National Planning Policy Framework

Written evidence from the National Trust

Introduction

1. The National Trust welcomes the Committee’s inquiry and we are pleased to offer this response to your consultation.

2. The National Trust is a leading conservation charity. We protect and manage, on behalf of the nation, over 270,000 ha of countryside and over 700 miles of unspoilt coastline and estuary. Our coast and countryside open spaces attract more than 100 million visits per year. We are also responsible for many hundreds of buildings and gardens of historic or cultural significance.

3. The Trust is also a major business, with a turnover close to £500 million and some 5,500 employees. Over 3.8 million people are now members of the National Trust which is over 5% of the UK population. Not only are we a major provider of tourist facilities, and owners of Europe’s largest network of holiday cottages and gift shops but we also develop commercial housing to support our conservation work. Over the last ten years we have built or have consent for over 900 homes to be sold on a commercial basis. As such we are both an applicant and objector in the planning system.

The National Trust’s position

4. The National Trust supports moderate and targeted reforms of the planning system. We also support growth. This stems from an understanding that economic gain is one of the three integrated strands of sustainable development.

5. However, we are gravely concerned that that the National Planning Policy Framework combined with the Government’s other planning reforms will fundamentally change the purpose of the planning system, will not work in practice in the way the Government intends and will undermine local democratic decision making.

6. The modern UK planning system developed after the Second World War, however prior to this, Government recognised the need to have a system of regulation to balance the public interest in terms of development and the impacts this might have on people and the environment. This was particularly acute following the industrial revolution and early planning law stemmed from the Public Health Act of 1875 recognising that there was an inherent link between town planning and wider public benefits. The principle that this is the purpose of the planning system has held true since that time.

7. Whilst enabling economic growth has been one outcome of the system, the planning system itself has not had a mandate to promote growth. Its distinctive role has been to deliver public benefit by integrating economic, environmental and social goals. The economy has not in principle carried any greater weight than other public benefits.

8. The National Trust also believes that whilst the amount of regulation has grown it is wrong to suggest that the planning system holds the economy back, as the Government is asserting.

9. It is important to note that the previous system was in place during periods of dramatic economic growth most notably 1959-1973 and 1997-2007 when it clearly did not inhibit development.

10. As we look forward there does appear to be a growing consensus that economic growth, social progress and environmental gain need to go hand in hand. This is likely to be at the heart of any ‘green economy’ and is fundamental to the principle of sustainable development, a principle which the Government fully endorses.

11. If any new system is to adequately empower communities and local authorities to strike the right balance and to deliver sustainable development it is imperative that it continues to value equally these economic, social and environmental outcomes.

The direction given by the NPPF and wider reforms

12. One of our major concerns is that the Government appears to be fundamentally changing the purpose of the planning system. We are particularly concerned that in doing this the fundamental principle of maintaining a balanced planning system whereby no public benefit is given weight over another is under threat.

13. The Treasury’s Plan for Growth set the context for this clearly stating at section 1.34 that:

i. The Government will reform the planning system radically and fundamentally and the Government will introduce "a powerful new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to development is yes".

ii. The Government will "produce a shorter, more focused and inherently pro-growth (our emphasis) National Planning Policy Framework to deliver more development in suitable and viable locations".

iii. "set clear expectations that with immediate effect local planning authorities and other bodies involved in granting development consents should prioritise growth and jobs (our emphasis)…."

iv. "introduce new powers so that businesses are able to bring forward neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development orders".

A balanced planning system

14. The National Trust recognises that planning decisions are not always easy. Our own experience developing housing has given us first hand experience of this. This is why we believe that a strong democratic framework is so important. We have serious concerns that the NPPF will render all local plans out of date, that already overstretched local authorities will struggle to plan their areas and that a national document will in effect determine many planning decisions for years to come. We do not believe that this is what the Government intends but it is a likely outcome.

15. The National Trust also believes that the NPPF, in particular the wording of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, strongly skews the system towards valuing economic outcomes above social and environmental.

16. We believe that where no plan is in place or a plan is silent or indeterminate it will prove almost impossible to stop any development. This is because the NPPF will become the sole guiding document in any planning decision. Should a local authority refuse consent we believe that the weighting of the presumption in favour of development and the weight given to economic factors throughout the document will make it impossible to defend a refusal on appeal.

17. The Government’s argument appears to be that any decision must take into account the balance of the whole document. However if the document is by its very nature unbalanced it will become impossible to defend a refusal.

18. If the Government maintains its position in terms of how the document is to be applied it becomes even more imperative that the document has a balanced voice in respect of economic, social and environmental factors. It is only through a neutral document that people whether a parish council, planning committee or inspector can adequately weigh up the degree of public benefit.

19. This is a fundamental aspect of the NPPF which must be addressed and we recommend it become central to the committee’s recommendations to Government.

20. Should the NPPF not sustain the planning system’s balanced approach the Government’s whole basis for the operation of the NPPF and the planning system will ride on the precedent set by the result of the first appeal against refusal. This does not appear to us to be a sensible way of approaching policy making.

21. The issues around the weight of the document are compounded by other policy changes. For example, the NPPF does not currently make explicit reference to a brownfield first policy. With the dropping of this policy and brownfield targets we believe it will result in a greenfield first approach being adopted.

22. This may result because of the combined effect of the NPPF, the likely operation of the Community Infrastructure Levy and the presence of Clause 130 of the Localism Bill which again tilts the balance of the system in favour of economics through elevating the weight given to local financial considerations.

23. The National Trust believes that Clause 130 should be deleted. If Clause 130 is not removed the NPPF must tackle this through adopting an explicit ‘brownfield first’ approach, which makes clear that new development is to be preferred on previously developed land before green field sites are considered.

A democratic planning system

24. The planning system at all levels must remain democratically robust and must give genuine power and choice to local people. We believe the proposals fail in two key ways. Firstly, neighbourhoods are given powers to promote more development than in local plans (para 17) but not necessarily less development as they must conform with a local plan that has been drafted with a presumption in favour of [sustainable] development.

25. We also believe it is fundamentally wrong that neighbourhood plans should be led and funded by business. We support the legitimate role business can play in supporting communities, however, it should be a core principle of the reforms that any plans whether at neighbourhood or local authority level should be developed and signed off by democratically elected and accountable representatives.

Other issues

26. The requirement on local authorities to identify an additional 20% of land for development places should be removed. It places greater pressure on green field land, whether protected (e.g. by green belt status) or not and is unnecessary.

27. In recent months the Minister for Decentralisation has made numerous statements both privately and publicly that there will be no diminution protection for the historic environment. However, we remain concerned that the NPPF as drafted will diminish protection for these aspects of the landscape by overturning a long held convention in favour of their conservation and increasing the degree of harm to both "significant and demonstrable" that must be shown in order to outweigh the benefit of any development proposals.

Qu1 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?

28. The National Trust does not consider that the NPPF gives sufficient guidance to local planning authorities, the inspectorate or investors and developers. The document when viewed alongside the wider reforms is flawed in a number of ways.

i. The NPPF and the wider reforms appear to be changing the purpose of the planning system. This in itself is unhelpful in terms of guiding local authorities and others in running an effective planning system.

ii. The document is confused in terms of sustainable development because the apparently good words about sustainable development in paragraphs 9 and 10 are undermined by further statements within the presumption section, the core principles and in other key areas throughout the document (see below).

iii. Throughout the document there are undefined phrases such as ‘significantly and demonstrably’ in paragraph 14. The words significant, great and considerable appear throughout the document with no indication as to which is to be given more or less weight.

iv. It also remains unclear what the status of sector guidance will be. In particular it appears possible that contrary guidance could be created by different bodies. It will also be important to establish whether sector guidance will be material factors or whether the guidance will be significantly diminished in terms of weight.

Qu 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?

29. The National Trust supports the Brundtland definition of sustainable development in paragraph 9 of the NPPF. However, we would observe that the thinking on sustainable development has moved on. The UK now has a very sophisticated understanding of sustainable development which has been set out in detail within the UK Sustainable Development Strategy 2005 (UKSDS). It would be more useful for the NPPF to refer to this rather than the much older Brundtland definition.

30. Whilst the National Trust is calling for environmental, social and economic factors to be carry equal weight in planning, the UKSDS makes it clear that in fact Living Within Environmental Limits and Ensuring a Strong, Healthy and Just Society are the overarching, first order, principles of sustainable development.

31. This derives from an understanding that without respecting environmental limits we undermine the very resources upon which any economy is based.

32. Perhaps the most obvious example of where the NPPF and the Government’s wider reforms fail to adopt this approach is in the removal of brownfield targets and the lack of protection within the NPPF of grade 1 and 2 agricultural land. Given that we are likely to be faced in the future with food security issues it demonstrates just one clear example of how you might expect to see sustainable development being reflected in planning policy.

33. Economic factors within the UKSDS are dealt with as a second order principle. These are never the less important and we would draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that within the principle of Achieving a Sustainable Economy it again makes clear that this means "prosperity and opportunities for all, and in which environmental and social costs fall on those who impose them…".

34. It seems clear to the National Trust that statements throughout the NPPF are inconsistent with the application of Brundtland or the more detailed understanding within the UKSDS.

35. This is particularly the case in relation to the presumption in favour of sustainable development and is seen most acutely in paragraph 13 which states "Therefore, significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system".

36. There are also clear statements throughout the document that the role of planning should be to drive the economy. For example under the core planning principles section 19 bullet point 2. There are further examples such as 84 which makes a clear statement that "the objectives of transport policy are to facilitate economic growth by taking a positive approach to planning for development". In addition to this in section 54 bullet two local authorities are told to attach significant weight to the benefits of economic factors and housing growth.

Valuing people

37. The National Trust believes that the unbalanced system described above will lead to unplanned sprawl and inappropriate development in both urban and rural areas, the costs of which are not only environmental.

38. The National Trust was established in 1895 because our founders recognised the social harm that was being done to individuals and communities from the effects of the industrial revolution.

39. Likewise, early planning law stemmed not from environmental legislation but from the Public Health Act of 1875. The planning system itself has never been mandated to promote growth. Its distinctive role has always been to support the delivery of these wider public benefits through integrating social, economic and environmental goals.

40. Helping to deliver really high quality places for people to live and work has never been more important. They are fundamental to our individual wellbeing. As drafted the NPPF will undermine this aspiration.

41. We are also concerned that no matter what definition is ultimately applied the NPPF document is likely to become the driving force in both plan making and decision taking. The strong presumption and weighting towards economic factors within the NPPF will combine with clause 130 of the Localism Bill, the lack of planning resources in local authorities and the operation of the Community Infrastructure Levy to mean that development will be almost impossible to resist and impossible to defend on appeal.

42. This is particularly concerning in terms of sustainable development because inherent in all definitions of sustainable development, including Brundtland, is an assumption that economic, social and environmental issues should carry equal weight.

Qu3 Are the ‘core planning principles’ clearly and appropriately expressed?

43. The Core Planning Principles are a variation, with some significant change of tone, to the existing 'Key Principles' set out in PPS 1. Although a minor point, the use of bullets does not assist practitioners when referring to the document at application/appeal/examination-in-public stages and numbering is recommended.

44. On a more substantive point, all these 10 paragraphs, with one exception, elaborate on guiding principles and objectives in a similar fashion to PPS 1 paragraph 13 and we state below why we support many of these principles.

45. However, the exception is found in the second bullet ("planning should proactively drive.....") When applied in planning practice this will significantly distort the delivery of sustainable development as promoted by Brundtland/UK Sustainable Development Strategy and as such runs the risk of unbalancing the planning system. We urge the committee to recommend that this bullet point be deleted.

46. We particularly welcome the principle of a plan led system. We also support the statement in point 4 which emphasises potential environmental quality of land and bullet point 6 with its emphasis on encouraging multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas

47. We also welcome the inclusion of a principle related to heritage and the environment which we believe should reflect the Minister’s statements that there should be no diminution of protection for designated assets such as listed buildings, National Park, AONBs and the Green Belt.

48. At this stage we are not convinced that we can agree protection is not diminished, see above.

49. Finally, we would observe that that the promotion of a low carbon economy is absent and a significant omission.

Qu 4 Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear?

50. The relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy is not clear.

51. T he concise nature of the draft NPPF makes it more difficult to relate it to policy in its broadest sense, particularly if you include documents like Circulars. Planning Policy Guidance and Planning Policy Statements were far more detailed and this made them easier to relate to Circulars.  They were heavily referenced to legislation, other policy documents, good practice guides etc. Whilst the Government may now regard this approach as over complicated, as professional practitioners our land use planners found this useful. 

52. The National Trust believes that there is a danger that the quest for brevity may introduce inconsistencies and ambiguities with other more detailed documents and legislation. A good example of this would be the particular brevity of minerals plan ning guidance in the draft NPPF, wh ere under four sides of A4 appear to replace a whole series of Mineral Planning Guidance.

53. It is also unhelpful that there is an inconsistent approach to the way in which minerals and waste planning are treated even though they are inextricably related in practical terms. Whilst minerals are covered, waste planning is basically ignored and appears to be left to the National Waste Management Plan. This difference in approach is illogical and unhelpful. 

Qu 5 Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments?

54. The National Trust is engaged in the development of a very wide range of policy from volunteering, corporate and other giving to heritage and the natural environment. It is very clear to us that the NPPF does not currently serve to integrate Government policy.

55. The best example of this is in relation to the natural environment and the recent publication of the Government’s Natural Environment White Paper.

56. The National Trust has welcomed the publication of the Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP). It sets out an ambitious vision for the future of nature, is appropriately broad in scope, and firmly repositions nature as central to economic and social interests.

57. However, delivery of the NEWP will require effective action across Government and thus far the NEWP seems to have gained little traction beyond Defra. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a good example of this. In promoting economic interests above all others, the NPPF fails to recognise the role of a healthy natural environment in good growth.

58. The NPPF makes no mention of the new Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs). Neither does it refer to the new Local Nature Partnerships. The National Trust fought hard for LNPs to be established as a fundamental part of the new planning system. This is because we recognise the need for further bodies to support the duty to cooperate in relation to strategic planning. The NPPF should make clear the relationship between it, LNPs and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). This would help overcome some of the current uncertainty around how strategic planning and delivery will work in terms of both economic and environmental outcomes.

59. We also question whether the NPPF is consistent with a localist approach and the principles of the Big Society. If the NPPF were to become for any length of time the principle plan making and decision taking document in the system this would clearly run counter to a localist approach.

60. We would also observe that the Government’s intention is to allow businesses to bring forward Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDPs) and to make Neighbourhood Development Orders (NDOs). Whilst we fully recognise that business has a legitimate and potentially very useful role to play in supporting communities in the development of NDPs and NDOs we think the ability of businesses to lead the process is fundamentally wrong.

61. In order to fulfil a truly localist philosophy which supports sustainable development, NDPs, NDOs and the processes by which they are derived should be owned by communities and decisions should be taken only by democratically elected representatives. We can see no reason why this should not be the case since it appears to be entirely consistent with the Government’s stated aims of devolving power and delivering a Big Society.

Qu 6 Does the NPPF, together with the ‘duty to cooperate’, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-local strategic planning?

62. We support the statements in the NPPF around coordinating across boundaries however we do have concerns about the mechanism currently being established to facilitate the duty to cooperate. Our principal concern relates to the implementation of LNPs which we highlight above.

Qu 7 Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based?

63. The Committee is likely to receive more detailed responses on this question from other organisations. However we would observe that there are a number of areas where the NPPF does not appear to reflect the latest thinking. For example there is an emphasis throughout the document on protecting designated areas whether in terms of the built or natural environment. However, in areas such as ecosystem services which would cover biodiversity, carbon storage etc the latest thinking highlights the important role that all land has to play in this respect. The Government is therefore missing an opportunity to ensure that the planning system reflects the latest thinking on these critical issues.

64. A further obvious omission is any reference to the protection of grade 1, 2 and 3a agricultural land. Given that food security is likely to be a significant issue in the future this appears to reflect not only a lack of evidence base but might also be seen as another failure to join up cross departmental issues.

65. We also have deep concerns about the allocation of an additional 20% of land for housing. We believe this unnecessarily puts further greenfield sites as risk with little or no benefits. Whilst we support the principle that housing allocations should be based on demand and that targets are required, local authorities, through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, already plan 5-15 years in advance. The one extra year supply will serve no real purpose in planning practice but will place additional land at risk.

Key asks

66. The Planning system is not a tool to promote the economy. Its guiding principle since 1947 has been that planning acts in the public interest. It exists to protect important public goods (landscape, natural and historic environment), not to ‘proactively drive’ development (para 19). The NPPF should be rewritten throughout so that it is neutral in tone balancing economic, environmental and social concerns. 

67. Clause 130 of the Localism Bill should be removed. By privileging financial inducements within the decision making process Clause 130 upsets the careful balance within the planning system and may bias local authorities inappropriately. This would not prevent developers from funding local mitigation of development impact such as a Community Infrastructure Levy, which is perfectly appropriate.

68. The ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ is poorly defined and serves to unbalance the planning system The core principle of sustainable development in planning is that decisions are made in an integrated way, with no single objective being given undue weight. When this is done, good development will be directed to the right place. When it is not, bad development will result. The document needs redrafting to reflect this principle throughout.

69. The default ‘YES’ will lead to bad development and must be removed. The NPPF tells us that decision- takers should assume that the "answer to development proposals is ‘yes’" (para. 19) and that local authorities should ‘grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date’ (para 14). At present 47% of the country has no core strategy. This will result either in inappropriate development being given consent, or more decisions being overturned on appeal, leading to bad developments and the disenfranchisement of local communities and their democratically elected representatives.

70. The NPPF should adopt an explicit ‘brownfield first’ approach, which makes clear that new development is to be preferred on previously developed land before green field sites are considered. The Government has dropped the brownfield targets, but has not replaced them with a clear enough statement of the importance of using previously developed sites first.

71. The requirement on local authorities to identify an additional 20% of land over and above a 5 year housing land supply should be removed. We do not need to do more than meet a 5 year demand, and this will result in greater pressure on green field land, whether protected (e.g. by green belt status) or not.

72. Neighbourhoods should not be told they must support local development or encouraged to promote more development than is in the local plan – this should be removed. The planning system at all levels must remain democratically robust, and must give genuine power to local people.

73. It is fundamentally wrong that neighbourhood plans should be led and funded by business. It should be a core principle of the reforms that any plans whether at neighbourhood or local authority level should be developed and signed off by democratically elected and accountable representatives.

74. The NPPF should ensure that there is no reduction in protection for the historic and natural environment. These are commitments that Ministers have previously made but the NPPF as drafted will diminish protection for these aspects of the landscape by overturning a long held convention in favour of their conservation and increasing the degree of harm that must be shown in order to outweigh any development proposal.

75. There should be a limited third party right of appeal, in circumstances where consent is granted for development that is inconsistent with the plan. This should be guaranteed through the Localism Bill.

The National Trust

9 September 2011