House of Commons - Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework - Communities and Local Government Committee

Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework - Communities and Local Government Committee Contents

1 Introduction

1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27 March 2012.[1] The then Minister for Planning and Decentralisation, Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, heralded it as a simpler and more accessible approach to planning policy which reduced "over 1,000 pages of often impenetrable jargon to around 50 pages of clearly written guidance".[2] The publication of the NPPF reflected a commitment made in the 2010 Coalition Agreement to "publish and present to Parliament a simple and consolidated national planning framework covering all forms of development and setting out national economic, environmental and social priorities".[3]

2. As a Committee, we were closely involved in the development of the NPPF. In the autumn of 2011, at the request of Mr Clark, we conducted an inquiry into the draft NPPF. We published our report on 21 December 2011.[4] We were encouraged that the Government paid close attention to our findings, accepting 30 of our 35 recommendations and making consequent changes to the final framework. In his statement launching the NPPF, Mr Clark thanked us and the Environmental Audit Committee, which had considered the sustainable development aspects of the draft NPPF,[5] for the "seriousness and thoughtfulness" we had brought to the task.[6]

3. Since then, we have continued to take a keen interest in planning issues.[7] We wanted to ensure that the planning system struck the right balance between delivering a sustainable future and not placing an unnecessary block upon development. We therefore commissioned research earlier this year from the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research into the nature of planning constraints.[8] After reviewing this research, and two years on from the launch of the NPPF, we considered it timely to establish how effectively the NPPF was operating in practice, and whether any changes needed to be made. We launched our inquiry on 4 April 2014 with intentionally high-level terms of reference, seeking evidence about the impact of the NPPF on planning for housing, town centres and energy infrastructure, three fields we selected as good tests to see how well the framework was operating, as well as being areas which had generated particular controversy.[9] We received over 300 pieces of written evidence, from a range of groups, organisations and individuals, and held 11 oral evidence sessions between June and October. In April, in preparation for the inquiry, we visited the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol where we met senior management, staff and a focus group of planning inspectors. In June, to explore some of the themes in more detail, we visited Gloucestershire, where Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury Councils have been developing a joint core strategy. We are very grateful to all those we met on our two visits, and to those who organised them. In addition, given the large number of submissions we received from residents and communities concerned about the adverse impact of the NPPF, we invited representatives from parish and town councils, local groups and residents who had submitted evidence and some people who had petitioned Parliament on planning matters to an informal discussion forum at Westminster: a note of this session has been published as evidence.[10] We are also very grateful for the assistance of our specialist adviser, Kelvin MacDonald MCIH FRTPI FRSA.[11]

The overall impact of the NPPF

4. The evidence we received about the overall impact of the NPPF can be split into two distinct groups. Many of the national organisations submitting evidence considered that it was too early to assess fully the impact or to make major changes. We were told that the NPPF had brought a welcome simplification and consolidation of planning policy[12] but that it needed time to "bed in" and that the planning system would benefit from a period of stability.[13] Representatives of the house builder and property industries were adamant that there should be no "tinkering".[14]

5. This view stood in contrast to the large amount of evidence we received from local residents, amenity groups and parish councils describing the detrimental impact the NPPF had had upon their local areas. The scale and strength of these concerns were brought home to us at the discussion forum.[15] Indeed, we considered very carefully whether the NPPF should be completely rewritten or substantially revised.[16] The areas where criticism was strongest were: that the NPPF was not delivering sustainable development; that it was failing to prevent undesirable and inappropriate housing development; and that it was giving insufficient protection to town centres against the threat of out-of-town development.

6. The concept of sustainable development is at the heart of the NPPF, which included as its "golden thread" a new concept of a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which includes provision that development proposals in accordance with the local plan should be approved. We have been told, however, that, far from delivering development that is sustainable, the NPPF is, in fact, leading to unsustainable development. People variously said that sustainable development was ill-defined in the NPPF, that decision-makers were giving greater weight to economic over environmental or social considerations, and that sustainable development was not being delivered in respect of infrastructure, renewable energy and the natural environment. We consider all these issues in Chapter 2. In our view, however, they are not so serious as to require the tearing up of the NPPF but they deliver a strong case for making it operate as it was originally intended to do. The NPPF is clear that development should be sustainable; withdrawing the NPPF would serve only to take the principle of sustainable development out of the planning system.[17] Rather, what we need to do is ensure sustainable development is being delivered in practice. In the following chapters, we will consider how to untie some of the tangles in the NPPF's golden thread to ensure it leads to the delivery of development that is demonstrably sustainable.

7. A particular concern about unsustainable development was that planning permission was being given to substantial housing development on the edge of towns and villages, as a result of 'speculative' applications by developers. These applications used the provisions in the NPPF to target sites that had not been allocated for development or were unlikely to be allocated. It appeared that these developers were taking advantage of the absence of the local plan and five year supply of housing land to seek planning permission, often on appeal, in areas that local communities did not consider suitable for development.[18] Four Marks Parish Council from Hampshire, for instance, said that the parish was "basically 'under siege'" because of an "'open season' attitude for developers".[19] While these are serious concerns, the withdrawal or suspension of the NPPF would not be the answer. The key is for all local authorities to get their local plans adopted as quickly as possible. As at the end of October, 41% of authorities do not have an adopted local plan.[20] We consider how this might be addressed in Chapter 3. Alongside this, in Chapter 4, we look at whether the NPPF requirement for councils to maintain a five year supply of housing land could be strengthened to prevent abuse and give greater protection to communities.

8. Some witnesses also expressed disquiet that the NPPF provisions on town centres were not providing sufficient protection against the threat of out-of-town development. Evidence also suggested that planning policy needed to be updated to take account of changing retail trends and a shift away from traditional uses of town centres. Again, however, this points to the need to strengthen, rather than withdraw, the NPPF. We consider these issues in more detail in Chapter 5.

OVERALL IMPACT: CONCLUSION

9. It is still early days for the NPPF. Given it represented a major consolidation of planning policy, it will doubtless take several years to 'bed in' fully. We have considered the concerns raised with us about its operation. Many are significant and need to be tackled, but they point to the need for adjustment, rather than a complete overhaul of the NPPF. It would be ill-advised at such an early stage to consider tearing up the document and starting again.

1 Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012 Back

2 HC Deb, 27 March 2012, col 1337 Back

3 HM Government, The Coalition: our programme for government, May 2010, p 11 Back

4 Communities and Local Government (CLG) Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2010-12, The National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1526 Back

5 Environmental Audit Committee, Sustainable Development in the National Planning Policy Framework, Oral and written evidence, HC (2010-12) 1480-i Back

6 HC Deb, 27 March 2012, col 1338 Back

7 See, for example, CLG Committee, Planning Housing and Growth, Oral and written evidence, HC (2012-13) 626-i, Seventh Report of Session 2012-13, The Committee's response to the Government's consultation on permitted development rights for homeowners, HC 830, Review of Planning Practice Guidance, Oral and written evidence, HC (2012-13) 940-i, and Planning Issues, Oral and written evidence, HC (2013-14) 309-i Back

8 Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research, The Nature of Planning Constraints, March 2014 Back

9 CLG Committee, "Inquiry launched after research questions ineffective Government planning targets", 4 April 2014 Back

10 Note of discussion forum (NPP 347) Back

11 Kelvin MacDonald declared the following interests: Member of the Enabling Panel for the Design Council-CABE. Member of the Board of Trustees of Shelter. Chief Policy Adviser to the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI); Mr MacDonald was the Chief Policy Adviser to the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) from 2007 until 2011 but has not undertaken any policy work for the RTPI since that date. Examining Inspector, Major Applications and Plans Division, the Planning Inspectorate. This position is not full time and Mr MacDonald is only contracted on a fee basis for individual nationally significant infrastructure project applications. By virtue of this appointment, Mr MacDonald cannot advise the Committee on, nor express opinions on: a) the merits of Government policy on nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs); b) the merits of policy contained within any National Policy Statement (NPS); c) the merits or efficacy of the system set up to deal with nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) under the 2008 Planning Act, as subsequently amended; d) the merits of any nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) that may come before Planning Inspectorate currently or in the future; and e) any aspect of the work of the Planning Inspectorate on which Mr MacDonald may have gained information solely by virtue of being employed by that body. Member of the Department for Communities Planning Sounding Board. Mr MacDonald undertakes to withdraw from any discussions on, and not to contribute in any other way to, Planning Sounding Board agenda items on any issue that is covered, or may potentially be covered, by the Inquiry into the operation of the NPPF. Senior Visiting Fellow at the Department of Land Economy, Cambridge University. Previously an adviser in the initial stages of the 'The nature of planning constraints' projects commissioned by the Communities and Local Government Committee from the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research. Mr MacDonald's involvement has been limited to commenting on the draft proposal and attending a meeting on the interview sample to be chosen. Mr MacDonald will not be involved in this project beyond those two stages. Back

12 NPP 173 [Local Government Association], para 2.1, NPP 157 [National Housing Federation], para 2.1 Back