NPPF committee report: reaction

Reaction has been coming in from across the planning and property sectors on this morning’s publication of a parliamentary committee report into the government’s draft national planning policy statement.

Bob Robinson, Chairman at DPP, said: “Whilst I welcome the endorsement of the presumption in favour of sustainable development along with the necessary clarification of what is meant by sustainable development, I am concerned that the Select Committee have sought to develop this further by placing the burden of proof upon the applicant. To my mind this represents a reinterpretation of the Practitioners Advisory Group(PAG) recommendation which the Select Committee claim to have supported and presents a general barrier to development which actually exceeds that in place at present.

“I am also concerned that whilst the Select Committee recognise the need for Local Plans to be in place, there appear to be no penalties in place for those planning authorities who continue to drag their heels often to avoid making what they know will be politically difficult decisions on the scale and location of development. The ability to then in turn hide behind the ‘burden of proof’ argument to further stall development where politically expedient to do so will bring further delay and cost to the development process”.

Country Land and Business Association President Harry Cotterell said: “The English countryside is not Disney World; it is a place where rural people live and work. Without sensible and well-designed sustainable development, the countryside and those who manage it will not be able to offer the jobs, housing and services that are vital for rural communities to survive.

“Our rural areas have real potential to become an economic powerhouse of creativity, enterprise and opportunity through the balanced use of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This is the only way forward if our rural areas are to be truly sustainable and help power national economic growth.”

“There are strong concerns from the people who live and work in rural areas that their needs for jobs, homes and services are being ignored at a national level.  It is therefore unfortunate the Select Committee took evidence from organisations opposed to all change in the countryside. The report fails to acknowledge the needs of rural businesses and communities.

“A more balanced approach would have been to take evidence from organisations that actually represent those who live and work in the countryside. The CLA has never advocated concreting over the countryside but the delivery of landscape, biodiversity, jobs, homes and services must be underpinned by economic reality.”

David Brock, Consultant Solicitor at Keystone Law: “The “default is yes” may have been deleted but the committee agrees that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is a golden thread running through the planning system and affirms that there should be a presumption for sustainable development, albeit in accordance with the development plan.  But how really do you operate a transitional period?  The presumption is there because of the global economic crisis and the desire to make Britain the destination of choice to establish and grow a business. Is it realistic to put that aspiration on hold while we update plans?”

Roger Hepher, Head of Planning and Regeneration, Savills: “Despite the dramatic headlines (once more), the Communities and Local Government Select Committee report on the NPPF actually starts by saying that most witnesses seemed content with the concept and approach of the NPPF, and agreed that reforms were needed, and that there is no need to rewrite the NPPF as a whole.

“The main concern of the Committee seems to be that too much weight is attached to economic growth and that other considerations are placed too far down the list; and that undesirable development might get through because sustainability is not precisely defined and because not enough emphasis is placed on the local plan.  None of this is particularly surprising.

“We will have to wait and see how the Government responds, but I fear the likely result is redrafting which will have the effect of making the NPPF more ambiguous. If this happens, we will all be left struggling to work out the implications, and awaiting appeal decisions from Ministers in order to establish what the new groundrules really are.

“The Report concludes by recommending a further consultation on the technical aspects of the NPPF. I hope the Government will resist this. The draft has already been the subject of considerable consultation. What we need now is to move swiftly into the new policy environment, without more delay and yet more opportunity for interest groups to try to distort the process.”

Alison Eardley, Policy Manager for Action for Market Towns: “A lack of clear definition within the NPPF has been at the centre of debate for some months, and was raised in AMT’s response to the draft NPPF back in the Autumn.  AMT welcomes Greg Clark’s indication that he will ‘carefully consider’ a new definition of sustainable development produced by the committee.  We would urge the government to define sustainable development in terms of assessing proposed developments by weighing up their impacts on environment, population and economy equally in order to come to an informed and balanced decision.

“We need to ensure that unscrupulous developers cannot use presumption to avoid presenting plans that are well-constructed and abide by appropriate standards. We also must ensure that developers cannot just bamboozle a community into approving a plan that is against the community’s interests.  The planning process should become more, and not less, democratic.

“We also welcome the reinstatement of a reference to the effect that any new development should be guided by the principles of ‘brownfield first’ and ‘town centre first’ and that new provisions for communities to secure ‘absolute protection’ of town centres from out-of-town development be added.”

British Council for Shopping Centres Executive Director Edward Cooke welcomed the report’s recommendations to strengthen the town centres first mechanism in the NPPF, arguing that thriving city and town centres are vital for a prosperous economy, and that uncertainty in the current wording could undo the Government’s central goal to streamlining the system. He said: “The Government is right to reform the planning system, but without a strengthened town centre first policy the argument about development would simply shift from the planning committees to the courts. This would only further delay the town centre regeneration that will play a huge role in delivering an economic recovery.

“As well as retail development, the committee’s recommendation to include offices in the sequential test is significant. Both uses are vital to increasing footfall in town centres, enabling them to become hubs for sustainable economic growth. We are pleased the CLG committee has listened to us and come up with some sensible conclusions which the Government must take on board.”

Stewart Baseley, Executive Chairman of the Home Builders Federation: “Disappointingly the committee’s report appears to discount the seriousness of the housing crisis and the need for the planning system to tackle it. Indeed, a number of the Committee’s recommendations would risk creating additional barriers to housing delivery.

“The NPPF is not a recipe for unsustainable development. Under the proposals, local areas will have full power to determine the most suitable locations for new housing. But with this power comes responsibility and a duty to plan positively to meet their identified housing requirements.

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) response: “Decentralisation Minister Greg Clark today welcomed a Select Committee report that showed people supported the concept of a streamlined planning system. The Committee concluded that “we can report that most witnesses to our inquiry were broadly content with the concept and approach of the NPPF in simplifying planning guidance and did not want a wholesale rewrite.” (p7)

In particular, the Committee considered that “it is reasonable and practical for the NPPF to have as an overarching principle a presumption in favour of sustainable development.” (p32)

And indeed that “if the final NPPF contains an agreed definition of sustainable development which is balanced and comprehensive, then the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ becomes a very constructive part of the Government’s wider environmental, social and economic agendas.” (p22)

The Committee helpfully provides its own suggested definition of sustainable development (p28) which it considers would achieve this purpose.

It is a definition that respects the core Brundtland definition but reflects the balance between economic, social and environmental dimensions. The Government will carefully consider the proposed approach.

Mr Clark said: “I warmly welcome the DCLG select committee’s constructive recommendations to the draft Framework consultation. I invited the Committee to make specific suggestions to the draft framework and am grateful for the practical and measured way they have approached the exercise.

“The Government will consider carefully each of the suggestions that have been made, along with all responses to the consultation. We are determined that the National Planning Policy Framework will put power into the hands of local people, through a simpler, clearer system, which safeguards our natural and historic environment while allowing the jobs and homes to be created that our country needs.”

Richard Summers, President of the Royal Town Planning Institute said: “We warmly welcome the Select Committee’s report which strongly endorses many of our views. Like the Committee, we believe that the planning reforms need a sensible transition period and that the language in the draft NPPF needs to be tightened up. We also believe that the Government should think about how best it can map its policies and programmes so the public can see how they will affect local communities. We agree with the Committee that there is still much to do to produce an NPPF that play an effective role in a workable planning system.”

Emmalene Gottwald, senior planning advisor at WWF-UK: “It’s a welcome relief to see that the Committee has taken such a pragmatic and constructive approach to its report on the inquiry into the draft NPPF. They haven’t shied away from really investigating the tough issues and providing strong recommendations to Government on how to amend and improve the NPPF so that it provides a clear, balanced framework.

“They’re absolutely right about the need to better define what ‘sustainable development’ is and to highlight that the planning system must address the environmental and social aspects of development as well as the economic ones. We are pleased that the Committee has recognised the role the planning system has to play in achieving long term economic prosperity for Britain, where all aspects of sustainable development are treated equally and not traded off against each other.

“We welcome the recommendation to remove the ‘default yes’ for development, as it did run the risk of unchecked, poorly planned development that would harm the natural environment and local communities for many generations to come. Hopefully we can all now resolve in the New Year to agree a planning framework that suits everyone.”

Head of Planning at Colliers International, Anthony Aitken: “Due to the substantive comment on the draft NPPF earlier in 2011 it’s of little surprise that politicians and various Committees are expressing their views on the shape, form and content of the forthcoming NPPF, ahead of its publication, early in 2012. In a period of economic strife, with housebuilding at the lowest levels since the 1920’s and retailers struggling, one way in which an economic stimulus could be created is via new development and the wide reaching and beneficial consequences (e,g. job creation), it delivers to an economy. There should be no reward for local authorities who fail to plan for future growth and who fail to keep up to date development plans. Planning has always dealt with the balance between development and protection of the countryside since 1947 and there is no reason to doubt that this balance can continue to be struck going forward.”

Adam Marshall, Director of Policy at the British Chambers of Commerce: “Businesses have long called for greater speed, clarity and certainty in the planning system. The draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) set forward a planning regime that balanced economic growth with environmental concerns. Suggestions by the committee that the draft needs significantly altering, including the removal of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, risk the ability of businesses up and down the country to grow, and help our economy to recover.

“The debate on planning reform has to be based on common sense, not the predictable responses of a few opponents. The current system has developed into an overly complex, costly, uncertain and time-consuming process that discourages investment. The Communities and Local Government Select Committee has failed to recognise the extent to which the planning system is a constraint on economic growth. We all want to protect areas of the countryside, but business’s experience of planning on even the most modest developments shows that the system, and its bureaucracy, is a serious brake on economic growth, prosperity and jobs.

“Further consultation will just result in greater delays when reform is needed now. The government has made commitments to both simplifying the planning system, and helping businesses to grow. The two go hand in hand, and we urge ministers to hold fast on both by delivering a planning system that helps not hinders business growth.”

Kate Henderson, Town and Country Planning Association chief executive: “We are pleased to see that the Communities and Local Government Select Committee has made a number of recommendations around central TCPA concerns on the draft NPPF, such as the definition of sustainable development, transitional arrangements and the vulnerability to litigation from imprecise language.”

“Sustainable development must be at the heart of the planning system and a principled and measured definition, such as that contained within the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy, is pivotal to delivering the kind of inclusive, attractive and resilient communities we want to see both now and in the future. We hope that the Government takes on board the Committee’s recommendations to form the basis of a positive planning framework for England.”

Liz Peace, chief executive of the British Property Federation: “This report and much of the rhetoric surrounding the NPPF exposes the vast disparity of views when interpreting the framework. Ministers must stand up and be counted and explain exactly what certain sections of the NPPF will mean in practice.

“Many of the committee’s findings we have long supported, such as the reintroduction of a brownfield first policy. The commercial property industry, by-and-large, already develops on previously used land in town and city centres.

“We could support the committee’s definition of sustainable development and re-worded ‘presumption in favour’ as long as local authorities were compelled to produce a local plan. As it stands, only 47% of local authorities have got around to producing one and the committee’s suggestion risks a complete development hiatus in the remaining 53% of areas.

“To some extent, much of the debate around the different definitions of sustainable development and the obsession with the length of the NPPF itself misses the point that the new system will only succeed if all local authorities have a robust local plan.”

Cllr David Parsons, Chairman of the Local Government Association’s Environment and Housing Board: “The CLG Select Committee report strongly endorses many of the views of the Local Government Association regarding the Government’s planning changes, which is positive.

“Allowing councils to balance the economic, social and environment benefits from new developments is something the LGA has long called for. They have come down strongly in favour of ensuring that this is a reality.

“The LGA also been clear that local people should be able to decide what developments they wish for through their Local Plans. The report raised concerns that the proposed ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ may undermine the importance of these. We support calls for clarity to ensure that Local Plans continue to determine what developments occur in neighbourhoods.

“It is promising that the report calls on the Government to establish a timetable for implementing Local Plans. By the day more and more councils are putting these together but some delays were inevitable due to the bureaucratic approval process of the Planning Inspectorate. The LGA agrees that the Inspectorate should be given the resources they need to process the Local Plans to avoid any future delays.”

Friends of the Earth’s Planning Advisor Naomi Luhde-Thompson: “The Committee is right that we need a planning system which means we live within our planet’s limits, tackles climate change and protects local plans for development which are already on the table.

“Local people must always have their voices heard when it comes to planning decisions, rather than developers having ever more new superstores, roads and shopping centres waved through regardless of people’s views.

“The Government should accept the Committee’s proposals and make sure the planning system is a level playing field, not rigged in favour of developers.”

“The principle of sustainable development must be properly defined – rather than a planning free for all we need support for new green industries and infrastructure, affordable homes and protection for the environment.”

Tony Burton, Civic Voice Director: “There has been widespread concern about the Government’s planning reforms which would bias decisions and put everyday England at risk. This Select Committee report should be heeded by the Government to take the heat out of the controversy over planning reforms and bring sensible improvements to planning policy.”

Simon Marsh, RSPB Head of Planning Policy: “This report delivers a healthy dose of common sense when it comes to planning reform. It is clear to anyone who cares about our natural environment that the Government’s plans are too biased in favour of development.  This report recognises this and reflects the concerns many people have raised over the draft policy’s presumption in favour of sustainable development.

“A particular sentence in the NPPF that has caused much concern is one which recommends that the default answer to development is ‘yes’. The committee has called for this to be removed. This is exactly what we, and others, have been saying for months, but now it is clear that it’s not just ‘scaremongering’ conservation groups kicking up a fuss about nothing.

“The ball is now firmly in the Government’s court to publish a revised NPPF that meets the concerns of MPs, environmental groups and the thousands of members of the public who wrote in to make their views known. One thing we would also urge the Government to consider is a strong and explicit reference to the protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, which in the current document are under threat from damaging development.”