-
Published on 21 December 2011 by authority of the House of
Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited
House of Commons
Communities and Local Government Committee
The National Planning Policy Framework
Eighth Report of Session 201012
Volume II
Additional written evidence
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 15 December
2011
-
The Communities and Local Government Committee
The Communities and Local Government Committee is appointed by
the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration,
and policy of the Department for Communities and Local
Government.
Current membership
Mr Clive Betts MP (Labour, Sheffield South-East) (Chair) Heidi
Alexander MP (Labour, Lewisham East) Bob Blackman MP (Conservative,
Harrow East) Simon Danczuk MP Rochdale (Labour, Rochdale) Bill
Esterson MP (Labour, Sefton Central) Stephen Gilbert MP (Liberal
Democrat, St Austell and Newquay) David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton
under Lyne) George Hollingbery MP (Conservative, Meon Valley) James
Morris MP (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis) Mark Pawsey MP
(Conservative, Rugby) Heather Wheeler MP, (Conservative, South
Derbyshire) Steve Rotheram MP (Labour, Liverpool Walton) was also a
member of the Committee during this inquiry.
Powers
The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the
powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders,
principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via
www.parliament.uk.
Publication
The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The
Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the
Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at
www.parliament.uk/parliament.uk/clg. A list of Reports of the
Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.
The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that
report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are
available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be
published on the internet only.
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are Glenn McKee (Clerk),
Judith Boyce (Second Clerk), Josephine Willows (Inquiry Manager),
Kevin Maddison (Committee Specialist), Emily Gregory (Senior
Committee Assistant), Mandy Sullivan (Committee Assistant), Stewart
McIlvenna, (Committee Support Assistant) and Hannah Pearce (Media
Officer).
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the
Communities and Local Government Committee, House of Commons, 7
Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general
enquiries is 020 7219 1234; the Committees email address is
[email protected]
-
List of additional written evidence
(published in Volume II on the Committees website
www.parliament.uk/treascom)
Page
Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) Ev w261
Anglian Water Ev w218
Paul Appleby CEng FCIBSE FRSA Ev w69
ARUP Ev w126
Association of Convenience Stores Ev w33
Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning &
Transport Ev w260
John Baker Ev w190
Professor Kate Barker Ev w351
Professor Michael Ball Ev w348
Banbury Civic Society Ev w121
Barrett Developments PLC Ev w48
Neil Blackshaw Ev w131
BRE Global Ev w6, w9
British Aggregates Association Ev w201
British Ceramic Confederation Ev w89
British Council of Shopping Centres Ev w329
Buckinghamshire County Council Ev w316
Business in Sport and Leisure Ev w142
Alan Butland, Theatre Researcher Ev w118
CBI Minerals Group Ev w56
Cemex UK Ev w207
Chartered Institute of Housing Ev w276
Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM) Ev w258
City of London Corporation Ev w352
Commission for Rural Communities Ev w202
Community and Regional Planning Services Ev w27
Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Ev w344
Confederation of UK Coal Producers (CoalPro) Ev w133
Paule Constable Ev w69
Country Land and Business Association Ev w232
County Councils Network Ev w158
CTC, the National Cyclists Organisation Ev w290
Cutting Edge Planning and Design Ev w10
Design Council Ev w292
East Midlands Council (EMC) Ev w342
EDF Energy Ev w 21
English Heritage Ev w177
English National Parks Authorities Association Ev w338
Environmental Services Association Ev w298
E.ON UK Ev w53
-
Federation of Master Builders Ev w187
Fields in Trust Ev w173
Rick Fisher Ev w280
Professor David Fisk CB FRAEng FCIBSE FRIBA (Hons) Ev w31
Freight on Rail Ev w184
Friends of the Earth Ev w240
Professor Vincent Goodstadt Ev w306
GreenSpace Ev w215
Greener Journeys Ev w140
Hampshire County Council Ev w42
Heritage Alliance Ev w320
Highbury Group on Housing Delivery Ev w82
Highgate Society Ev w229
Historic Houses Association Ev w86
Michael Holden Ev w145
David Holmes Ev w1
Home Builders Association and the Planning and Development
Association Ev w77
IMERYS Minerals Ltd Ev w175
Inland Waterways Associations Restoration and Navigation
Committees Ev w208
Institute for Archaeologists Ev w65
Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC) Ev w258
Institution of Civil Engineers Ev w211
ixia Ev w115
Colin Johns Ev w220
Kent County Council Ev w325
Kings Theatre Trust Ltd Ev w96
Landscape Institute Ev w180
Leicestershire County Council Ev w303
Dr Tim Leunig Ev w341
Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants Ev w225
Little Theatre Guild of Great Britain Ev w81
Liverpool and Merseyside Theatres Trust Ev w221
Living Streets Ev w100
London Councils Ev w295
London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies (London Forum) Ev
w269
London Sustainable Development Commission (LSDC) Ev w159
McCarthy and Stone Ev w3
Mineral Products Association Ev w58
North West Transport Roundtable Ev w97
National Federation of Artists Studio Providers Ev w157
National Grid Ev w313
National Housing Federation Ev w247
Nicholas Ducker & Co Ev w353
North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Ev
w265
Oxford City Council Ev w104
-
Oxylane Group Ev w165
Partnership for Urban South Hampshire, Quality Place Delivery
Panel Ev w102
Places for People Ev w281
Rail Freight Group Ev w95
Renewable Energy Association Ev w130
RenewableUK Ev w252
Residential Landlords Association Ev w108
Dr Gavin Rider Ev w25
Robson Planning Consultancy Ev w70
Rochford District Council Ev w112
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Ev w199
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Ev w285
South Bucks District Council Ev w205
South East Strategic Leaders Ev w325
Tom Spaul, Chief Operating Officer, Veolia Environmental
Services Ev w196
Sport and Recreation Alliance Ev w113
Sport England Ev w134
Staffordshire County Council Ev w124
Surrey County Council Ev w323
Sustrans Ev w37
Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd Ev w67
UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy (UKBCSE) Ev w332
UK Environmental Law Association (UKELA) Ev w152
Urban Design Group Ev w245
Voluntary Arts Ev w94
West Berkshire Council Ev w91
West Midlands Planning and Transportation Sub Committee Ev
w146
The Wildlife Trusts Ev w235
Woodland Trust Ev w61
List of unprinted written evidence
The following memoranda have been reported to the House, but to
save printing costs they have not been printed and copies have been
placed in the House of Commons Library, where they may be inspected
by Members. Other copies are in the Parliamentary Archives, and are
available to the public for inspection. Requests for inspection
should be addressed to The Parliamentary Archives, Houses of
Parliament, London SW1A 0PW (tel. 020 7219 3074). Opening hours are
from 9.30 am to 5.00 pm on Mondays to Fridays.
NPPF 137 Camden Association of Street Properties
-
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SO] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job:
016786 Unit: PG01
Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w1
Written evidence
Written submission from David Holmes
Executive Summary
The draft NPPF is a concise and practical document. It may need
a light touch to amplify orsupplement points during implementation
but it is a clear and balanced approach to plan makingand
development management.
The authors request that it is read in the round (Paragraphs 8
and 12). If done so the key principlesare very clear and provide
for a planning balance to be achieved in line with the economic,
socialand environmental factors put forward.
It generally provides sufficient guidance to the parties
identified in question one on generalprinciples. There are few
areas for supplementary guidance to be developed (calculating
housingrequirements, viability and strategic environmental
assessment). These are detailed in the maintext. As a principle
however these should be kept to a minimum and only considered
wherenecessary to provide consistency of approach.
With regard to sustainable development provided the document is
read as a whole and all of thereferences to sustainable development
are picked up it provides a comprehensive and
workableframework.
The core planning principles are clear, concise and
relevant.
The relationship between the NPPF and other national statements
of planning related policies isclear. Effective management of the
framework is key.
There remains a residual concern that the Duty to Co-operate can
be viewed as a statement of faithrather than a statement of fact.
The matter presumably will be dealt with through the test
ofsoundness in the examination of local plans.
The need for the provision of up to date evidence including
market trends is given sufficient weightin the document.
Supplemental guidance on technical matters may be necessary. These
points arereferenced in our main text.
Q1. Does the NPPF give sufficient guidance to local planning
authorities, the Planning Inspectorate andothers, including
ministers and developers while at the same time giving local
communities sufficient powerover planning decisions?
Answer
The guidance on general principles is fit for purpose. There are
three matters which perhaps should beconsidered in more detail as
matters for supplementary material. These relate to:
Calculating housing requirements
The drafting of Paragraphs 107 to 111 is relevant and
supported.
Paragraphs 109 and 111 (in part) refer to the need for housing
to be based on current and futuredemographic trends/market trends.
There should be consistency of approach in the preparation ofthis
evidence and an ongoing role for SHMAs and SHLAAs. In this context
further guidance onthe methodology for the calculation of housing
requirements would be welcome and have thebenefit of avoiding
duplication of effort and debate at Local Plan examination and
Inquiry ifnecessary.
Viability
The recognition of viability as a material factor within the
NPPF is fully supported. Although amatter frequently debated it
would be helpful if the NPPF could be supported by a clear
statementof CLG policy on the appropriate parameters to be
consistently applied in verifying viability. Thiswould assist local
plan inspectors in determining soundness of the plan, the
communityinfrastructure levy (CIL) if a charging schedule is
proposed and to inform local authorities andPINS if necessary when
considering viability in the context of determining planning
obligations.
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
Although there is general reference to compliance with EU
environmental law it may be helpfulto give a timely reminder to
local planning authorities of the need to subject Development
PlanDocuments to an SEA. This would help remove potential for
future judicial review with all of itsattendant risks of costs and
delay.
-
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job:
016786 Unit: PG01
Ev w2 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence
Q2. Is the definition of sustainable development contained in
the document appropriate, and is thepresumption in favour of
sustainable development a balanced and workable approach?
Answer
The Brundtland definition has the benefit of simplicity and
familiarity. It works in the context of the NPPFbecause of all the
criteria which could be applied to evaluating sustainability are
referenced within the maintext of the framework. It may be helpful
to bring all of these references together in one appendix.
TheBrundtland definition without these references would have little
value at a planning Inquiry, for example.
Q3. Are the core planning principles clearly and appropriately
expressed?
Answer
A short but considered response is yes. The principles are
balanced, clear and appropriate.
Q4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national
statements of planning related policy clear?Does the NPPF serve to
integrate national planning policy across Government
Departments?
Answer
The positioning and relationship of NPPF to other policy areas
is clear. If applied consistently and withequal weight between
departments it should facilitate effective corporate working.
Q5. Does the NPPF together with the duty to co-operate, provide
a sufficient basis for largerthanlocalstrategic planning?
Answer
Provided the parties establish early strong and effective
methods of co-operation then perhaps the duty ofco-operation can be
effective at a regional and sub regional level. The point is
perhaps unproven at the moment.The matter presumably will be dealt
with through the test of soundness in the examination of local
plans withthe default position based on the presumption in favour
of sustainable development in the absence of anapproved local
plan.
Q6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence
based?
Answer
There is an appropriate and welcome recognition of the need for
up to date evidence to be applied inplan making.
Fitness for Purpose
As a starting point the draft NPPF is fit for purpose. It
provides a clear and balanced approach toa plan lead system which
fully recognises the basic principles and interaction of economic,
socialand environmental considerations with a strengthening of
local choice and determination. Theauthors of the document call for
it to be read in the round (Paragraphs eight and 12). If done so,it
demonstrates a considered and comprehensive approach to plan
making.
The principle of planning for prosperity (the economic driver)
is self evident within the document.The draft NPPF, does not, as
some parties suggest dilute environmental protection. There is
simplya rebalancing of priorities and a requirement for plan making
to be approached with vigour,responsibility and timeliness. The
impetus which this could bring should be welcomed.
The need for supplemental guidance in a few areas is noted
particularly with regard to StrategicHousing Market Assessments
(SHMA) and will be dealt with more fully in formal responses toDCLG
by 17 October 2011.
As a final point there is a need for consistency in plan making
and for the plan making cycle tocomplete itself. One of the factors
behind low housing delivery in the recent past has been theplethora
of planning reforms introduced since the turn of the century which
seem to have frustratedrather than enabled effective plan making.
The introduction of the NPPF provides a very clearstatement of
intent, incentive and sanction to encourage effective and up to
date plans to beproduced. There will undoubtedly be tensions in
implementing this framework, if it is confirmedin this form, but
that is inherent in the nature of planning where judgment is
exercised to achievean appropriate planning balance. The strength
of the document is the clarity it brings to the coreprinciples of
planning which are themselves balanced and contribute to
sustainabledevelopment.
11 August 2011
-
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job:
016786 Unit: PG01
Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w3
Written evidence from McCarthy and Stone
A. Summary There is much to welcome in the draft NPPF and we
support the Governments work through the
document to promote economic growth and address the countrys
chronic housing shortage.
While we welcome its overall direction, it is our view that the
Framework requires more focus onpolicies that support the delivery
of housing for older people. Three reports in 2011, including oneby
the APPG on Housing and Care for Older People in July,1 called on
the NPPF to referencethe housing needs of those in later life
across all tenures. Such measures will ensure that localcouncils
plan properly for housing the elderly and address many of the
policy challenges causedby an ageing population.
While the draft NPPF does highlight the need for local
authorities to plan for demographic change,these measures are not
suitably clear and are unlikely to be powerfully enforced in their
currentform. Current planning policy requires authorities to plan
for housing for older people, yet fewcouncils do this adequately.2
As a result, around 65% of planning applications for this form
ofhousing are met with refusal first time round by councils. With
the national roll back of guidance,there is concern that few
councils will act as intended unless the NPPF is more robust.
Our key recommendations for the Framework are:
Include the need to plan for demographic change as part of the
definition of the Presumptionof Sustainable Development and as one
of the core planning principles of the whole document.
Include a clearer requirement that local authorities plan for
housing for older people acrossall tenures including for private
ownership as part of their SHMAs. Historically, these havefocused
on the social rented sector.
The Government is hoping industry will produce its own guidance
to fill the gap left by therollback of national policy. Local
authorities should be advised in the NPPF to proactivelyseek such
guidance to ensure it is considered.
Publish CLGs proposed new SHMA guidance before the final NPPF is
agreed and for it tobe adopted as part of the Framework.
Make a greater acknowledgement of the link between health and
social benefits andspecialist housing.
Recommend that local authorities supply the results of their
SHMAs to neighbourhood forumsso local residents use the correct
evidence base.
B. General Overview
1. McCarthy & Stone welcomes the draft NPPF and the attempt
to create a simpler planning system, promoteeconomic growth and
address the countrys chronic housing shortage. It is a step in the
right direction withsome very positive measures.
2. We welcome the attempt to stimulate housing delivery, which
has been stymied in part by an unresponsiveplanning system. We
support two policies in particular. Clause 19 states that planning
should proactively driveand support the development needs of the
country and that every step should be taken to meet the housing
andbusiness needs of an area. Clause 39 states that council
planners should not subject proposals to a scale ofobligations and
policy burdens that would make developments unviable. It also
states that councils shouldassess the cumulative impacts of their
plans and policies and ensure their impact does not put development
atrisk. This is welcome and is a step towards a recommendation made
in a recent report by the University ofReading that specialist
housing for older people should treated as equal to affordable
housing.3 Both measureswould be of real assistance in boosting
housing and economic growth and this approach is pleasing at a
timeof economic uncertainty.
3. However, the challenges facing the retirement accommodation
sector are severe, and as a result, the NPPFneeds to go further to
address the housing needs of older people. The demographic
imperative to act is clear.The number of people aged over 65 will
grow from 10 million to 16.7 million by 2035,4 but the UK hasbuilt
just 105,000 specialist retirement homes for owner occupation,
significantly less than other developedcountries. As half of new
household growth by 2026 will be by those aged over 65, it is
essential thatdemographic change is recognised and given weight in
the NPPF.
4. How the country manages the challenges created by a rapidly
ageing population is one of the biggestpolicy issues of modern
times, impacting across Government departments. Specialist housing
for older peopleis a key determining factor in the well-being of
the elderly and to unlocking a range of public benefits. As wellas
being relatively affordable, it: provides a higher quality of life
for older people; increases energy efficiency1 Age of Opportunity,
Centre for Social Justice, June 2011. Living well at Home Inquiry,
All Party Parliamentary Group for
Housing and Care for Older People, July 2011. Housing markets
and independence in old age: expanding the opportunities,University
of Reading, May 2011.
2 Breaking the Mould, National Housing Federation, P39, 20113
Ibid, P404 All Party Parliamentary Group on Housing and Care for
Older People. Living Well at Home Inquiry, P7, July 2011
-
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job:
016786 Unit: PG01
Ev w4 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence
in the home; boosts local communities; reduces the impact of the
elderly on public services; allows for equityrelease; and supports
local housing markets by releasing much-needed family homes back
onto local housingmarkets. It is a highly sustainable form of
housing development.
5. Few specialist homes have been built as the sector in part
due to an unresponsive planning system. Asnoted in more detail
below, local authorities have failed to plan properly for housing
for older people acrossall tenures (and particularly in the private
sector) within their needs assessments and housing strategies.
Theyhave also failed to appreciate the health benefits of such
housing.
6. Specialist retirement housing is a risky market to succeed
in. Developers must deliver a lifestyle, not justa building, so it
is critical that schemes are suitably located and designed as well
as fully built before anyoccupations can take place. Communal space
within the building usually requires some 30% being non-saleable
floor space. Management, care and support services must also be
provided. It is not surprising thatthere are few developers in this
sector.
7. It is therefore imperative that planning constraints and
burdens are removed to encourage delivery. Whilethe NPPF does much
to achieve this, more needs to be done to make this sector
sustainable for new operators.The current planning system is not
designed to meet the challenges of housing our ageing population
and isblocking the provision of new retirement housing. When public
sector funding is limited for new housing,particularly for older
people, restrictions on the delivery of new private retirement
accommodation need to beremoved. The following sections outline how
the NPPF can address these problems.
C. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently
evidence-based?
8. It is essential that the draft NPPF ensures that local
authorities plan properly for the housing needs ofolder people
across all tenures, particularly in their Strategic Housing Market
Assessments (SHMAs). Whilethe NPPF attempts to address this, it is
our view that these measures must be considerably stronger.
9. Existing policy has failed to deliver the right mix of
housing for millions of older people with differingneeds. This
historic shortfall is largely due to lack of clarity in national
planning guidance and lack of strategic,expert guidance for local
authorities on how to properly assess the housing needs of their
older communities.Where councils have looked at the housing needs
of older people, they have been limited in scope, failing toplan
for all types of housing,5 and focused on public, rather than
private provision when around 70% ofpeople live in owner-occupied
homes. As a result, around 65% of planning applications for new
retirementhousing schemes are met with refusal first time round
because of a lack of understanding and appreciation ofthe need and
merits of this form of housing.6
10. Previous planning policy (via PPS 3, para 20 and the RSSs)
required authorities to plan for housing forolder people and to
have regard to demographic trends, yet few councils did this
adequately.7 Unless thisrequirement is suitably clear and
powerfully enforced in the NPPF, concern remains that few councils
will actas intended. Failure to do so could result in a more
challenging planning system with more applications goingto
appeal.
11. Clauses 28 and 111 in the draft NPPF make reference to the
need for local authorities to plan for newhomes and prepare SHMAs.
It is pleasing to see Clause 28 make specific reference to the need
for councils toidentify the housing needs of older people across
the range of tenures. Clause 111 also states that they
shouldidentify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is
required, including for the elderly. It is essential thatthese
clauses remain in the NPPF.
12. However, the Framework needs to go further given the lack of
action to date. It is important to strengthenand clarify the
requirements on local authorities to undertake robust assessments
in order to ensure the deliveryof more specialist housing for older
people. One recommended change is in Clause 28, line 11, where
acrossall tenures should be added after community. This should help
ensure that local authorities plan for privatehousing provision for
older people, as opposed to just social provision, which most focus
on at present.
13. In light of the roll back of national guidance, the
Government intends for the development sector toprepare its own
best practice guidance to help inform local councils. It would be
helpful if the NPPF was toencourage authorities to proactively seek
such guidance and, where it exists, to have due regard to its
advice.
14. While the NPPF places weight on the SHMA to ensure that
local authorities have the correct evidencebase to inform their
housing and planning strategies, there is nothing within the NPPF
regarding how theSHMA should be compiled. SHMAs vary greatly from
authority to authority and in our experience they areoften
deficient. Many look at the housing needs of younger people,
families and those in the social rentedsector, but few plan for the
housing provision for older people in the private sector. In 2007,
CLG producedbest practice guidance on how SHMAs should be produced
and we understand this document will be updatedin late 2011. Given
the weight the NPPF places on the SHMA, CLGs updated SHMA guidance
should bepublished before the final NPPF is available. The SHMA
guidance document should also be adopted as partof the Framework to
ensure that local authorities give sufficient weight to its advice
and recommendations.5 Breaking the Mould, National Housing
Federation, P39, 20116 Housing markets and independence in old age:
expanding the opportunities, University of Reading, P6, May 20117
Breaking the Mould, National Housing Federation, P39, 2011
-
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job:
016786 Unit: PG01
Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w5
15. It is also important that the NPPF makes sufficient
acknowledgement of the link between health andhousing. While the
inclusion of a (single) paragraph on the importance of health and
well being factors inplanning (Clause 38), is welcomed, it is our
view that this needs to be strengthened given the wealth ofevidence
that notes the role of specialist housing in improving the health
of older people. The impact of anageing society is being felt
across Government, particularly in relation to health, social care,
economic growthand welfare. Specialist housing for older people
delivers substantial health benefits and the Dilnot Commissionnoted
that better housing for older people can help remove the pressures
on social care provision by delayingthe need to move into care. For
instance, providing suitable housing conditions that delays the
move toresidential care by one year saves on average 28,080 per
person.8 By addressing this in the NPPF, councilswill be required
to view future applications for retirement homes positively. To
achieve this, the followingadditional sentence is suggested to be
included in Clause 38:
Local authorities should view positively those planning
applications that deliver social and health benefitsto local
residents, particularly for families, the elderly and the
disabled.
16. Also, local authorities should be required to supply the
results of the SHMAs to neighbourhood forumsto ensure neighbourhood
plans are produced using the correct evidence base. The increased
role by local peoplein neighbourhood planning means it is essential
that they are provided with sufficient information to make thebest
decisions. A requirement on the local authority to circulate the
results of the SHMA to participants inlocal and neighbourhood plan
formation could help address this.
17. Finally, Clause 109 states that local authorities should not
plan to meet their housing supply based onwindfall sites. As most
sites that come forward for retirement accommodation are normally
classified aswindfall developments (suitable sites can be old large
detached properties, redundant garages or old breweries)they do not
feature as allocated sites in local plans. Therefore it does not
make sense to exclude these sitesfrom the housing numbers when they
can and should form part of an authoritys housing supply. Again
thisputs retirement housing at a disadvantage compared to
traditional house building.
D. Is the definition of sustainable development contained in the
document appropriate; and is thepresumption in favour of
sustainable development a balanced and workable approach?
18. The Presumption offers a real opportunity to set the broad
parameters for encouraging good, high qualityhousing while
delivering economic growth. It should also spur councils into
ensuring that they have up-to-dateplans in place, which in turn
will add clarity to the development process.
19. Given the positive economic role that housing for older
people plays (particularly via the constructionprocess and in
freeing up the housing chain, which eventually assists first time
buyers), we welcome thestatement in the Presumption that
significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic
growththrough the planning system.
20. However, given the impact of our ageing population, we feel
that the need to plan for demographicchange should be included as a
core part of the definition of what is sustainable development. It
is difficultto contemplate a more sustainable form of development
than that of well designed and located housing forolder people and
which helps to address many of the impacts of our ageing
population. The need to plan fordemographic change should therefore
be included as part of the Presumption in Favour of
SustainableDevelopment, and a fourth bullet to Clause 14 is
suggested:
View positively housing applications that seek to address the
changing nature of the UKs demographic, suchas specialist homes for
older people across all tenures, when assessed against the policies
in this Frameworktaken as a whole.
E. Are the core planning principles clearly and appropriately
expressed?
21. Given the importance of the changing nature of the
population, the increasing numbers of older peopleand the positive
personal and public benefits of specialist housing for older
people, the need to plan fordemographic change should be included
as one of the strategic planning principles of the whole
NPPF,particularly as it impacts across Government. The following
additional principle is recommended for Clause 19:
Planning policies should take into account the impact of
demographic changes to society, particularly theneeds and
aspirations of older people and the need to plan for more suitable
homes for the elderly across alltenures, including specialist
retirement housing.
22. While it may be viewed that specific reference to the
housing needs of older people is inappropriate ina document that
attempts to be succinct, the NPPF already contains reference to
other forms of development,such as new rail freight infrastructure
and ports (both Clause 85) and bird habitats (Clause 15). It is our
viewthat the demographic imperative of planning properly for our
ageing population is important enough to begiven significant weight
and specifically referenced in the NPPF.8 Housing LIN figures,
2011
-
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job:
016786 Unit: PG01
Ev w6 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence
F. Does the NPPF give sufficient guidance to local planning
authorities, the Planning Inspectorate andothers, including
investors and developers, while at the same time giving local
communities sufficient powerover planning decisions?
23. In our view the balance between the role of the developer,
local authority and the community is aboutright. However, we have
two particular concerns.
24. First, as the role of local residents in the planning
process is crucial, it is important that their powers areclarified.
Clauses 50 and 51 note the role of neighbourhood plans in the
context of their relation to local plans.Clause 50 notes that
neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with local plans,
suggesting that localplans take precedence if the two are in
conflict on strategic decisions. However, Clause 51 then states
Whena neighbourhood plan is made, its policies take precedence over
existing policies in the local plan for thatneighbourhood. The two
clauses therefore seem to be in contradiction. Further clarity is
needed, particularlyon what is deemed a strategic decision. It is
our view that local plans must take precedence and the twoshould
never conflict with other. Otherwise, there will be considerable
scope for confusion.
25. Second, as stated earlier, local authorities should also be
required to supply the results of the SHMAs toneighbourhood forums
to ensure their neighbourhood plans are produced using the correct
evidence base.
G. About McCarthy & Stone
26. McCarthy & Stone provides around 70% of all private
retirement and Extra Care housing for olderhomeowners in the UK. To
date, we have built approximately 50,000 dwellings across 1,000
different schemes.Our retirement housing customers are on average
78 years old and our Extra Care customers 83 years old. Allof our
developments are built for private ownership at an affordable
priceusually 10% to 15% below theaverage house price in a
particular area. Our two main development types are Retirement
Living (similar totraditional Category 2 type sheltered housing)
and Extra Care (Assisted Living). More recently we havelaunched a
new form of specialist housingTailored Care Living, as an
alternative to traditional care homes,retaining home ownership with
built-in personal and domestic care facilities.
15 August 2011
Written evidence from BRE Global
Summary We welcome the aim of the draft NPPF to provide a
relatively short, clear statement of Government
policy, while recognising the complexity of applying the
principles of sustainable developmentin practice.
Sustainable construction is of major significance to the UK
economy as well as to theGovernments aspiration to be the greenest
government ever.
Schemes such as the Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM (BRE
Environmental AssessmentMethod) provide a way of addressing
sustainable development issues holistically. Reference to anational
framework for the setting and evaluation of sustainability
standards would provideconsistency for the construction industry
and avoid confusion, while allowing local planningauthorities
discretion in how to apply such standards in their areas.
BRE Global would be happy to help with drafting good practice
guidance on the implementationof sustainable construction policies
and practice in the planning system.
Introduction
1. BRE Global manages the implementation of the Code for
Sustainable Homes under contract to theDepartment for Communities
and Local Government. It is also responsible for the BREEAM
(BuildingResearch Establishment Environmental Assessment Method)
family of schemes. BREEAM is the longestestablished and most widely
used methodology in the world for assessing the environmental
performanceof buildings.
2. BRE Global is one of the BRE Trust group of companies with a
history stretching back over ninetyyears. It was formed following
the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment which had
been partof government.
3. The constituent companies within the group gift aid their
profits to the BRE Trust (a registered charity)to undertake
research and education for the benefit of the built
environment.
4. As an example of the value of sustainable construction to the
UK, BRE Ltd has recently signed a contractto develop an innovation
park in China which is worth up to 100 million to UK industry. It
has also recentlysigned an accord with the Brazilian Ministry of
Science and Technology to collaborate on Brasilia
InnovationPark.
5. Many leading organisations in both the public and private
sectors require BREEAM assessment of theirbuildings as a matter of
policy because it provides a comprehensive and cost-effective way
of improving both
-
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job:
016786 Unit: PG01
Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w7
environmental and economic performance. The Government includes
a requirement9 for all buildings in itsestate to undergo assessment
as an integral part of its drive to reduce carbon emissions and
improvesustainability.
6. BRE Global thus occupies a unique position, as part of the de
facto centre of excellence for the builtenvironment and in terms of
its track record and expertise in promoting sustainability. In
particular, the Codefor Sustainable Homes and BREEAM have achieved
national and international recognition as the leadingassessment
methodologies in their field.
7. Our evidence relates primarily to a) the importance of
sustainable construction to both the UK economyas a whole and to
the Governments policies on sustainable development, climate change
and carbon emissionsand b) the role that policies on sustainable
construction can play in the planning system. Where appropriatewe
have tried to relate this evidence to the specific questions that
the Committee has posed.
Is the definition of sustainable development contained in the
document appropriate; and is the presumptionin favour of
sustainable development a balanced and workable approach?
Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national
statements of planning-related policy sufficientlyclear? Does the
NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government
Departments?
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 overplanning decisions?
8. These three questions are closely inter-related. We have
started by looking at the definition of sustainabledevelopment, as
much else in the NPPF flows from this, along with the presumption
in favour of sustainabledevelopment. We have then considered how
the NPPF relates to other aspects of Government policy,
beforefinally looking at the implications for local planning
authorities, the Planning Inspectorate, developers,investors, and
local communities.
9. We consider that the draft NPPFs use of the Brundtland
definition of sustainable development is a goodstarting point. As
the Stern Report and others have made clear, two of the key
features of sustainabledevelopment are a proper consideration of
externalities (such as global warming or the depletion of
non-renewable resources), and the need to consider long-term time
horizons.
10. We consider that the draft NPPF could usefully refer to the
economic importance of a low carboneconomy in the economic section,
as well as reflecting its environmental importance towards the end
of thedocument. This could help it to align more clearly with
Government policy elsewhere, for example in theCoalition Agreement,
where the Prime Minister and Deputy PM state we both want to build
a new economyfrom the rubble of the old. We will support
sustainable growth and enterprise, balanced across all regions
andall industries, and promote the green industries that are so
essential for our future.
11. The Business Secretary added his weight to the economic
importance of green businesses on 4 August:The transition to a
green economy presents significant growth opportunities both in the
UK and abroad. TheUK has the sixth largest low carbon economic
goods and services market in the world. [Department forBusiness
Innovation and Skills press release, 4 August, 2011].
12. On 5 August 2011 the Government published Encouraging the
transition to a green economy:Government and Businesses working
together, (http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/greeneconomy) which sets
outfurther details of this agenda. Publishing the document, the
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs said:
Moving to a green economy presents huge opportunities for British
businesses not only to reducetheir environmental impact, but also
to transform products and services, develop cleaner technologies,
andcapture new international markets.
13. This is particularly important in relation to sustainable
construction. Assessment methodologies such asBREEAM play a very
significant role in enabling UK businesses to generate export
opportunities. The UK isviewed internationally as a beacon of best
practice in securing a low carbon, highly sustainable
builtenvironment through good science. BREEAM, as the most widely
used assessment methodology in the world,plays an important role in
this, and has recently been described by the chief executive of the
British PropertyFederation as a British success story [Delta T
Magazine, January 2011]. Indeed, such are the skills of UKdesigners
that their output is the second largest invisible export after
financial services. The UK Low CarbonEnvironmental Goods and
Services Market is the sixth largest in the world and grew by 4.3%
in 2009. It isnow worth 112 billion, employing over 900,000 people.
The UK leads on sustainable construction, with UKarchitecture and
engineering firms creating and designing for sustainable cities
across Asia and the MiddleEast. [UKTI]. UK businesses and investors
have made substantial commitments to sustainable construction,and
it is important that the NPPF does everything possible to ensure
continuing confidence in this vital sector.9 Common Minimum
Standards, Office for Government Commerce. These set out mandatory
minimum standards for
construction procurement in central government and related
areas. Having consulted a variety of interests, including
constructionindustry representatives, the standards were found to
be comprehensive, practical, achievable and cost-effective. They
requirean assessment methodology such as BREEAM or an equivalent,
and where BREEAM is used, all new projects are to achievean
excellent rating and all refurbishment are to achieve at least very
good.
-
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job:
016786 Unit: PG01
Ev w8 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence
14. The Governments Carbon Plan published in March this year
states at para 3.12: The Government wantsto support and enable
communities in their wish to adopt higher environmental standards
for new homesincluding through: ensuring that there are robust
sustainability standards for local authorities to use if theywant
to set higher standards than those in the national regulations in
their local plans. For example, the Codefor Sustainable Homes
provides standards for the sustainable design and construction of
new homes (includingwater efficiency) that meet or exceed those set
out in The Building Regulations 2010; and supporting eco-towns and
ecodevelopments where there is local support and a wish to adopt
higher standards of sustainabilityand design. As the planning
system is the route by which this would be achieved it would be
helpful for thisto be made explicit in the NPPF.
15. The Code for Sustainable Homes is one of the key tools in
the Governments armoury for driving upstandards in the housing
sector, and thereby driving innovation and change within the
construction industry.This in turn helps to create the new jobs and
opportunities that are key to the success of the green
industriesintegral to the Governments vision of the future. BREEAM
plays a similar role in the non-domestic sector.Both the Code and
BREEAM are voluntary schemes, which a large number of local
planning authorities havechosen to incorporate within their local
plans/local development frameworks.
16. The sustainable construction industry is thus hugely
important to the UK economy, and BREEAM andthe Code for Sustainable
Homes play a leading role in driving change and innovation within
it. One of themain ways of supporting this work is through the
planning system. We consider it would thus be helpful forthe NPPF
to give a clear indication of the Governments commitment to the use
of assessment methodologiessuch as BREEAM and the Code within the
planning system.
17. Assessment methodologies such as BREEAM and the Code are
designed to address a raft ofenvironmental and sustainability
issues in a holistic way, including all of those set out in the
section onPlanning for places. The Code for Sustainable Homes, for
example, covers the following: energy and carbondioxide emissions,
water, materials, surface water run-off, waste, pollution, health
and well-being, management,and ecology.
18. They can be powerful aids to achieving improved outcomes in
the built environment. However, it isimportant that a) they are
seen as integral to the development process and b) that they are
incorporated at theearliest possible stage. In this context, it
might be helpful for the statement (para 58) that Consents
relatingto how a development is built or operated can be dealt with
at a later stage to be amended so as maximisethe opportunity to
incorporate improvements at an early stage where it is both easiest
operationally and likelyto involve minimal or no additional
cost.
19. In order to ensure that the NPPF is well aligned with the
Carbon Plan and to provide clarity for users ofthe system, it might
be helpful for the NPPF to make clear that in principle it supports
the incorporation ofmeasures such as the Code for Sustainable Homes
and BREEAM within local plan policies as an importantcomponent of
local choice. In order to adopt such policies, local planning
authorities should be required toprovide evidence in preparing
their local plans a) that the policies were locally appropriate and
b) would not,of themselves, unreasonably affect viability
(recognising that there will be occasions, such as during
financialcrises, when no amount of amendment of the planning system
will affect the viability of development).
20. Once sustainable construction policies were established in
an adopted local plan, the onus should thenbe on the developer to
provide evidence in particular cases if they considered that the
development would notbe viable.
Are the core planning principles clearly and appropriately
expressed?
21. The core planning principles are set out in paragraph 19 of
the draft NPPF.
22. Perhaps the most striking point about the core planning
principles is that the last seven of the ten areexplicitly
addressed by BREEAM and six by the Code for Sustainable Homes (the
Code differs from BREEAMin not including transport as one of its
issues). The impact assessment accompanying the NPPF recognises
theimportance of many of these issues, stating, at p 68, There are
however opportunities through the planningsystem to ensure that the
new housing incorporates sustainable design and renewable energy,
for examplethrough rain water harvesting, maximising solar gain and
use of photovoltaics, and ground source heating.
23. The NPPF could therefore provide a powerful message of
support for these core principles by specificallyendorsing
assessment methodologies such as BREEAM and the Code. It would then
be up to local planningauthorities, in line with the spirit of
localism, to adopt these and indicate the level of performance they
seekas appropriate to their local circumstances. Building on the
already widespread use and acceptance of thesemethodologies, this
would provide developers with a well understood framework which
will allow them todemonstrate sustainability without extended
confusion and debate.
24. Should the Government consider that there was a need for
further informal good practice advice on theappropriate use of such
policies and standards, BRE Global would be happy to assist in
this.
-
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job:
016786 Unit: PG01
Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w9
Does the NPPF, together with the duty to cooperate, provide a
sufficient basis for larger-than-localstrategic planning?
25. It will be important for the NPPF to provide the guidance
needed to secure the most sustainable outcomein circumstances where
larger-than-local issues are involved eg where the renewable energy
source to serve anew development would be best located in a
neighbouring local planning authority.
Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently
evidence-based?
26. It would be helpful to provide evidence on the importance of
sustainable construction to the UK economy.For example, the Low
Carbon Construction Innovation and Growth Team final report
highlighted both thewider green economy benefits and the fact that
transforming the built environment to low carbon could providethe
industry with a 40 year programme of work and act as a springboard
to growth for more than 200,000small businesses in the sector.
This is relevant to the Governments objective of achieving a
sustainable built environment through theplanning system. As we
have set out above, setting challenging standards for construction
is good for theenvironment and good for the UK economy, as well as
being entirely in line with the Governments intentionto become the
greenest government ever (NPPF Consultation, para 32).
The fitness for purpose of the draft Framework as a whole
27. The aim of the draft NPPF to reduce the length and
complexity of existing planning policy documentationis to be
welcomed.
28. There are some areas, particularly in relation to
sustainable construction, where as indicated beforeamendments to
the NPPF might usefully provide greater clarity. In addition, there
may be value in some furthergood practice advice on this subject,
which we would be happy to help to prepare.
19 August 2011
Further written evidence from BRE Global
Introduction
1. BREs original submission to the Committee was made on 19
August 2011.
2. On 26 August 2011 CLG published Cost of Building to the Code
for Sustainable HomesUpdated costreview. The report was prepared
for CLG by Element Energy and Davis Langdon.
3. A press release accompanied the publication of the
report.
4. This addendum highlights some points from the report that we
consider relevant to the Committeesconsideration.
Cost of Building to the Code for Sustainable Homes: Updated cost
review
5. The report shows that building homes to better standards is
getting much cheaper. In the last threeyears the average extra
costs of building to level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes has
fallen by almostthree quarters
6. In publishing the report, the Communities Minister said:
Building greener homes is vital if we are tomeet our nations
commitment to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate changeso
todays report isgood news for the entire country. The progress that
has been made does not only benefit developers
buildingCode-standard homes, it also provides valuable lessons
ahead of the transition to building new homes to zerocarbon
standards from 2016:
As a country we still have lot of work to do to reduce carbon
emissions from new development, butwhat these figures show us is
that as the construction industry continues to build more
sustainable homes,there is further potential for the costs
associated [with] building greener homes to continue falling.
7. The report looks at the solutions that home builders
typically adopt to achieve credits under the Code andthe costs
associated with these. It finds that in many areas builders are now
able to achieve credits at noadditional cost (section 5.1, pp
4446).
8. This suggests that the Code is helping to drive change in the
supply chain, and thus reduce costs(particularly in relation to
renewable technologies). As we note in our main evidence, this is
important not justfor local environmental and economic reasons, but
also in terms of the continuing development and prosperityof a key
export sector of the UKs economy. The Code for Sustainable Homes
was derived from the BREEAMfamily of schemes. BREEAM is
increasingly being adopted in other countries, with associated
benefits for UKbusinesses involved in sustainable construction.
-
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job:
016786 Unit: PG01
Ev w10 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence
9. The report considers that those elements of construction
which affect carbon will decrease in real termsover time as the
industry finds more efficient (ie low cost) ways to meet the low
carbon challenge (section7.1, p 69).
10. It notes that, while much progress has already been made,
there will be further learning required in orderfor housebuilders
to build to Code level 6. To date, building to level 6 has not been
common (section 7.2, p 72).
11. This suggests that the more widespread adoption of the Code
through the planning system has animportant role to play in
enabling the dissemination of the learning required.
12. One of the key characteristics of BREEAM and the Code is
that they provide a national framework forthe setting and
evaluation of sustainability standards. This helps to provide
consistency for the constructionindustry and avoid confusion, while
allowing local planning authorities discretion in how to apply
suchstandards in their areas.
13. The report notes that the Code is increasingly being adopted
by local authorities as a planning conditionfor new development
(section 2.1, p 18). The incorporation within local plans of
policies which promote theCode and BREEAM can be a powerful way of
encouraging further improvement, and of supporting theGovernment in
its aims of addressing its carbon targets and encouraging the
prosperity of the sustainableconstruction industry.
14. The Code is owned and promoted by the Government, aligns
closely with other Government policiesand objectives, and is
increasingly being embraced by local authorities through their
planning function. Inthese circumstances, we consider that it would
make sense for the NPPF to provide explicit endorsement forthe use
of the Code (and methodologies such as BREEAM from which the Code
was derived) within theplanning system.
September 2011
Written evidence from Cutting Edge Planning and Design
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your inquiry into
whether the National Planning PolicyFramework (NPPF) forms an
adequate, clear and comprehensive framework of national planning
policy.
Background
I am a planning consultant who for 20 years has been involved
with the process of planning reform. I haveadvised governments in
England, Jersey and Bahrain on planning reform, and have worked on
all sides of thefence as well as in Scotland and Wales, and helping
community groups through Planning Aid for London. In2003 I wrote a
paper at the request of the then ODPM proposing core strategies
which became the basis,(though not in the form I had hoped) for the
2004 Planning and Compensation Act reforms. I am an expert onthe UK
planning system and its National Planning Policy and frequently
advise clients of finding their waythrough it. I also run a widely
read planning blog which has become the main resource for
information anddebate on the emerging NPPF.
http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/
The NPPF has a complexity in terms of its implications that
belied its brevity. For that reason I apologisefor going a little
over your word limit. However I think it is vital for the emerging
NPPF to undergo fullparliamentary scrutiny and to understand these
implications.
Summary of Response
The document lacks a positive vision of planning, of place, of
England.
It is not balanced, it represents landowner interests above all
others, even above economic developmentand employment.
It effectively redefines sustainable development to equal
property developmentit will not promotesustainability, rather its
converse.
It will only be usable by experts, many of its phrases have
meanings in planning precedent dating backto previous ages of
planning. It undoes much of the progress of the last 25 years. Its
parts interact incomplex ways which even the government may not
have yet worked through, but which are alreadycausing delay and
confusion.
I do not go into a point by point examination of the document,
however it is not possible to understandthe fitness for purpose of
NPPF, and the impact it will have, without highlighting a small
number ofkey policy changes which will have widespread impact.
It will lead to a free for all because almost all plans will be
rendered out of date overnight. This will leadto appeal-led
planning, with a risk of sprawl rather than properly designed and
planned development.
As a nation we badly need more development, in the right place
and well designed, but the NPPF willhinder this and the irony is it
is already leading to a crude ant-development backlash.
-
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job:
016786 Unit: PG01
Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w11
There are ways of salvaging the situation. I suggest new clauses
to the final stages of the Localism Bill,which combined with
significantly rewritten parts of the NPPF would lead to a proper
definition ofsustainability, a workable presumption in favour of
sustainable development, a proper transition period,plan-led rather
than appeal-led planning and a simpler quicker system. I would be
willing to expand onthese suggestions in further work and in oral
evidence.
Introduction
I would recommend that the committee look into the specific
policy changes of the NPPF in sessions runningup to the end of
2011. This is important as it is the aim of the Secretary of State
that the work of yourcommittee the form in which parliamentary
scrutiny of the document is undertaken.10 I would hope that
theCommittee approach adopted by the Committee is that adopted by
Planning Inspectorates to Draft developmentplans, is it the best
possible plan in the circumstances, is it justified by the
evidence, will it be effective inmeeting its goals? As the most
important development in planning since 1947 it is important we as
a nationget it right.
What is Planning For?
Is planning the enemy? Many ministers from the Prime Minister
down rarely miss an opportunity to knockplanners. We are
castigated, without evidence or justification as the enemies of
enterprise,11 when in factmost spend half their working lives
promoting local enterprise. Or even castigated by the Prime
Minister asblocking measures to prevent looting, when in fact they
have been implementing Home Office Advice to ensureour town centres
are not grey, dark and graffiti ridden.12 As RTPI president Richard
Summers has saidPlanners in the public sector have broad shoulders
and accept that they are often a convenient sitting targetfor
ministers.13
Yet Britain is out on a limb internationally. Given global
problems, such as for the first time more than 50%of the worlds
population living in cities from 2008,14 the need to house, provide
infrastructure and transportfor those people. Internationally town
planning has never been considered so important. Emerging nations
suchas China, India and Brazil see good town planning as a
mainspring of growth, not a hurdle. Gulf States whichhad a
disastrous let it rip approach to development before the 2008
crash, are, like Abu-Dhabi15 transformingtheir approach to town
planning to avoid seeing wasted billions on investment in empty
properties, the financingand building of which helped cause the
great financial crisis. For example the carbon-neutral new city
ofMasdar, designed by the UKs Fosters, outdoes the ambition of
anything being done in the UK, as does manyof the Eco-city Chinese
New Towns and Urban extensions being developed by UK firms such as
Arups,Atkins and Mott Mc Donald. Without good sustainable design,
including good town planning, urbanisation andeconomic growth will
consume our non-renewable resources and trigger off effects such as
global warming.The world turns to the UK for town planning to help
avoid this, but why is it so castigated and difficult here?
Greg Clark in speechs16 and articles has stated that planning
should be seen as a crucial service operatingin the public
interest. In the bluntest terms, as a force for good. and that the
purpose of planning is to helpmake the way we live our lives better
tomorrow than it is today.
And not just tomorrowbut a million tomorrows, so that nothing
our generation does compromises theabilityindeed the rightof future
generations to improve their own lives. But this uplifting wording,
verydifferent in the ministers presentation of the draft NPPF from
what it actually says, is nowhere to be found inthe shallow,
negative, dull and repetitive content of the NPPF itself which
above all needs a positive statementof what role planning can and
should play in modern society.
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 overplanning decisions?
The document is punchy. Reducing from 1,097 pages17 to 55. But
punchiness does not mean that thedocument is clear or fit for
purpose. Wales (Planning Policy Wales)18 shows that it is possible
to reducenational policy considerably (in their case to around 200
pages) without losing its essence or clarityfollowingfour
iterations it has been widely praised and easy to use (as a
planning practitioner). There are aspects ofEnglish national policy
where the editing pen has gone too fardeleting crucial national
policies. I shall turnto these in later evidence.10 Press Release
DCLG 25 July 2010 footnote.11 Speech Sunday 6 March 2011.12 Cameron
blames Planners over riots, Decisions. Decisions, Decisions, Aug
2011.13 Local Government Lawyer 7 March 2011.14 The Associated
Press (February 26, 2008). "UN says half the worlds population will
live in urban areas by end of 2008".
International Herald Tribune.15 Abu Dhabi Urban Planning
Council.16
http://www.gregclark.org/articles~speeches/articles~speeches/a-new-settlement-for-planning-a-speech-to-the/3817
http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/just-how-many-pages-will-the-nppf-replace/18
http://wales.gov.uk/topics/planning/policy/ppw/;jsessionid=
sLCTTKSbnypQtQGSwnJx4kWyMY41R1zbR7LBCjjjmvXhpV7N133d!-*****46?lang=en
-
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job:
016786 Unit: PG01
Ev w12 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence
There will be those who will rightly argue that England needs
something like the Wales Spatial Plan or theScottish National
Planning Framework. These are Spatial policies stating how
infrastructure will join up andthe role of different areas in the
nation. They are right. How can you judge, for example, HS2 without
anational vision of transport and the connectivity of regional
cities? How could a site for an additional hubairport, and the
linking infrastructure for it, be chosen if the decision was made
to develop one? But that is anargument for another day, as such a
document would take over a year to develop and the government
priorityis to put in place simplified subject based national
policy. I would hope that your committee urge thegovernment to look
again at this issue once the NPPF is complete; if only to ensure
that billions of investmentis well spent and the National Policy
Statements on major infrastructure are linked up.
Above all the document needs to be accessible to
non-professionals. The document though is riddled withphrases that
can only have meaning to planning consultants and lawyers because
of the considerable baggagethey hold in terms of past precedent. To
give just one of many possible examples obviously poor design(para
121) which many lawyers have argued in public inquiries in the
1980s and 90s (it is a resurrection fromcircular 22/80) means that
arguably and slightly poor design is acceptable. Also many parts of
the documentinterlock in complex ways, you need to draw up
flowcharts to understand its operation. Some aspects of policyare
only comprehensible at all, notably policy on flooding, if you have
the old policy being replaced alongsideyou. As this is supposed to
be a comprehensive standalone document this shows it is not fit for
purpose. Alever arch file of inspectors reports and recovered
appeals (by the SoS) will be needed as precedents aboutwhat some
underbaked parts actually mean.
Before 2004 you often saw local plans and UDPs that ran to 500
pages or more. In climates where therewas a strong presumption in
favour of development there was a feeling you needed a policy for
everything. Inputting forward the concept of core strategies in
2003 the idea was to make local strategies shorter by removingthe
need to repeat national policy. But if too much national policy is
stripped away, for example on adverts inthe countryside,
agricultural workers dwellings etc, then you could see, indeed you
are seeing, local pressureto fll in the gaps that have been created
and see plan balloon and take longer to complete.
A better crafted document of 100150 pages could have set the
right balance between brevity and clarity.
The fitness for purpose of the NPPF also depends on the tone it
strikes. Inspectors will want clarity.Developers will want
certainty on where and whether they will get consent.
Environmentalists will want hooksto enable various impacts to be
controlled or prevented. Planning professionals will want
stability. Localpoliticians will either want the untrammelled
ability to say no to unpopular development or an unequivocalorder
from a third party to plan for itso they can blame that party. This
means that planning will always beconflictual. But it does not mean
that these stakeholders do not have shared objectives and that in
many casesthese cannot be partially reconciled. Above all good
planning can help reconcile these objectives by ensuringthat needed
development goes in the right place and is well designed. It can
also have a vision of the positiverole of planning in ensuring
this.
This is where the NPPF falls down the most; its impoverished and
negative view of planningeffectivelysays get out of the way of
developers. The almost universal perception of the NPPF is its
imbalanced nature.Even those of us who consider that the planning
system had become too anti-development can see it for whatit is, a
developers charter. This means that the backlash from the shires
and suburbs could be so great that itcould actually mean that the
can, of where new large scale development goes, is kicked down the
road as ithas been many times before. Too often we have seen
ministers before, such as Patrick Jenkin and John Prescott,panic
under opposition to changes to crudely loosen the taps of
development and react by tightening themtoo much.
The experience of the 1980s is that planning needs teeth to
serve a purpose. The NPPF is a complete dentalextraction. Without
the threat of a no to a poorly designed and conceived scheme in the
wrong place you willnot get a good scheme in the right place.
Planning Policy enables strong negotiating stances which add
valueto the final scheme. Planners now find them themselves without
the tools necessary to negotiate. A default yeswill only get you
bad schemes, unless it is balanced with a default no to poor
planning.
Though English National Planning Policy there is nothing English
about the document at all,19 about whatour distinctive challenges
and solutions as a nation arevery uninspiring. Indeed minsters have
wrongly madestatements that they are responsible for planning in
Britain20rather than England, whereas the British Isleshas seven
separate statutory Planning Regimes; the NPPF covering only the
English part.
Finally on the issue of usability the document is wearily
repetitive,21 using one phrase four times and theword presumption
25 times.
Is the definition of sustainable development contained in the
document appropriate?
Development plans are required to must be drawn up with the
objective of contributing to the achievementof sustainable
development by law (section 39 2004 Act). Oddly this function does
not apply to developmentmanagement decisions and all other
decisions under the planning acts.19
http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/how-english-is-the-nppf/20
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/greg-clark/reforming-planning-for-fu_b_918391.html21
http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/mindless-repetition-in-the-nppf/
-
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job:
016786 Unit: PG01
Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w13
Successive government have stated that defining it should be a
matter of policy rather than law. The keyissue is whether the
definition is meaningful.
Firstly the government has not been consistent in its
definitions. The official definition is from the UK (notjust
English) Sustainable Development Strategy, Securing the Future,22
which remains in force, and at leastmerits a footnote in the NPPF.
Neither mentioned is the coalition governments statement
MainstreamingSustainable Development.23 Again unless DCLG wants to
plough a different furrow on SustainableDevelopment than DEFRA
there should be at least a footnote mention. Finally there is the
older definitionfrom Brundtland used in the NPPF. What this means
is that the government now has three different definitionsof
sustainable developmentvery confusing. The issue of the Brundtland
definition is that by itself it isuncontentious; it is simply a
requirement not to be unsustainable, but to be meaningful in policy
terms you needto add flesh to the bones and have a policy framework
which is positive about the sustainable actions required.
The NPPF approach to sustainable development is weak and in
effect seeks to define it out of existence sothat property
development = sustainable development.
The definition in para 9 of the NPPF seeks to redefine the
Brundtland definition by referring only to basicneeds. This implies
that widening inequality is acceptable if basic needs only are met.
Wheras in fact theBrundtland Report refer to the key concept of
needs, in particular the essential needs of the worlds poor,to
which overriding priority should be given. All references to
lessening social inequalities and ensuringSocial progress which
recognizes the needs of everyone (from the SDS) have been excised.
Indeed by contrastthe NPPF gives overwhelming priority to the
wealthiest who are able to carry out the most
propertydevelopment.
The NPPF definition goes on in para 10 to define what
sustainable development means for planningthe socalled 3Ps. If you
break down the logic of this troika you find that it comes down
to:
economic growth is sustainable;
growth meeting housing and social needs is sustainable; and
except where it damages protected environments or producing too
much CO2.
Reading the NPPF as a whole, which you have to do, it is clear
that protected land only makes up a verysmall part of England, and
controls on car-orientated development in rural areas are
weakened.
So in effect property development=sustainable development, when
neither on protected land nor producingtoo much CO2.
This is an impoverished and narrow view which almost defines
sustainable development out of existence.Para 11 refers to the need
for three principles being pursued in an integrated waybut if the
principlesthemselves are slanted so will the integrated
approach.
This is what Johnathan Porritt has called:
SD-abuse: the deliberate misuse of the concept of sustainable
development by Ministers and civilservants to obscure the real
meaning of their words... I could not find one single reference to
the notionof environmental limits. Not one. Lots of warm words
about the importance of the environment, butnothing of real use in
defining what appropriate or inappropriate development might mean
in practice.24
Whilst Tom Burke of the Green Alliance has stated:
What the Government actually means by Sustainable Development is
the tired old Treasury mantra ofSustained Growth: that is, growth
that goes on forever. It definitely does not mean growth that
recognisesenvironmental risks and constraints.25
The definition could be greatly improved if it recognized
environmental limits. Indeed examples elsewherein the UK and the
Commonwealth commonly do this.
I would urge the Committee to examine definition and policy on
the application of the principle of sustainabledevelopment used in
Quebec, New Zealand and Wales.
For example the New Zealand Resource Management Act includes the
concept of environmental limits andthis wording is reflected in the
proposed definition put forward by Wildlife Link.26 The Quebec
SustainableDevelopment Act builds on the Brundtland definition and
includes the concepts an ongoing process to improvethe living
conditions of the present generation that does not compromise the
ability of future generations to doso and that ensures a harmonious
integration of the environmental, social and economic dimensions
ofdevelopment.22
http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/03/25/securing-the-future-pb10589/23
http://sd.defra.gov.uk/documents/mainstreaming-sustainable-development.pdf24
http://www.jonathonporritt.com/blog/sustainable-development#comments25
http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/grea1.aspx?id=594526
http://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/2011/Link_Localism_Bill_amendment_HoC_Committee_Stage_Sustainable_Development_
25Jan11.pdf
-
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job:
016786 Unit: PG01
Ev w14 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence
This is not rocket science and with it, it is possible to meld
these well tested legal definitions together in aform of words that
might be acceptable to both ministers and environmental
stakeholders. I suggest combiningthe Brundtland, Canadian and New
Zealand definitions as follows:
an ongoing process to improve the living conditions of the
present generation that does not compromisethe ability of future
generations to do so, and that ensures, as far as possible, a
harmonious integration ofthe environmental, social and economic
dimensions of development within the limits set by theenvironment
and technology.
What matters though is how this translates into planning
decisions. I would advise the committee to takeevidence from Clive
Bates the Director General for Sustainable Futures of the Welsh
Government. The Welshapproach27 is based on the concept of
environmental well-being. This derives from UN/WHO28 work
andconsiderable research. The principle is that the health and
well-being of people will not be sustained if thewellbeing of
ecosystems, natural capital, and social, human and economic
capital. This concept is critical tothe first UK National
Ecosystems Assessment29 carried out by DEFRA. Yet the NPPF nowhere
refers to this,the health of ecosystems, or the wellbeing of
society. It is clearly a lack of joined up government.
This is the single greatest weakness of the NPPF. A presumption
in favour of sustainable development badlydefined and poorly
operationalised, as here, is simply a presumption in favour of
development without limitsunsustainable development.
Is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a
balanced and workable approach?
No, neither. The presumptionor PISD as it has become knownhas a
central logical flaw. The fact thatsustainable development cannot
be achieved without certain kinds of growth doesnt imply that all
kinds ofgrowth promote sustainable development. Strikingly there is
no presumption against unsustainabledevelopment. It is
unbalanced.
A related flaw is apparent if we look at para 14, which sets out
3 combinations, but is silent on the fourthlogical one.
Development Plan Adopted Development Plan either non adopted ,
notand Up to Date up to date, Silent or Indeterminate
Scheme accords with Approve without delay Grant
PermissionDevelopment PlanScheme contrary to NPPF is silent Grant
PermissionDevelopment Plan
Now the assumption is that, as in the top left box, section
36(1) of the Planning and Compensation Act(2004) applies:30
If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose
of any determination to be made under theplanning Acts the
determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless
material considerationsindicate otherwise.
But a reader from outside a planning background will not know
this. The NPPF is a document that issupposed to be usable by
non-experts, but which will in fact but unusable unless you know
the legal principleson which the planning system is based and on
which the NPPF is silent. It will not be usable by lay
peoplecontrast it with, for example, the opening pages of Planning
Policy Wales which sets these principles out clearly.
The presumption in favour of development is quite old, dating
back to the Circular accompanying theChamberlain Housing Act of
1923:31
the presumption should always be in favour of the person seeking
consent to interim development, andobstacles should not be placed
in the way of such development, except in the case where it is
clearlydetrimental to local interests and needs.
Over the years the wording of it, as a policy not statute law,
has changed. It was given particular stress incircular 22/80.
Following the passage of the Planning and Compensation Act 2001,
which introduced thePresumption in Favour of the Development Plan
national policy at the time (PPG1) was alteration to squarewith
itthough there was a tension. In 2005 PPS1 abolished the
Presumption in Favour of DevelopmentLeaving only the Presumption in
Favour of the Plan. This created a problem. It depended on up to
date plans.
The poor, and late, plan coverage has been a problem throughout
the history of British Planning. Currentlyaround 30% of UK planning
authorities have adopted core strategies.32 If plans are slow to
prepare and late,27
http://www.cynnalcymru.com/sites/default/files/Clive%20Bates%20Viewpoint%20Aug%202011.pdf28
http://www.who.int/globalchange/ecosystems/ecosys.pdf29
http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/30
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/5/section/3831
http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/the-origin-of-the-presumption-in-favour-of-development-1923-nppf/32
It would be helpful if, as in Scotland and Wales, national lists
and maps of plan-coverage were published quarterly. jointly
with
PINS (Planning Inspectorate).
-
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job:
016786 Unit: PG01
Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev w15
and plan making is the primary means to provide additional
housing, then they will create a continuouslygrowing shortage of
housing and an ever greater amount of new housing that needs to be
allocated to catch up.
The national housing shortage is well documented.33 The number
of households in England is projected togrow to 27.5 million in
2033, an increase of 5.8 million (27%) over 2008, or 232,000
households per year.34
This translates into a requirement for new dwellings of roughly
240,000 dwellings a year. In Q2 2011housebuilding fell 4% in
England from the previous quarter.35 In 2011 we look likely to
build only aroundhalf the houses needed as a nation.
When the Q1 housebuilding statistics were released the
government claimed this was evidence that thepolicies of revoking
regional plans and introducing the New Homes Bonus was working. In
fact analysis ofthe data showed that the Q1 rise was due to a rise
in London, the one region to have maintained regionalhousebuilding
targets.36 In Q2 housebuildingfell year on year by 26%. Planning
approvals for housing arealso down dramatically. This has lead to a
furious dispute between bodies such the the CPRE and the HBF onthe
significance for the NPPF.37 A detailed analysis I have conducted
on the data is that both are wrong onthis issue (or right depending
on how you see it), houses arent being build because of lack of
demand in adepressed market, but if demand recovered landbanks of
housebuilders are dangerously low, only about a thirdof what they
should be to meet household formation.38 This is storing up a
problem as it will slow recoveryfrom the great recession. The
problem is not the number of applications being refused but the
fall in the amountof land planned for housing since the abolition
of regional spatial strategies.
Though plan making progress has been unacceptably slow there was
an upturn in housebuilding levels inthe years following the 2004
Act, The Barker Review 2004 and the Housing Green Paper 2005 which
setnational housebuilding targets, progress sustained until the
Great Recession. This progress has been undone, inpart by the by
the recession and in part by the dramatic lowering of housebuilding
targets in development planssince May 2010 (this is not a political
point simply a statement of fact). A reduction estimated by BNP
Paribasin June as being on average 20.6% per authority.39
From Planning Inspectorate Data it is clear that in early 2010
around 2/3rds of English Planning Authoritieswere programmed to
have examinations completed and adopted plans in place by the end
of 2011. So clearlydespite the slowness of plan making a big bulge
of catching up was due to come forward. Finally by the endof 2010
was programmed national coverage of regional plan housing targets.
So plans were coming forward,despite a desperate dragging of feet
by a minority of Local Planning Authorities, with up to date
numbersmeeting housing need, otherwise they would not have been
found sound. When these plans were adoptedthere was sure to be a
bulge in housing starts. There always is when new plans, releasing
new land, are adopted.
All of this good work was undone by the unwise, and as it turned
out unlawful,40 revocation of regionalplans in June 2010. They
still have not been revoked. The Localism Bill has not yet been
granted Royal Assent.Even then the SoS has undertaken in April, not
to enact Secondary Legislation until, as he is required to dounder
a European Directive, a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the
effects of revocation,41 consultedon this and react to the results
of consultation. This consultation has not yet even begun, but is
required to bythe EU directive, be at an early stage of the
decision making process. One that the SoS needs to take withan open
mind. Given ministers statements and caselaw it is likely that
statements of predetermination willsee a successful legal
challenge. Please question the minister on the reason for the
delay. Please also questionthe minister, in the light of his wholly
inadequate response to your committees earlier report on the
abolitionof regional plans,42 that if the SA/SEA finds significant
adverse social, environmental or economic impactswill they
reconsider the intention to revoke? In any event it looks like that
it will be at least a year more,more likely two, of regional plan
targets before they are revoked.
Since the June 2010 statement there has been a dramatic slowing
of planning for housing, as your committeefound. Plans about to be
submitted have been delayed by a year or more. Even plans mid
examination havebeen delayed, with one examination (South Wilts)
that should have lasted at most a few weeks now lastingover a year
as the authority rewrote it mid inquiry to reduce housebuilding.
Even in one case a plan waswithdrawn the day it the inspectors
report was received (Coventry). Other plans have been withdrawn the
eventhough they have been submitted (Aylesbury), and the SoS has
allowed them to do so (the power to preventthis stalling is
proposed to be removed by the Localism Bill). So for these and many
other local planningauthorities effectively starting again they are
at least two years from adoption.33 Good summaries of recent
demographic, household formation and housing trends are The Good
the Bad and the Ugly March
2011 IPPR, Mind the Gap, Housing Supply in a Cold ClimateTCPA,
PWC, The Smith Institute 2009 and new and novelhousehold
projections for england with a 2008 basesummary and review
TCPA/CCHP.
34
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/2033household111035
http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/new-housing-bricked/36
http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/lying-with-statistics-housebuilding-and-the-abolition-of-regional-spatial-
strategies-nppf/37
http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/cpre-and-hbf-in-nppf-cynical-property-barons-housing-pipeline-dispute/38
http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/lessons-from-the-housing-pipeline-for-the-nppf/39
http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/bnp-paribas-31000-homes-a-year-to-be-lost-by-abolition-of-rss/40
http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/05/29/cala-ii-decision-in/41
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110405/wmstext/110405m0001.htm#1104055800000442
http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/government-response-to-the-clg-committee%E2%80%99s-report-abolition-of-
rss-a-planning-vacuum/
-
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [19-12-2011 15:45] Job:
016786 Unit: PG01
Ev w16 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence
What we have seen is the largest and most important housing
sites in England deleted. Growth areas aroundMilton Keynes,
Aylesbury, Northampton, Bristol and many other towns have now gone,
or have been frozenin ministerial induced uncertainty. The system
of planning for housing has been thrown into chaos. Ministershave
stated that eventually the New Homes Bonus will induce more housing
to be allocated, one has to askwhere? Can ministers name a
significant number local planning authorities that have decided to
increase itshousebuilding levels above regional plan levels?.
Rather LPAs have overwhelmingly either kept to the sametargets or
significantly reduced them.
Seeing this dramatic scaling back one has to ask if Ministers
are giving up on the plan-led route and arelooking for a plan
b?
Frustration with slow progress on plan making has affected
national policy several times before and I wouldsuggest to your
committee it is the key issue regarding the NPPF.
Ensuring that plans were simpler and quicker to prepare were
central to the Falconer reforms enacted in2004, on which I advised
the then ODPM . Unfortunately the implementation was poor. By
creating newstatutory plans rather than amending existing statutes
there was the impression given that