Keep up to date with RTPI Response including the final submission below.
Also below we are including, under Other Responses, links to the submissions of others where they are available.

The Communities and Local Government Select Committee has published recommendations on the draft National Planning Policy Framework (Wednesday 21 December 2011). 
Richard Summers, President of the RTPI, 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 plays an effective role in a workable planning system.”

NPPF DRAFTING PROCESS

On the 20 December 2010, the Minister for Decentralisation and Planning, Greg Clark MP, announced a review of planning policy, designed to consolidate all policy statements, circulars and guidance documents into a single, simpler National Planning Policy Framework. The new Framework was intended to be user-friendly and accessible with clear policies for making local and neighbourhood plans and development management decisions.

As part of the initial policy review the Minister invited Gary Porter, Simon Marsh, Peter Andrew and John Rhodes to form an Advisory Group and provide a practitioners perspective on what the National Planning Policy Framework should contain. This Practitioners Advisory Group submitted its draft Framework, together with a set of recommendations, on the 20 May 2011.

The consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 25 July 2011. A short summary has also been published. See below for the initial reactions to the draft document.

The Communities and Local Government Select Committee announced that it intends to hold oral evidence sessions on the draft NPPF in October and November. And prior to this The Commons Environmental Audit Committee will hold an inquiry into sustainable development in the draft NPPF in time to inform the CLG Committee’s Inquiry.

The Planning Inspectorate advised inspectors (4 August) that the draft National Planning Policy Framework is 'capable of being a material consideration'. This guidance note was subsequently (8 Sept) amended for clarity.

DCLG further announced (5 August, see Update on this page) that the soon-to-be-issued new Planning Policy Statement for traveller sites will be reviewed in the light of all comments received on the draft NPPF and incorporated into the final NPPF.

The Commons Library (14 Sept) issued a Standard Note on the Green Belt noting; "The Government is changing planning policy considerably, including abolishing regional planning. The Coalition Agreement undertakes to ensure that the protection of green belt by local planning authorities is maintained".

The Commission for Rural Communities has issued an NPPF briefing (Sept) addressing implications for rural areas.

The webpage of the Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry into Sustainable Development in the draft NPPF is here.
The webpage of the Select Committee examining the NPPF is here.

The record of the early debate on the draft NPPF in the House of Lords (13 October) can be read here.

The formal Consultation on the draft closed on Monday 17 October.

The record of the Westminster Hall debate on the Green Belt (18 October) can be read here.

Most Recent Debate

(there is now a separate page recording the debate prior to the closing of the formal Consultation on October 17)):

A group of housing providers wrote (17 October) to the Minister amid concerns that proposed planning changes will fail to deliver enough homes for older people to meet the needs of England's ageing population.

The House Builders Association (HBA), a division of the National Federation of Builders (NFB) has strongly opposed any suggestion that there should be any transition in bringing the NPPF guidance fully into effect, (20 October) to give local authorities time to bring forward plans and thus to avoid the effect of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It says that local authorities have had seven years to bring forward plans and should not be allowed any longer.

Councils have rallied against the Government’s planning reforms for betraying the spirit of localism, says an article in Inside Housing (21 October). On the same day the Local Government Association reported: "We are pleased the Government has listened to us and agreed that communities and councils need ‘appropriate' time to put into place their local plans.  It is important that the reforms go through due democratic process......It is also positive that the Planning Minister has confirmed that the economic, social and environmental aspects of developments will need to be ‘balanced' – ensuring communities genuinely benefit from development".

A wide-ranging group of bodies interested in planning for housing - including the RTPI - (24 October) have risen to the challenge of the need for more guidance to help Local Authorities accurately estimate local housing requirements, in light of changes set out in the Localism Bill and the draft NPPF.

A ComRes survey discussed here found that 52% of the local Councillors surveyed believe the NPPF means local authorities will have less say in local planning decisions.

Reporting on the meeting of the CLG Select Committee The Telegraph noted that the Chancellor had relied on data that was two decades old when stating that planning costs the economy £3bn annually.The Guradian ran with 'Minister unable to explain government's figure for cost of planning delays when challenged by select committee'.

The National Trust has warned in The Telegraph (15 Nov) that the Prime Minister must not use the “smokescreen” of a planning “free-for-all” as a substitute for a proper strategy to boost the economy.

The Policy Exchange has a letter published in The Times (16 Nov) rebutting claims that planning reforms will result in a Los Angeles-style sprawl and brands the current planning system "disastrous".

The Telegraph claimed that planning regulations will be relaxed in National Parks (17 Nov) but this brought a swift denial from Defra.

Following a Freedom of Information request, the Guardian revealed (19 Nov) House builders lobbied cabinet privately to get planning relaxed.

The Telegraph reported (23 Nov) that the Environment Agency and Natural England, which have until now remained silent on the changes to the planning system, have both raised concerns over the new presumption in favour of development which they say could have "unintended consequences".

In an analysis of a representative sample of 27 local authority responses to the public consultation on the draft NPPF, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has found (28 Nov) that right across England, and regardless of political party control, local authorities are very concerned about the proposed changes to national planning policy.

Reporting on the Chancellor's Autumn Statement (29 Nov) a Guardian article headlined: ‘George Osborne's message was clear: where green goals are in conflict with economic concerns, business interests will win’.

According to an article in The Independent (6 Dec) the Liberal Democrats have joined the rebellion against the draft NPPF's 'presumption in favour' of sustainable development.

In a letter to The Telegraph (7 Dec) a group of Lords and MPs urge Ministers to make the final NPPF “explicit [in] its commitment to urban renaissance and to compact, retrofitted cities which provide the only form of sustainable development. This is the only way to protect our cities from falling into dereliction and the countryside from being eroded”.

On the back of the Mary Portas High Street Review (13 Dec), the CPRE notes that "Portas makes it clear that it is not good enough to take a ‘laissez-faire’ approach to planning if we want to achieve the right kind of economic growth. This approach [in the NPPF] will lead to more out of town mega stores and supermarkets that suck the life out of town centres".

RTPI Responses

• Richard Summers, President of the RTPI (21 December) warmly welcomed the CLG Select Committee's report on the draft NPPF "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 plays an effective role in a workable planning system.”

• In noting the arrival of the Localism Act (15 Nov) the RTPI commented that "The RTPI is concerned that the NPPF could make adopted Local Plans out of date as soon it comes into force as well as wasting significant work on emerging plans. We suggest that, although Local Plans and planning decisions should comply with the NPPF, local authorities should have the responsibility to decide whether their plans are in general conformity with the NPPF".

• Richard Summers and Trudi Elliott gave evidence before the CLG Select Committee on the draft National Planning Policy Framework (9 October).  The wide ranging questioning covered whether the NPPF should have a spatial dimension, neighbourhood planning, and the costs and benefits of planning.
  The Daily Telegraph covered the RTPI’s appearance at Select Committee.
  Click here to see video of the appearance.
  For information about the costs of planning, see the RTPI planning myths pages.

• The RTPI responded to the NPPF Consultation by the closing date of 17 October. The high-level response can be read here. The response to the consultation questionnaire is here. RTPI Networks' members were invited to focus on their expert topic areas, but to ensure that the whole NPPF fits together coherently Members were invited to submit general comments about the NPPF content or gaps.
• In its Briefing to members of the House of Lords Committee looking at the Localism Bill, the RTPI proposed an amendment relating to the Bill's provisions for the NPPF: "The RTPI firmly believes that the current robust debate on NPPF shows that it must be subject to Parliamentary debate and approval and that the NPPF needs to be subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment and that these requirements need to be embedded in legislation. The current debate about the content of the NPPF only serves to strengthen this view".
• Podcasts are available for the RTPI fringe sessions (in conjunction with Savills and Local Dialogue) ‘Localism and growth. Can the new planning system deliver both?' at the Labour Party Conference and the Conservative Party Conference.
• A letter from the RTPI President calling for "a reasoned discussion of all the issues" was printed in The Times (21 Sept subscription only)
• The Daily Mail (19 Sept) carried an article by the RTPI President setting out a reasoned argument why the draft NPPF requires amendment.
• At the Liberal Democrats' Conference in Birmingham (19 Sept) the RTPI in conjunction with Savills and Local Dialogue organised a well attended fringe session ‘Localism and growth. Can the new planning system deliver both?'.
• The RTPI submitted evidence to The Communities and Local Government Select Committee Inquiry on the draft NPPF and The Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry into sustainable development in the draft NPPF. The evidence will be published in due course by the Committees.
• The RTPI launched a Planning Myths discussion (6 Sept) to provide a better informed background to the NPPF and other debates on planning. Shortly after the launch of the RTPI Planning Myths Campaign the DCLG launched their equivalent Myth-buster (8 Sept).
• You may have attended one of our two free Network discussions on the draft NPPF held on Wednesday 7 September; the presentation made at those events to help promote discussion is now available to view.
• A letter from 23 Past Presidents of the RTPI was published in The Telegraph (1 Sept), picked up in The Times (subscription only) and by Channel 4 News and Radio 4, asserting that "What we need is a reasoned debate and clear thinking on managing this major change".
• The RTPI challenged an assertion from the Policy Exchange that "Land in Britain is made scarce and expensive by some of the world’s tightest planning laws" (9 August) and a letter was subsequently printed in The Telegaph scroll down the linked page (24 August).
• RTPI terms the draft National Planning Policy Statement (NPPF) a "missed opportunity" (25 July)  
• The RTPI responded to the Practitioners Advisory Group first draft of the National Planning Policy Framework saying it misses that planning must be spatial to be effective (20 May).

FURTHER READING

Planning Resource (subscription required but free to RTPI Members) has been running a series of articles looking at the implications of the draft NPPF for specific planning topics: housing, heritage, transport policy & town centre policy.

Shortly after the launch of the RTPI Planning Myths Campaign (6 Sept) the DCLG launched their equivalent Myth-buster (8 Sept).

Responding to a Sunday Times article DCLG published (26 Sept)  'Five facts to show how CPRE claims that the Government's planning reforms will result in more development on the Green Belt are wrong'.

The Planning Advisory Service (PAS) of the Local Government Group (LGG) has published  'Localism and the National Planning Policy Framework: implications for local government'.

The Home Builders Federation is issuing a 'Fact not Fiction' series around the NPPF and has so far made available:  A general 'What Housing Crisis' Paper and another on Brownfield Land.

OTHER RESPONSES

ORGANISATIONS

The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) commented: “Businesses will welcome the concept of shorter, simpler planning rules, but they need to see more than just a new policy document to regain confidence in the planning system. A pro-growth approach must fast become reality on the ground, with local councils saying ‘yes’ to business growth and expansion far more than they do at present.”

The British Property Federation (BPF)said: "Planning policy should be streamlined, succinct and to the point if it is to deliver the growth and sustainable development that this country needs…..On that basis we will have no problem in giving today's Framework our ringing endorsement."  BPF subsequently warned of the "gathering forces of nimbyism" in a letter to the Guardian (7 August). They were also (18 August) a co-signatory with the Chartered Institute for Housing, National Housing Federation and the Home Builders Federation, amongst eleven in all, to a letter to The Times (copied here) that says: "we believe that [the draft NPPF's] overarching principles can strike the necessary balance between economic growth, a presumption in favour of sustainable development and existing environmental protection". The BPF welcomed 'the largest ever transfer of planning power from Whitehall to local communities' in its final response to the consultation. And speaking to the CLG Parliamentary Committee Inquiry, the BPF said: “Brownfield land first isn’t just about the environment; it neglects the social and economic benefits too. Agglomeration - where people and businesses are focused in a particular area – has long been cited as being beneficial to the economy and society.” The BPF response to the Consultation is here.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) said: “The draft planning framework is an improvement on the version we saw earlier this month, but major problems remain. The new framework will make the countryside and local character much less safe from damaging and unnecessary development. If it is not amended, there will be battles against development across the country that will make the public revolt against the sale of the forests look like a tea party.”  CPRE has set out what they want to see from the final NPPF. They are inviting members to contact their MP. CPRE obtained a legal opinion that, if the draft NPPF green belt protections were to be retained, the express presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt should be reinstated. CPRE’s formal and detailed response to the public consultation on the NPPF can be downloaded here.

The Chartered Insititute of Housing (CIH) said "The housing crisis is not new, but the proposed draft national planning policy framework provides a golden opportunity to provide part of the solution". The CIH response to the Consultation is here.

Civic Voice has published its evidence to the CLG Committee on the NPPF which concludes: "Looking forward, we seek an approach that recognises the need for a stronger role for planning in securing a pattern and quality of development which supports economic, social and environmental progress and provides certainty for investment. This will need to be based on an approach which delivers ‘smart growth’".

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) said: “Cutting back the reams of planning policy and guidance we currently have makes absolute sense. …The publication of this new framework is a chance for the Government to rebuild investor confidence in a planning system which has been shaken by a year of rapid reforms and ripped-up policy.”

The Construction Industry Council (CIC) Chief Executive described the current planning system as “complex, often impenetrable and littered with delay and cost” and urged the construction industry to back the proposal in a bid to help meet Britain’s housing shortage.

English Heritage says that if a small number of changes and additions to the draft NPPF are introduced, the protection of the historic environment can be maintained at the existing level.

The Environment Agency response to the Counsultation may be seen here.

The Federation of Master Builders (FMB) said the draft proposals are “essential if we are to avert a housing crisis and build the homes that this country needs”. In their final response to the Consultation FMB says: "The Government’s planning reform proposals strike the right balance between economic growth and environmental protection. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is certainly needed if Britain is to have the homes and infrastructure that it requires".

Friends of the Earth has urged people to "Join the call for planning rules that take protecting our natural environment and sustainable development seriously". FoE published a briefing 'Development at any Cost?'.

The Heritage Alliance has published its own NPPF response as well as a collection of responses made by its Members.

The Historic Towns Forum feels that while there is much in the National Planning Policy Framework that is uncontroversial, there are several unsatisfactory elements that the HTF is concerned about and feels need further clarity.

The Home Builders Federation (HBF) welcomed a 'step in the right direction' and said: "The draft National Planning and Policy Framework document is the basis for a more pro growth planning system and could support a desperately needed increase in house building. But, its success is dependant upon both its interpretation by local authorities and how central Government ensures the planning system does actually deliver more homes". They issued a 'Fact not Fiction' Briefing. Subsequently the HBF entered the debate started by the CPRE and the National Trust and issued a statement asserting that "it is [therefore] imperative that the debate is not hijacked by scaremongering from narrow minded anti-growth groups". And subsequently it issued its own response to the National Trust's expectations of an amended NPPF. They warned Government that it must stand firm on its planning proposals or risk a 'house building ice age'.

The House Builders Association (HBA), a division of the National Federation of Builders (NFB), whilst welcoming the draft NPPF, has strongly opposed any suggestion that there should be any transition in bringing the NPPF guidance fully into effect, to give local authorities time to bring forward plans and thus to avoid the effect of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It says that local authorities have had seven years to bring forward plans and should not be allowed any longer.

The Institute for Archaeologists has submitted its draft NPPF response and this can be read here.

The Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC), the professional body for built and historic environment conservation specialists, has submitted its qualified support for England’s NPPF.

The Local Government Group (LGG) commented in their Position Statement that "the NPPF must give equal weight to economic, social and environmental outcomes to ensure councils have reasonable leverage within the system to deliver development that is viable and sustainable for the local community".

The National Housing Federation (NHF) welcomed the draft and noted: “We are particularly pleased that there is greater emphasis on on-site delivery of affordable homes in private developments than in the practitioners’ draft. Successful and sustainable communities are not segregated by wealth or type of housing."

The National Trust has voiced "grave concerns" over the Government’s draft NPPF warning of "damaging development" not seen since the 1930s; "The Government's proposals allow financial considerations to dominate, and with this comes huge risk to our countryside, historic environment and the precious local places that people value." They are inviting people to sign their petition. DCLG has responded that the Trust is “plain wrong” prompting a further response from the Trust and then a letter from Minister Bob Neill in The Guardian. In a letter to The Telegraph, Liz Peace chief executive of the British Property Federation, and Dr Adam Marshall, director of policy and external affairs at the British Chambers of Commerce, say the new system "does not diminish the ability to protect the green belt" and urge the Government to "stand firm" over its proposals. Subsequently the Trust set out a "positive vision including the top line requirements for a planning system which can deliver that balance".

The Planning Officers' Society response to the Consultation supports the broad thrust of the document but says that the document needs fine-tuning and greater clarity and as currently drafted will slow down and not speed up the planning system.

The Royal Institute of British Architects in its submission to the Consultation says: "Sustainable development and good design should feature prominently in the NPPF and set out principles which will sit alongside locally derived policies and aspirations through both local and neighbourhood plans".

Sustrans: in their submission to the CLG Parliamentary Committee they comment that  "the draft NPPF requires significant reshaping to avoid being detrimental to the already weak relationships between communities, developers and local authorities with regard to planning decisions". The Sustrans response to the Consultation is here.

The Town & Country Planning Association (TCPA) commented: “While we share the Government's ambition of making planning more accessible to communities, making something shorter does not automatically make it clearer.  Planning has to deal with complex problems and sometimes needs detailed policy responses." They issued a public briefing. The TCPA submission to the consultation can be read here.

Localism Bill: RTPI Activity  Localism Bill: Latest Government Announcements

Author:

Andrew Matheson

Publisher:

The Royal Town Planning Institute

Date:

21-Dec-11

Categories:

Practice, Policy 

This article has been read 23118 times.