THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK DEBATE

27-Oct-11

The NPPF Debate prior to October 17 (when the formal Consultation closed)

The BBC report upon publication is here.

A Guardian Leading Article ‘Planning: Concrete Proposals’ noted the RTPI concerns and concluded: “As things stand, the presumption in favour of sustainable development will reward developers while neglecting sustainability. That is the precise opposite of everything ministers promised.”

Simon Jenkins writing in The Guardian said: “The government's 'sustainable' new planning policy invites corruption and will sink us in urban sprawl”.

In response to the opinion piece by columnist Simon Jenkins, The Guardian subsequently carried letters from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CRPE) and the National Trust. CPRE head of planning Fiona Howie, the latter saying that Jenkins was "absolutely right to highlight the importance of the national planning policy framework on the future of our countryside". "The Government must recognise that it is perfectly legitimate for the answer to a development proposal to be 'no' if that proposal will be environmentally or socially damaging", she writes.

An opinion piece from columnist Camilla Cavendish in The Times (Building in shires could demolish the Tory vote 4 August subscription only) warns that "relaxing planning rules to promote growth will cause an uproar that could dwarf the row over selling off forests". Cavendish writes: "Ministers clearly hope to encourage growth, placate the building trade and convince enlightened communities that they are 'empowered'. The reality is more likely to be direct action from the Tory core vote, lying in front of bulldozers".

Responding to the objections raised by the National Trust and CPRE (see above) Minister Bob Neill was quoted in the Sunday Telegraph (7 August) as accusing them of being "vested interests" that were peddling "deeply misleading and simply untrue" claims. "This is a carefully choreographed smear campaign by Left-wingers based within the national headquarters of pressure groups," he said.

The Sunday Telegraph Leader concluded: “the source of opposition is much more profound than any political ideology: it is the desire of local people to have a say over what happens to their communities and their surroundings". The Daily Mail picked up on the story with an article “We're no Lefties, rural charities tell top Tory” (8 August).

The antagonism between the Government and the National Trust & the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) developed (23 August) into accusations over which party is exhibiting the most "nihilistic selfishness'' in The Telegraph. The Telegraph followed up with a Leader (24 August ) 'When our green fields become battlefields': "There is deep concern that [the presumption in favour of sustainable development] will skew the system too much in favour of the developer, not to mention an obvious conflict with the Coalition's localist agenda of giving communities more power over their own affairs".

Newspaper coverage was sustained with an article in The Guardian (24 August) 'Planning policy exists to serve the public. Or it once did' by the Chief Executive of CPRE noting "The decentralisation minister is one of the most thoughtful members of the government and he took office with interesting ideas for reforming the planning system. But his proposals have been strongly criticised and now he is lashing out at critics rather than listening to them." The Telegraph carried 'Rural Britain prepares for the bulldozers' , the Western Daily Press the headline was 'Housing war of words hots up' and the Financial Times (subscription only) carried a number of letters on the topic including one commenting: "By making development the default option (the “sustainable” tag being a meaningless figleaf), the government is not only trashing the spirit of its own localism agenda but also provoking the issue of “who do you trust, the politicians or the National Trust?”. No prizes for who would win."

The Telegraph (26 August) carried a profiile of Minister Greg Clark in which he is quoted as saying: “If – and I don’t expect this to happen, certainly it would be very rare – if a council refused to provide any homes at all for the future of its people, that is clearly not a real plan. So they will be advised to have another go at it.” And a Financial  Times article 'A Question of Trust' (25 August subscription only) suggested that "Mr Clark needs to do two things. First, he must reveal how sustain­able development will be defined in practice. And if the government is not proposing to steamroller through projects by legal diktat, he should explain how it will encourage local authorities to build more."

A YouGov/Sunday Times poll (subscription only) has found that "people are evenly split over whether current planning laws are too relaxed or too restrictive – 23% think it is too easy to build, 20% too difficult, 33% that it is about right..... However, asked about the National Trust’s criticisms of the proposals, 44% back the NT and think the change will pose a risk to the countryside, compared to 25% who think the NT are exaggerating."

Alongside a letter from 23 Past Presidents of the RTPI, The Telegraph (1 Sept) carried an editorial "The Coalition is trying to railroad its national planning policy framework without debate". However, in The Times (subscription only) the departing Chief of the British Chambers of Commerce calls upon the Government to "hold its course" on planning reform. The letter was also noted by Channel 4 News and Radio 4.

The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) ( 1 Sept) has said the response of some groups to the reform of the planning system is ‘ill-informed’. A record of The Guardian’s live discussion ‘Can the NPPF work?’ is available on-line.

In keeping with its Hands off our Land Campaign The Telegraph ran an article (2 Sept) 'Planning reforms: blight of the builders' charter'. The Daily Mail also addressed the topic: 'Warning Over Rural Planning Shake-Up'.

The National Trust, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Friends of the Earth and The Telegraph has each launched a campaign to influence the outcome of the NPPF consultation. The Home Builders Federation (HBF) has also instigated a Member campaign with a Member briefing document on the NPPF that explains what the issues are and the implications of the various outcomes.

Chancellor George Osborne and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles wrote an article in the Financial Times (5 Sept) to the Financial Times (subscription only) to stress that the planning reforms in the proposed NPPF are key to the economic recovery and that the Government is not, as opponents allege, putting the countryside at risk. They argued that the current “failed” planning system puts young people’s future prosperity and quality of life in jeopardy and said they are determined to win the battle against the opponents of the reforms. Caroline Flint MP, Labour’s Shadow Communities and Local Government Minister, commenting on the article said: "The Tories have thrown the planning system into disarray, scrapping the existing system without alternatives in place, leaving industry and investors without the certainty they need. In doing so they have put growth at risk, hitting house builders and all the industries that depend on a healthy construction sector."

A leading article in The Independent (8 Sept) 'Only bold measures will stop a housing shortage turning into a crisis' suggested that "Behind the emotion is the fact that Britain does not have enough suitable homes". The Economist (10 Sept) carried 'Green & Pressured Land: the Row over Planning' which concluded that "From these new Nimby wars, green and pleasant England may not emerge as either". A Spectator Leader had (10 Sept) 'A Failure of Planning' that noted "Ministers should work with the planning system, not attempt to dismantle it".

Several new newspaper strands have emerged. Writing in The Guardian (8 Sept), George Monbiot argues that "The draft planning document is the most blatant product of corporate power that this government has yet produced". The following day (9 Sept) The Guardian revealed how "George Osborne and Eric Pickles are pushing for planning changes but oppose developments in their own constituencies". The Telegraph (9 Sept) revealed how "Property developers are paying thousands of pounds for access to senior Conservative MPs". And in the Sunday Telegraph (11 Sept) the story was "Coalition's push for localism is undermined by planning inspectors".

John Howell MP, the author of the Conservative Green Paper 'Open Source Planning', wrote a piece for The Guardian (12 Sept) saying that 'Our planning framework empowers communities, not developers'. On the same day The Telegraph reported that John Rhodes, a member of the Practitioners Advisory Group that produced an early draft of the NPPF, had said that local residents are not meant to be able to “resist” new developments under the Coalition’s planning reforms.

Simon Jenkins has returned to the planning issues in The Guardian (13 Sept) with 'Call this planning reform? It's a recipe for civil war' and Peter Hetherington joined in with “England not only needs to build more, it has to build better. The danger is that the government will unleash a free-for-all”. The Telegraph sustained its concern for the Green Belt (14 Sept): Green belt will have 'no protection' despite promises of ministers. Writing in Local Government Chronicle (subscription only) Tony Travers (LSE) notes: "Many of the government's policies are put forward in such a way that no one can predict their outcome. Rural lobbyists fear that if they give an inch, the government will take a mile."

In his speech to the Festival of Business (16 Sept) organised by The Telegraph, Chancellor George Osborne said: "Don’t underestimate our determination to win this argument [about the reform of the planning system]. That is part of our Plan for Growth and let us hear the loud and clear support of the business community for it". The support was forthcoming when The Times (19 Sept subscription only) carried a front page report that 22 business leaders had expresssed concern that Britain’s “creaking” planning system is driving investors away. On the same day (19 Sept) The Telegraph carried an article reporting that the Association of British Insurers (ABI) was worried that the draft National Planning Policy Framework could lead to a “rise in inappropriate developments” in flood risk areas. In a letter to The Times (21 Sept) George Dobry QC sought to put the record straight about the 'presumption in favour' in planning and defended the planning system.

The Prime Minister responded (21 Sept) to the concerns of the National Trust saying “I believe that sustainable development has environmental and social dimensions as well as an economic dimension, and we fully recognise the need for a balance between the three. Indeed, the purpose of the planning system as a whole, and of our proposals for it, is to achieve such a balance". On the same day The Times published a letter from the RTPI President calling for "a reasoned discussion of all the issues" (21 Sept subscription only).

Speaking to The Telegraph Minister (22 Sept) Greg Clark sought to clarfy: "The intention of the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not to provide a loophole where alien developments will be imposed on the community; rather the NPPF wants to replicate the kind of policies a reasonable local authority would put in place". He also conceded that “the presumption in favour of sustainable development requires sustainability to be there, to be guaranteed but we will listen (to the consultation).”

The National Trust (22 Sept) formalised a list of demands, calling for significant changes to the Government’s proposals for planning reform. HBF then issued (23 Sept) a document intended to address the points raised by the National Trust.

The latest in the wave of objections to the draft NPPF (23 Sept) has come from six environmental professional bodies. They have written a joint letter to Minister Greg Clark expressing their concerns that the Government has 'grossly misrepresented' the principle of sustainable development. The Telegraph (24 Sept) made a comprehensive rebuttal of the Chancellor's claims made at their Festival Conference: The Chancellor needs a proper debate on the National Planning Policy Framework. The Independent picked up on "Britain's best farmland will no longer be shielded from development" (26 Sept). And George Monbiot returned to the topic (27 Sept) suggesting that "The Wullies – build Whatever You Like, Wherever You Like – have their hand in the glove of government".

Labour Shadow Ministers are calling for the NPPF Consultation to be extended (27 Sept) and Jack Dromey went further, saying the framework will be a ‘recipe for conflict and chaos in the planning system’. Shadow Environment Secretary, Mary Creagh MP, set out a number of changes that Labour wants to see made to the draft NPPF.

DCLG and Ministers made a series of responses to newspaper articles in the week commencing 26 September:

The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) has expressed relief (30 Sept) that Minister Greg Clark has confirmed that the Government will not do away with the “current, forward thinking and sustainable policy of building on brownfield sites before open greenfield land”. Writing in The Telegraph (1 October) Geoffrey Lean suggested that David Cameron should note how existing planning laws have rejuvenated "the ailing northern city" of Manchester. And on 2 October, again in The Telegraph, Bill Bryson (President of CPRE) warned the Coalition against turning England into a suburban nation.

The Financial Times (3 October), reporting on the lead up to the Conservative Party Conference, noted that Conservative Minister, Francis Maude, had said that the National Trust was talking “bollocks” in opposing the Government’s mooted changes to planning law. The Telegraph responded with an article 'Planning critics deserve a more mature response: Francis Maude's outburst suggests the consultation on planning reform is a sham'.

Planning (3 October, free to RTPI Members or by subscription) reported that more than a dozen of the leading organisations lobbying Ministers for changes to the NPPF have held talks, arranged by the RTPI, to thrash out common ground. Speaking at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester, the Secretary of State insisted that the draft NPPF would protect the environment and greenbelt land, despite widespread fears to the contrary. The Chief Executive of the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) speaking at a fringe session of the Conference said much of the debate around the national planning policy framework is polarised. She said there is a need for a much more sophisticated debate around planning.

HBF (7 October) issued a 'Fact not Fiction' paper on brownfield land saying that the NPPF "already offers greater protection of land of environmental value than a brownfield first policy".

Even before the Consultation closed The Telegraph reported (12 October) that “Ministers have agreed to rewrite planning guidelines to ensure historic buildings and monuments are properly protected”.

Civic Voice has now joined the campaigning after their AGM (15 October).

Hank Dittmar of the Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment wrote a piece for the Sunday Telegraph (16 October) commenting: “the proposals are not perfect and three key points need to be addressed, which will help ‘balance the scales’. Firstly, NPPF allows the urban extensions of greenfield areas, ‘wherever they are more sustainable than brownfield extensions’. The Prince’s Foundation believes that this alone is not enough and further tests should be carried out to determine whether the proposed greenfield site is better connected and more accessible to the nearest town or village centre compared to the formerly developed site".  

 
Author:
Andrew Matheson
Publisher:
The Royal Town Planning Institute
Date:
27-Oct-11

This article has been read 382 times.