NPPF: To exist is to change
Robbie Calvert is the RTPI's Head of Policy and Public Affairs
This blog is part of a series of blog and news features on the NPPF. You can see related content below the blog.
Today marks the close of the draft National Planning Policy Framework consultation. Our rather long (yet equally compelling) response published last week reflected what a significant, complex and wide-ranging change was out for consideration. The long wrangling consultation document took the reader on a journey through almost every facet of the built environment and society more generally.
Now Government has the unenviable task of processing comments received, and turning around the final Framework with time of the essence. The tenacious and somewhat relentless pace of planning reform is certainly impressive. Such force exemplified with the set of commencement regulations laid before parliament last week, which included bringing into effect the new style 30-month local plan system. We believe more is to follow shortly.
And now, as we look forward to switching on the new system, this leads us through the always awkward and cumbersome process of transition. Indeed, given the ever-reforming approach to the planning system in recent decades it’s probably an element that doesn’t receive enough attention in terms of its macro impact, beyond the occasional nod to ‘uncertainty’ and its ever-faithful bedfellow ‘delay’.
To be fair, it is clearly something Government is spending a bit of time thinking about, with a few related questions peppered throughout the consultation document. And I think that’s the right approach because this time, it is slightly different - we have a bumper planning system transition edition on our hands. The aforementioned new local plan system, the much-heralded new tier of strategic planning, a set of new national decision-making policies covering new and unknown areas, and, lurking its confusing and resource intensive head in the back is our old friend, local government reform. All to occur at the relatively breakneck speed of a parliamentary term.
Indeed, in our planning reform roadshow that we undertook in January, it was certainly something the exercised many of the participants, notably and understandably amongst our local authority colleagues. If you did manage to make it through to Q193 for our response (firstly well done!), you’ll see a pretty chunky response from us around transition. This includes suggestions around developing an approach to examinations to allow hybridised LPs to come through which are at a late stage now, concerns around removal of Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs), and the nod to difficulties around synchronicity and reciprocity as the new spatial tiers of our plan-led system unfurl in a somewhat inevitably uneven manner across the nation.
So how can we avoid a regulatory car crash here? Well, we would argue that if the Government wants to get this right, the planning system would usefully benefit from a short-term injection of resource. This would include personnel, expertise, systems, skills and maybe some cold hard cash. A new national approach to decision-making should welcome a new national approach to training and skills. And regarding development plans we have proposed that Government could develop an offering akin to what we have through major applications through ATLAS. A central resource that could help support those complicated, specialist and knotty parts of the plan-making system, such as strategic greenbelt reviews or educational requirements, could go a long way to smoothing the ride ahead.
And whilst we understand the Government has its foot flat down on the pedal, we would recommend a quick pit stop. Let’s take some time and gather our collective aspirations for the final planning reform hurdle. Do it once, be decisive, but do it well (and then yes, leave it alone!) and we will all benefit for many years to come.
