctioned which would not previously have been allowed; but rather that development which fully accords with the Local Plan should now be dealt with more expeditiously and development which meets sustainability criteria is less likely to be stalled by the absence of an up to date plan. The NPPF and the presumption should, therefore, be seen as underpinning the kind of plan-based approach to planning that many in both the planning and development communities have long been seeking.

15. Our conversations with conservation bodies suggest that their primary concern is that some local authorities will continue to struggle to produce Local Plans and that, as a result of the operation of the presumption, could then find unwelcome and inappropriate development thrust upon them. We think that these fears are unfounded for the following reasons:

· In the first place, the presumption should place a much greater onus on local authorities to prepare and keep updating local plans. There should, therefore, in future be fewer cases of absent or deficient plans.

· Secondly, the suggestion that if there is no up to date plan then ‘anything goes’ is a travesty of the Government’s proposals. If an up to date Local Plan is not in force, then decisions about planning applications will be made in accordance with the principles set out in the draft NPPF. As the draft NPPF makes clear the presumption should apply so as to "grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies out of date……unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole". That means that authorities must consider any application against the whole body of the NPPF which repeatedly stresses the need to take account of sustainability and lays particular emphasis on the need to protect the green belt, valued landscapes and heritage assets as well as support sustainable transport modes and combat climate change.

16. Despite the polarised nature of the debate, we believe that there are a number of areas where there may be scope for some change to make the NPPF more broadly acceptable:

Up-to-date Local Plans

17. There is common ground across property and conservation bodies that the inability of many authorities to produce and maintain up-to-date plans has been one of the key failures of the current planning regime. We believe that fears would be considerably allayed if there was greater confidence that the vast majority of local authorities were able to maintain up-to-date Local Plans. The question, therefore, is whether more specific requirements could be placed on local authorities to produce up-to-date plans. We see no reason why this should not be the case. Although local authority resources are stretched, preparing and maintaining an up to date Local Plan should be seen as one of the most important functions of any local authority. We do not see it as a particularly onerous requirement, as the Government has stressed the need to keep Local Plans as streamlined as possible and for local authorities to jettison extraneous planning documents unless they are clearly essential.

18. We believe, therefore, that the broad acceptability of the Government’s planning proposals would be enhanced if there was a clearer and more enforceable obligation on authorities to produce and maintain Local Plans. Consideration could be given, for instance, to the feasibility of having set target periods for the preparation and review of core strategies.

Maximising the use of b rownfield land

19. Much of the debate on the draft NPPF has turned on whether it will lead to the loss of undeveloped countryside, Green Belt and open space. One change which has sparked particular concern is the abandonment of targets for building on brownfield (i.e. previously developed) land. We are anxious that as much new building as possible should take place on brownfield land. Clearly, however, the availability of brownfield land varies greatly around the country and some areas with the greatest need for housing development have the least amount of such land. We think, therefore, that it would make most sense for local authorities to be required to set out in their Local Plans policies for maximising the use of brownfield land in their areas. This would also be more in keeping with the thrust of the localism agenda.

20. We would also make the point that if we are to maximise the use of brownfield land much greater effort needs to be directed towards the remediation and the regeneration of such land, much of which suffers from contamination and other problems. At a time of cuts in public spending, the budgets and reliefs available to help bring such land back into use are under particular pressure. The NPPF could possibly help by stipulating that in determining a planning application for a new use for contaminated land, a decision-maker could treat its funding of the site's remediation as a material consideration.

Sustainable development

21. Another concern that has been expressed is that the presumption in favour of sustainable development depends on there being a sufficiently robust definition of what is meant by ‘sustainable development’. The definition of sustainable development in the NPPF uses the classic Brundtland definition and talks appropriately about balancing economic, social and economic considerations. The Brundtland definition has the merit of familiarity and in the twenty five years since it was first produced, no one seems to have been able to produce anything which has won wider acceptance .However, we recognise that the Brundtland definition was designed to cover a wide spectrum of issues and we are not wedded to this definition if a better form of words can be produced. The consultation, therefore, provides an opportunity to consider whether any better forms of words might be available.

However, we would stress two points:

· However detailed a definition is provided there will always be a need for what constitutes sustainable development to be interpreted within the context of a particular case.

· The interpretation of what constitutes sustainable development does not rest simply on the references in the document to the Brundtland Commission but on the wording of the document as a whole. When judged in that light we think that the issue of what sustainable development means is dealt with in a fairly comprehensive basis.

Offices and the sequential test

22. A further concern has been the omission of offices from the sequential test under which it is required to make efforts to locate new development first in town centres and only as a last resort in out of town locations. Clearly, the sequential approach has the greatest relevance to the retail sector as concerns about the health of town centres tend to focus primarily on the perceived threat of out-of-town retail developments. Nonetheless, we are very supportive in general of the town centre first approach and agree that, where suitable space is available, town centres are generally preferable as locations for offices. It is probably the case that, whether or not offices are included in the sequential test, the preferred location of most new office development will continue to be in town centres for reasons connected with transport links and agglomeration (i.e. the advantage that businesses receive from locating together). We would have no problem, therefore, for the case for excluding offices from the sequential being re-examined.

Are the 'core planning principles' clearly and appropriately expressed?

23. Although commentary on the draft NPPF has focused on one or two elements, notably the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the draft NPPF is to a large extent a précis of the key messages in the existing PPSs and PPGs. We think that the task of distilling the essence of those sets of guidance into a short, readable document has been carried out with considerable skill.

24. The draft Framework rightly places sustainable development as the underlying core principle of the planning system and recognises the need to balance environmental, social and economic goals in achieving sustainable development. We are in total support of this. It also contains other key messages that are particularly important, including:

· The need to focus on viability and deliverability to ensure that development is feasible.

· The key need for authorities to draw up an infrastructure plan at the same time as the Local Plan and for that to be linked to the assessment of the Community Infrastructure Levy.

· The desirability of a ‘town centre first’ approach.

· The need for high design standards.

· The need to reflect the greater involvement of neighbourhoods in the planning process that the Government envisages.

· The fact that the primary objective of development management should be to foster the delivery of sustainable development, not to hinder or prevent it.

· The strong emphasis on pre-application engagement.

· The need to ensure that information sought by authorities from developers should be proportionate to the scale of the likely impact.

25. Given the widespread concern about the very low levels of housing supply and the implications that these have (e.g. for falling levels of owner occupation, lack of opportunity for first time buyers and constraints on economic development), the recasting of the housing elements of planning policy guidance in the NPPF is particularly important. There is a welcome and necessary emphasis on significantly increasing housing supply, delivering greater choice, widening opportunities for home ownership and creating communities that will remain viable in the longer term. We are particularly pleased to see:

· The need to maintain an evidence base to ensure that the Local Plan meets the full requirements for both market and affordable housing in the housing market area.

· The rolling five year supply of deliverable sites including an additional 20% to ensure choice and competition. We note that there has been widespread misunderstanding about this provision and the message needs to be sent out more clearly that this is not intended to increase the total amount of housing provided.

26. There is a change of policy in the draft NPPF, which removes the indicative policy of Government to require affordable housing on developments of 15 units or more, and replace this with greater flexibility for local authorities to determine their own policies. Affordable housing is then defined in the glossary in line with PPS3.

27. The result of the change is to give local authorities greater flexibility to define when affordable housing requirements will be required, which we broadly welcome. This greater flexibility could either result in affordable housing being required on smaller developments, or going beyond the current indicative 15 units, or we presume no requirement at all.

28. We find, however, that in a world with less housing grant that local authorities are increasingly seeking to be innovative in the mix of housing they provide, and what is defined as affordable should also be left to the local authority. There is also ambiguity in the current definition of 'affordability' which is carried forward from PPS3, when it states:

‘Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.’

We understand and support the intention of this, but there is unnecessary ambiguity over what is 'subsidy'. Does it include grant, public land, land contributed by the developer?

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?

29. The draft NPPF goes a long way towards drawing together a wide range of planning guidance into a single document. However, we have some concern that an opportunity is being missed to make it absolutely clear that the NPPF is the overarching statement of national planning policy, not simply one of a suite of Government documents from different departments which touch on planning matters and have some sort of equality of status.

30. When the Government announced that it was to introduce an NPPF, our reaction was that there needed to be a reference to the NPPF in primary legislation to ensure that it carried the requisite weight. We suggested a simple amendment to the Localism Bill which stated that:

‘In discharging their planning functions, local planning authorities shall have regard to a National Planning Policy Framework that will set out the principles and priorities that will guide the implementation of planning policy in England’.

31. The reaction from Government was that there was no need to have such a reference in legislation as the NPPF would have the status of ‘policy’ and so would have the same weight as existing PPSs. Moreover, it was stressed to us that it was not possible for one set of Government policy to have some kind of precedence over others. Whilst we recognise the validity of some of these points, we cannot help but feel that an opportunity is being missed to introduce greater clarity and avoid future confusion.

Other key issues

32. We have a number of detailed concerns about the wording of the draft NPPF which we will be highlighting in our response to the DCLG. However, we would like to draw attention to two issues that are of particular concern:

Paragraph 51: Strategic elements and neighbourhood plans

33. The section on neighbourhood plans (para 49 et seq) spells out that Neighbourhood plans should be in conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan. Outside these strategic elements, Neighbourhood Plans would be able to shape and direct development in their areas. The crucial point, therefore, is what constitutes a ‘strategic element’. We do not think that this is at all clear at present and will be pressing for greater clarity about what these ‘strategic elements’ are intended to encompass.

Paragr aph 187: buildings in conservation areas

34. The insertion of Paragraph 187 in the draft NPPF reverses the currently accepted approach to the treatment of buildings in conservation areas. It would mean that the demolition of an unlisted building in conservation areas which makes even the smallest positive contribution would be deemed automatically to constitute substantial harm. This would have far-reaching consequences given the fact that most of central London, for instance falls within the boundaries of conservation areas.

35. In our view, Paragraph 187 is inconsistent with the principles set out in Paragraph 177 and 180, relating to particular degree of significance; is lacking in proportionality in the approach to unlisted buildings in conservation areas; and  makes demolition of unlisted buildings in conservation areas subject to the same tests as a Grade 1 Listed Building. This would seriously undermine development in central activity zones and cannot surely be what the Government intends to achieve.

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

36. There is a crucial need for local planning authorities to address a range of planning matters that cut across local authority boundaries ranging from housing need and transport links to minerals and waste issues. We were concerned that the Government’s solution – the duty to cooperate in the Localism Bill as originally published - was far from adequate and we are pleased that the Government has considerably strengthened it in response to the widespread concerns that have been expressed. We welcome the fact that the draft NPPF also sends out the right messages about the need for local authorities to plan strategically in relation to the strategic priorities identified in the draft Framework and for them to be able to demonstrate evidence of having successfully co-operated.

37. Inevitably, however, the degree of co-operation on strategic planning achieved will depend to a large extent on the willingness of neighbouring authorities to adopt a positive and pro-active approach to the duty to co-operate that has been imposed on them. That is almost certainly going to lead to very variable outcomes. A good deal of emphasis is being placed on the potential for Local Enterprise Partnerships to help make the duty to co-operate a reality. However, the ability of LEPs to help will depend heavily on the willingness of local authorities to resource them adequately and give them sufficient head. LEPs are as yet an unknown quantity and their performance is bound to be variable.

38. The whole area of strategic planning is of such importance that the Government should undertake to review the operation of the new system once it has been introduced and show willingness to make whatever adjustments may be needed in the light of experience.

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

39. One of the most encouraging aspects of the draft NPPF is its emphasis on the need for L ocal Plans, including future housing needs and economic development, to be drawn up on an evidence-based approach. There is already extensive good practice available to guide local authorities i n constructing an evidence base e.g. for employment and housing need. However, there may be a need for further supplementary guidance in some areas. As mentioned above, we are already participating in work on how authorities can best assess future housing market requirements .

British Property Federation

September 2011