Sustainable Development in the National Planning Policy ... › pa › cm201012 › cmselect ›...

HC 1480 Published on 1 December 2011

by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

£12.00

House of Commons

Environmental Audit Committee

Sustainable Development in the National Planning Policy Framework

Oral and written evidence

1 December 2011 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 9 November 2011

The Environmental Audit Committee

The Environmental Audit Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider to what extent the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development; to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Her Majesty’s Ministers; and to report thereon to the House.

Current membership

Joan Walley MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North) (Chair) Peter Aldous MP (Conservative, Waveney) Richard Benyon MP (Conservative, Newbury) [ex-officio] Neil Carmichael MP (Conservative, Stroud) Martin Caton MP (Labour, Gower) Katy Clark MP (Labour, North Ayrshire and Arran) Zac Goldsmith MP (Conservative, Richmond Park) Simon Kirby MP (Conservative, Brighton Kemptown) Mark Lazarowicz MP (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith) Caroline Lucas MP (Green, Brighton Pavilion) Ian Murray MP (Labour, Edinburgh South) Sheryll Murray MP (Conservative, South East Cornwall) Caroline Nokes MP (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North) Mr Mark Spencer MP (Conservative, Sherwood) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test) Simon Wright MP (Liberal Democrat, Norwich South)

Powers

The constitution and powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152A. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications

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/eacom. 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.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Simon Fiander (Clerk), Edward White (Second Clerk), Lee Nicholson (Committee Specialist), Andrew Wallace (Senior Committee Assistant), Jill Herring (Committee Assistant), Edward Bolton (Committee Support Assistant) and Nicholas Davies (Media Officer).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Environmental Audit Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6150; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

1

Contents

Page

Letter from Chair to Prime Minister 2

Letter from Chair to Chair of Communities and Local 3 Government Committee

List of witnesses who gave oral evidence 17 List of written evidence 17

2

Letter from Chair to Prime Minister

National Planning Policy Framework

Today, the Environmental Audit Committee agreed the results of its examination of the sustainable development aspects of the draft National Planning Policy Framework. These are annexed to a letter (copied) which we are sending to the Communities and Local Government Committee, for them to take on board in their own inquiry on the NPPF.

The Localism Bill, which completed its parliamentary stages earlier this week, does not include a definition of sustainable development that should be applied in the new planning regime. The NPPF itself, however, should now be revised to include a detailed definition, embedding the principles set out in the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy (as well as the earlier Brundtland definition), and indeed going further by specifying a need for environmental gain (rather than simply protection).

You wrote to the National Trust explaining that the Government’s proposals for the planning system were intended to achieve a balance between the three pillars of sustainable development. The NPPF as currently drafted does not bear out that balance, however, and the Committee considers that the final version will have to make it clearer that the drive for economic growth does not trump other sustainability requirements.

The current confusion about what the presumption in favour of sustainable development means in the NPPF places a premium on Local Plans being in place, to make it clear what sort of developments local authorities will approve. Proper transitional arrangements will need to be introduced alongside the finalised NPPF to allow local authorities to be ready to continue from day-one to be able to influence the sustainability of the development in their areas.

I hope you will continue to keep a close watching brief over the NPPF, to ensure that our Committee’s concerns are fully addressed.

9 November 2011

3

Letter from Chair to Chair of Communities and Local Government Committee


Our two committees announced linked but separate inquiries in late July on the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Your inquiry is examining whether the NPPF forms an adequate, clear and comprehensive framework of national planning policy. As we agreed, our inquiry has examined the extent to which the NPPF reflects sustainable development principles.

We took evidence on 12 October from the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the National Trust, the Town & Country Planning Association, Friends of the Earth, the Home Builders Federation and the British Property Federation, and CLG and Defra ministers Greg Clark MP and Richard Benyon MP. Since then, there has also been a debate on the NPPF in the House on 20 October, and the Localism Bill completed its parliamentary stages on 7 November.

The Annex to this letter, which has been agreed by the Committee, sets out our views on the sustainable development aspects of the draft NPPF, and includes recommendations that your Committee might consider when it produces its report. We have endeavoured not to duplicate the issues that you are covering.

I am copying this letter to Greg Clark and to the Prime Minister.

9 November 2011

4

Annex


1. The Environmental Audit Committee and the Communities & Local Government Committee have undertaken linked but separate inquiries on the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This Annex sets out the results of the EAC’s inquiry, which has examined the extent to which the NPPF reflects sustainable development principles.

2. We took evidence on 12 October from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), the National Trust, the Town & Country Planning Association (TCPA), Friends of the Earth, the Home Builders Federation (HBF) and the British Property Federation (BPF), and CLG and Defra ministers Greg Clark MP and Richard Benyon MP.

Risks to sustainable development in the NPPF

The components of sustainable development

3. The draft NPPF states that in setting out the Government’s economic, environmental and social planning policies, it articulates ‘the Government’s vision of sustainable development’, to be ‘interpreted and applied locally to meet local aspirations’.1 This vision needs to be clearly articulated because it will be used as a material consideration in planning decisions and might have to be tested in the courts.

4. As we discuss below, sustainable development comprises three pillars – economic, social and environmental. The draft NPPF states that:

These three components should be pursued in an integrated way, looking for solutions which deliver multiple goals. There is no necessary contradiction between increased levels of development and protecting and enhancing the environment, as long as development is planned and undertaken responsibly.2

On the other hand, it also states that:

... planning should proactively drive and support the development that this country needs. Every effort should be made to identify and meet the housing, business, and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Decision-takers at every level should assume that the default answer to

1 NPPF, para 4

2 NPPF, para 11

5

development proposals is “yes”, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in this Framework.3

5. The issue of the balance given to the three pillars of sustainable development is at the heart of the current public debate on the NPPF. Paragraph 8 of the document tells us to consider the document as a whole, but paragraph 13 says ‘without growth, a sustainable future cannot be achieved’ and that ‘significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system’.

6. The National Trust believed that the NPPF conflated sustainable development with economic growth4:

It quotes Brundtland [see para 29 below], but then goes on to deny the spirit and principles of Brundtland throughout the document, using the green wash of sustainable development frequently, but then making it quite clear that the dice are extremely heavily loaded with regard to economic development.5

7. The CPRE believed that the NPPF is ‘unacceptably weighted towards economic growth; it seems at almost any cost’.6

8. The Government’s position is that there is no change in policy. In a letter to the National Trust, the Prime Minister said:

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.7

9. The decentralisation minister told us, similarly, that the purpose of the planning system was to balance economic, social and environmental aspects of development.8 He noted that ‘the economy has always been part of the definition of sustainability and we do need homes and jobs’, but that any appearance in the NPPF of giving greater weight to the economic pillar was ‘not intentional’.9

10. We recommend that the CLG Committee press the Government, in producing its revised version of the NPPF, to ensure that there is no potential for confusion about the equal importance of all three aspects of sustainable development. While local authorities ultimately have to consider what constitutes sustainable development in their area (paragraph 38), they need a NPPF which does not push them to regard economic dimension as predominant. This uncertainty in the

3 NPPF, para 19

4 Q 2 [NT] [references to Questions (Q) are to our oral evidence.]

5 Qq 2, 14

6 Qq 6, 28

7 Daily Telegraph website

8 Q 47

9 Q 56

6

current draft, and the specific risks to sustainable development we discuss next, could be reduced if there were a clear and sufficiently detailed definition of sustainable development. We discuss this later in this Annex.

Guidelines and standards for sustainable development

11. Much of the debate surrounding the NPPF, as illustrated in the evidence to our two committees, is that it incorporates a number of changes that might be seen to be encouraging less sustainable forms of development:

• Weakening of the protections for the greenbelt. The CPRE had obtained legal advice that the NPPF weakens local authorities’ ability to protect greenbelts.10 The Prime Minister wrote to the National Trust, however, that ‘our reforms will maintain protections for the greenbelt, for National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’.11 And the NPPF notes that local neighbourhood plans should be able to identify, for special protection, green areas of particular importance to them.12

• The removal in June 2010 of the housing density standard, a national indicative minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare. The density guideline was originally designed to reduce the loss of land to development and to make the provision of public transport and other services more readily viable, although we recognise that the aims of the standard have been interpreted in different ways in different areas.

• The removal of offices from the ‘town centre first’ policy. The town centre first policy was designed to create viable and vibrant town centres and reduce the amount of out or edge of town development, thus reducing the loss of greenfield land and reducing the need for travel and transport infrastructure. We heard of fears that a weakened town-centre-first (and brownfield-first) policy could lead to urban sprawl13 and an increase in car journeys.14

• The removal of the brownfield target in the March 2011 Budget. Previously, the target was that 60% of housing should be on previously developed land. This was designed both to protect greenfield sites and to guide development to locations

10 Q 30 [The NPPF changes the existing guidance on development on Green Belt form a ‘presumption against inappropriate development in the greenbelt’ to ‘[development] should not be approved except in various special circumstances’ (paragraph 142). A legal opinion, obtained by CPRE, sets out that this rephrasing may potentially remove the existing burden upon an applicant, established in case law, to demonstrate that special circumstances exist to justify any development on green belt land (http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/housing-and-planning/planning/item/download/1442)]. 11 Daily Telegraph website

12 NPPF, para 49

13 Q 19 [TCPA], Q 24 [CPRE]

14 Campaign for Better Transport written submission to CLG Committee

7

where infrastructure and services (including public transport) might already be available.

• The introduction of a requirement that local planning authorities should include an additional allocation of land for housing development of at least 20% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land for housing. The NPPF notes that: ‘Local communities through local and neighbourhood plans should be able to identify for special protection green areas of particular importance to them’.15 Witnesses were concerned nevertheless that the 20% margin could lead housing developers to opt first for the greenfield element of that enhanced supply over brownfield land.16

12. Of these changes to policy in the NPPF that may adversely affect sustainability, the debate has mainly focussed on the greenbelt and the previous brownfield-first policy (which is of course closely linked to green space protection). Many organisations have expressed their concerns about the NPPF not including any clear reference to the previous brownfield-first policy. The NPPF speaks instead in terms of development on sites with least environmental or amenity value, ‘regardless of its previous or existing use’,17 and some witnesses had expressed a concern that that test might make agricultural land vulnerable to development.18

13. The decentralisation minister rejected any suggestion that the Government’s intention was no longer to see brownfield sites developed before greenfield sites.19 He highlighted that the NPPF introduces a requirement for local authorities to demonstrate that they are bringing forward land of lowest environmental value20 first, which he considered was more helpful terminology.21 Some brownfield sites – abandoned quarries for example – had become environmentally valuable, and the wording in the NPPF is designed to reflect that.22

14. The British Property Federation supported a brownfield-first policy, but the HBF saw the existing brownfield-first concept as ‘flawed’ because local authority plans had not made enough of such land available for development. They thought the NPPF, in giving development priority to sites according to least environmental value, was ‘a more sensible approach’ because it allowed ‘a more rounded balance of what works best in particular areas’.23 Our developer witnesses considered that particular local

15 NPPF, para 130

16 Eg. National Trust and CPRE written submissions to CLG Committee

17 NPPF, paras 19, 165

18 Eg. Q 29 [CPRE]

19 Q 69

20 NPPF, para 165

21 Qq 68, 69

22 HC Deb 20 October 2011, cols 1082-3, 1167

23 Q 38 [HBF]

8

authorities could in any case apply a brownfield-first policy in their Local Plan, provided such land allocations were viable for development; they simply had to put it into their Plan to avoid the default of the NPPF being applied.24 The decentralisation minister told us that ‘some people ... have read more into the absence of the word brownfield than has been intended’ and indicated that the Government were considering ‘referencing’ the word in the final NPPF.25

15. We recommend that the revised NPPF clarifies that environmentally low-value brownfield development is encompassed by the term ‘lowest environmental value’, by for example referring to ‘brownfield’ development in the document, and that local authorities are advised that they may refer to brownfield development in their Local Plans.

Lack of Regional planning

16. The Government intend to initiate secondary legislation to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies as soon as possible after the Localism Bill receives Royal Assent.26 The TCPA highlighted the risks for sustainable development in a landscape without regional planning, not least to meet national and regional needs of food production, energy and climate change.27 They told us that when the regional strategies are revoked, local authorities’ plans will be open to challenge because they are based on evidence appropriate to the regional level, and local authorities were being told that they need not repeat policy that was contained in regional plans.28 The TCPA saw a need for the Government to set out a spatial vision for England that would deal with the broad implications of, for example, demographic change and climate change and help reconcile the often conflicting imperatives of localism and the national pro-growth agenda.29

17. With the Localism Bill, the TCPA argued that ‘we have voluntary strategic planning now’, making the duty to cooperate pivotal,30 and ‘without there being any regional planning now, the whole weight of responsibility of European directives and national legislation falls on [the] district authority’.31 The decentralisation minister told us that

24 Qq 39, 40 [BPF, HBF]

25 Q69

26 HC Deb 7 November 2011, col 125

27 Qq1, 4, 19

28 Q 31

29 TCPA written submission to CLG Committee

30 Qq 23, 28

31 Q 26

9

‘it will be a test of the soundness of any plan whether the duty to co-operate has been properly and fully discharged’.32

18. The HBF saw a need for ‘a similar discipline’ to the outgoing regional plans, but ‘with that came a responsibility to adopt a suitable local plan’.33 The minister emphasised that such local plans will have to be evidence-based, ‘not just on the basis of assertion’.34 He told us:

... by getting rid of the regional strategies, which, for example, imposed a housing number for each authority, we are giving a responsibility to the local council to make a fair-minded assessment, a rigorous assessment, of their housing need and then to say where it should take place. That is a shift in power but also a shift in responsibility, but I think it is right to do that.35

... some of the evidence has been almost kind of nostalgic for the regional approach

... We should be clear that we are not going back to that.36

19. The finalised NPPF should be more specific about how local authorities should address ‘regional’ and ‘larger than local’ sustainable development factors – including for example food resilience, energy, climate change and some waste-management functions – as well as how the aims of the Natural Environment White Paper for designating green spaces, Local Improvement Areas and wildlife corridors would be progressed. The finalised NPPF should also specify how a duty-to-cooperate on such issues, as well as on developments on the boundaries between local authorities, would operate and be enforced. It should also address how the cumulative impacts of local development decisions will be monitored and controlled. Uncertainties about all these areas require a level of detail that the short NPPF document has not provided, and will need to be set out in supplementary guidance.

Incomplete Local Plans

20. The NPPF is clear about the requirements of Local Plans under the new system:

At the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. Local planning authorities should plan positively for new development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible. Local planning authorities should:

32 Q 66

33 Q 33

34 Q 82

35 Q 70

36 Q 75

10

• prepare Local Plans on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, and with sufficient flexibility to respond to rapid shifts in demand or other economic changes;

• approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay; and

• grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date.

All of these policies should apply unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.37

21. As such, the NPPF has the potential to further strengthen the extent to which we have a plan-led system. The Minister thought that there had been ‘too little planning’ in the planning system, and ‘too much development control’.38 Through the Localism Bill the Government are abandoning the regional strategies and ‘advantaging local plan making’.39 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 introduced the new system of Local Plans seven years ago, but currently only just over 30% of authorities have had them approved.40 The minister emphasised that the NPPF sets out principles that will apply in the absence of an up-to-date plan.41 The TCPA believed that when the NPPF is published even existing Plans ‘will instantly be out of date’;42 a view which the Government rejects.

22. BPF, on the other hand, saw less threat to sustainable development in the NPPF, because Local Plans could ensure sustainability principles were addressed, and where the Plan was absent, silent or indeterminate the presumption to approve the development would still have to pass the test that it satisfied the guidance of the NPPF as a whole.43 For our developer witnesses, the most important aspect of the NPPF was that it would ‘create the right focus for positive plan making’.44 It would ‘absolutely reinforce the primacy of having a plan and a plan-led system’.45 In the past, the BPF

37 NPPF, para 14

38 Q 47

39 Ibid.

40 Q 33

41 Q 47

42 Q 31

43 BPF written submission to CLG Committee, para 15

44 Q 33

45 Ibid.

11

told us, some local authorities had failed to produce plans because ‘they have not actually wanted to face up to some of the real inherent difficulties in the system’.46

23. The minister assured us that before a final NPPF is published, before April 2012, the Government would set out transitional arrangements that ‘will not be to the detriment of any authority that is doing the right thing in putting its plan together’.47 He made a similar commitment to the House on 7 November.48

24. The currently drafted NPPF is unsatisfactory in that it clearly presents different messages to different audiences about what the presumption in favour of sustainable development actually means in practice. That uncertainty, unless rectified in the final version, places a premium on having Local Plans in place at the earliest opportunity, to clarify a local authority’s view of the sorts of sustainable development it will approve. There should be transitional arrangements which would provide a realistic timeframe for authorities to put Plans in place, and the Government should establish what resources local authorities will need to adapt their systems for the new regime. And during that transition, while such Plans are being formulated and approved, local authorities should be able to judge planning applications on the basis of any existing Plans potentially rendered ‘out of date’ by the NPPF and by the relevant legacy policies in the revoked Regional Strategies.

Need for a clear definition of sustainable development, and what it should cover

25. So far, in this Annex we have discussed the threats to sustainable development in the NPPF. Even if those risks are addressed, however, there will remain scope for continuing uncertainty about what constitutes sustainable developments unless the definition of sustainable development is clear and commonly shared. The NPPF provides a real opportunity to put in place a progressive definition of sustainable development.

26. In our report on sustainable development in the Localism Bill, we recommended that:

The Localism Bill must provide a statutory duty to apply the principles of sustainability in the planning system and other functions of local government. The Bill must also provide a commitment to define the term ‘sustainable development’ in the planning context. An essential prerequisite of such a commitment will be to include in the Bill the five internationally recognised principles of sustainable development as set out in the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy. A fuller

46 Q 36 [BPF]

47 Q 62. See also HC Deb 20 October 2011 col 1085

48 HC Deb 7 November, col 125

12

explanation of what sustainable development means in the planning context should then be developed for the National Planning Policy Framework.49

27. The Government response to our report was received on 12 August 2011, after the Localism Bill was sent to the Lords. It indicated that the principles called for by the Committee would be adopted in the NPPF, rather than included in the Localism Bill. Amendments to include a definition of sustainable development during the passage of the Bill were not successful.50

28. Paragraph 9 of the draft NPPF defines sustainable development as:

... development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It is central to the economic, environmental and social success of the country and is the core principle underpinning planning. Simply stated, the principle recognises the importance of ensuring that all people should be able to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, both now and in the future.

29. This definition reflects that used in the 1987 report from the UN World Commission on Environment and Development – the ‘Brundtland Report’. Several groups have told our committees that the Brundtland definition is insufficient and that thinking on sustainable development has moved on. They wanted to see reference to the sustainable development principles set out in the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy, and perhaps also Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) which reflects similar considerations.51 In the nearly quarter of a century since the Brundtland definition was drafted, sustainable development is no longer just inter-generational – important as that is – but is inter-community, addressing social justice.

30. The aims for sustainable development set out in its 2005 Strategy were: living within environmental limits; ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; achieving a sustainable economy; using sound science responsibly; and promoting good governance. The Strategy states that these aims should be pursued in an integrated way through a sustainable, innovative and productive economy that delivers high levels of employment, and a just society that promotes social inclusion, sustainable communities and personal well being, in ways that protect and enhance the physical environment and optimise resource and energy use.

31. PPS1 refers to the Strategy, identifying four aims for sustainable development: social progress which recognises the needs of everyone; effective protection of the environment; the prudent use of natural resources; and the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment. It continues:

49 Third Report, Session 2010-12, HC 799, para 10

50 Including most recently on 7 November.

51 Eg. CPRE, TCPA, National Trust and House Builders Association written submissions to CLG Committee

13

These aims should be pursued in an integrated way through a sustainable, innovative and productive economy that delivers high levels of employment, and a just society that promotes social inclusion, sustainable communities and personal well being, in ways that protect and enhance the physical environment and optimise resource and energy use.52

32. The Government’s ‘vision’ for sustainable development, published in Defra’s February 2011 Mainstreaming Sustainable Development, builds on the principles that underpinned the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy.53 However, the NPPF does not incorporate this post-Brundtland view of sustainable development. As the TCPA put it:

[The NPPF] ignores the very valuable learning and knowledge which underpinned the ambition of the 2005 [Sustainable Development] Strategy. The reference to the Brundtland definition in paragraph 9 of the draft NPPF does capture the notion of protecting the interests of future generations but it does not provide a detailed mechanism for its implementation which is contained in the Sustainable Development Strategy. For example, one of the key bridging concepts between Brundtland and practical delivery was the notion of ‘living within environmental limits’. The draft NPPF contains no reference to this foundational aspect of sustainable development. Neither is there any content on social justice or equality which featured heavily in the existing PPS 1. The net result is that the draft NPPF does not contain a recognised or comprehensive definition of sustainable development and does not appear to have the operational principles necessary for its delivery. This is a crucial concern because the new test of whether a development is ‘sustainable’ in relation to the presumption in favour of sustainable development is now to be solely the NPPF which itself re-defines sustainable development as largely economic growth.54

33. The minister told us that he had used the Brundtland definition because it was already subsumed in legislation (the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act) and that it ‘seems to us to have stood the test of time’.55 The minister posed the question: ‘whether it is best to have on the face of the guidance the core definition or whether to refer to one of the more recent expansions of it’.56

34. But there is scope to go further. Thinking on sustainable development is increasingly considering it in terms of the economy and society having to operate within environmental limits, rather than balancing three equally-weighted pillars.57 Ministers correctly noted that ‘thinking may have evolved’, and that ‘it is not a

52 PPS 1, Delivering Sustainable Development, 2005, para 4

53 EAC, Fourth Report, Session 2010-12, HC 877, para 7

54 TCPA written submission to CLG Committee

55 Q 51

56 Ibid.

57 Qq 1, 17

14

question of balancing harm to the environment against benefit to the economy’.58 The Government’s Natural Environment White Paper goes beyond the thinking in the 2005 Strategy, the decentralisation minister told us, not just being about avoiding breaching environmental limits but, more ambitiously, seeking a ‘net gain to the environment’. He made a similar point in the debate on 7 November.59 He told us that he would not want to set down a definition of sustainable development that was less ambitious than the Natural Environment White Paper.60 Developments should not follow ‘a miserablist view’ of seeking least damage,61 but ‘ought to take the opportunity to improve the environment’.62

35. We welcome that ministers have been consulting, across departments, about the sustainable development agenda and how that might be defined and applied in the planning context.63 The NPPF reflects that to a degree, but it could go further. To respond to the question the minister posed, the NPPF should embrace a wider definition of sustainable development than just the Brundtland definition. It should include or refer explicitly to the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy and PPS 1, as we describe above. But it should go further still, and reflect the primacy of environmental limits, couched more firmly in terms of seeking environmental improvement. By doing so, it would encourage local authorities to include in their Local Plans a requirement for some types of development to include environmental gain. The final version of the NPPF, subsuming such more helpful references, should also be signed-off not just by CLG but also the ministers of other key departments with a sustainable planning agenda – Defra, DfT, BIS, DECC, Cabinet Office, DCMS and Treasury.

36. Insufficiently directed local decision-making might risk sub-optimal sustainable development. CPRE, while supporting localism, did not see that necessitating the planning framework ‘abrogating any responsibility for directing local decisions’, over for example the brownfield-first policy.64

37. The minister told us that the NPPF is ‘guidance’ rather than a change in law (and therefore no strategic environmental assessment was undertaken on the NPPF).65 As such, the NPPF does not require new legislation to be implemented. Some of our witnesses nevertheless favoured defining sustainable development in the Localism Bill.66 The TCPA believed that ‘without that key lodestone at the very heart of the

58 Qq 52, 53

59 HC Deb 7 November 2011, col 123

60 Q 52. See also HC Deb 20 October 2011 col 1085

61 Q 60

62 Q 57

63 Q 61

64 Q 18

65 Qq76-78

66 Q 3 [Friends of the Earth, TCPA]

15

planning system, there will be a confusion about what we are trying to achieve in spatial planning in England’.67 In the event, the Bill has not included a definition of sustainable definition. However, even putting it in the NPPF and any associated more detailed guidance would help ensure that the planning process fully considers sustainable development.

38. Local decision-making is, in itself, very much part of the sustainable development architecture (the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy explicitly addressed the need for strong communities and social cohesion). A detailed definition of sustainable development cannot, and should not, in itself dictate a particular development outcome. Sustainable development solutions are location specific, interpreted for the particular circumstances of individual local authorities and communities.68 The BPF saw a need for the NPPF to leave it to local areas to decide which pillars of sustainable development should take precedence, and in some areas that might be designating land for ‘employment’ purposes.69 The Local Government Group wanted planning authorities to have room to make decisions based on locally determined sustainable development priorities, which would be ‘important to the long term success and sustainability of places and to making development acceptable to local communities’.70

39. There are advantages in a definition of sustainable development and its principles being spelt out, to bring greater clarity about the purpose of planning and to help ensure that the planning process continues over the long term to address all aspects of sustainable development. A definition of sustainable development in the NPPF ‘guidance’ that captures the fundamental principles in the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy and PPS 1 (as we describe above) would help achieve that. With such greater clarity, local authorities will be able to interpret sustainable development for the circumstances of their particular areas.

Conclusions

40. As a result of our inquiry, we would support recommendations by the CLG Committee that the finalised NPPF is revised: • to ensure that there is no potential for confusion about the importance of all

aspects of sustainable development, so that local authorities can be in no doubt that the economic dimension is not predominant.

• to clarify that environmentally low-value brownfield development forms part of land of ‘least environmental value’.

67 Q 4

68 Q 4 [CPRE]; Q 7 [National Trust]

69 Q 34

70 Local Government Group written submission to CLG Committee

16

• to be more specific about how local authorities should address ‘regional’ sustainable development factors – including food resilience, energy, climate change and waste-management – and about how a duty-to-cooperate on such issues would operate and be enforced.

• to embrace a wider definition of sustainable development than just the Brundtland definition, to include or refer explicitly to the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy and PPS 1, but also to reflect the primacy of environmental limits couched more firmly in terms of seeking environmental improvement.

41. The uncertainties in the currently drafted NPPF, unless rectified in the final version, place a premium on local authorities having Local Plans in place at the earliest opportunity. Transitional arrangements are needed to provide a realistic timescale for authorities to put Plans in place, and the Government should establish what resources local authorities will need to adapt their systems for the new regime. And during that transition, while such Plans are being formulated and approved, local authorities should be able to judge planning applications on the basis of any existing Plans and by the legacy policies in the revoked Regional Strategies. Furthermore, the scale of change needed to the document suggests to us a need for a further round of public consultation once an improved draft is produced by the Government. The House should also be given an opportunity to vote on the NPPF.

17

List of witnesses

Wednesday 12 October 2011 Page

Neil Sinden, Director of Policy and Campaigns, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Peter Nixon, Director of Conservation, National Trust, Dr Hugh Ellis, Chief Planner, Town and Country Planning Association, and Naomi Lunde-Thompson Planning and Policy Adviser, Friends of the Earth, John Slaughter, Director of External Affairs, Home Builders Federation, and Liz Peace, CEO, British Property Foundation, Rt Hon Greg Clark, MP, Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government and Richard Benyon, MP, Minister, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Ev 1

List of written evidence

The following written evidence was submitted to the Environmental Audit Committee.

Other evidence, not printed here, was submitted to the Communities and Local

Government Committee and will be published by that Committee.

1 Community and Regional Planning Services Ev 27

2 National Trust Ev 28

3 Neil Blackshaw, Epplanning Ev 31

4 Anglian Water Services Limited Ev 35

5 CHILDREN with CANCER UK Ev 37

6 RSPB Ev 38

7 Royal Town Planning Institute Ev 41

8 Renewable UK Ev 45

9 Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Minister, Department for Communities and Local Ev 47

Government

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [17-11-2011 09:48] Job: 016527 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/016527/016527_o001_th_HC 1480-i.xml

Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidenceTaken before the Environmental Audit Committee

on Wednesday 12 October 2011

Members present:

Joan Walley (Chair)

Peter AldousNeil CarmichaelMartin CatonZac GoldsmithSimon KirbyMark Lazarowicz

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Neil Sinden, Director of Policy and Campaigns, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Peter Nixon,Director of Conservation, National Trust, Dr Hugh Ellis, Chief Planner, Town & Country PlanningAssociation, and Naomi Luhde-Thompson, Planning and Policy Advisor, Friends of the Earth, gave evidence

Q1 Chair: A very warm welcome on behalf of theEnvironmental Audit Select Committee to all of youthis afternoon. We believe that this is an importantinquiry. We have a marathon session ahead of usbecause we are interviewing a series of differentwitnesses. We are working on the basis that we willbe making a report to the DCLG Select Committee,and we are also absolutely committed to seeingthrough our witness evidence sessions this afternoon,and how our proceedings today through Parliamentcan influence this agenda. So we are grateful to youfor coming along, and I think to get us going, it wouldbe helpful if each of you could perhaps just brieflyintroduce yourselves and your organisation and in nomore than two sentences, just put out your basicposition so that we can perhaps understand where theland lies in terms of the concerns that you have. Soperhaps if I can start with you, Mr Sinden.Neil Sinden: Thank you very much. I am Neil Sinden.I am Policy and Campaigns Director at the Campaignto Protect Rural England, and very briefly, we areseriously concerned that, as currently drafted, theNational Planning Policy Framework will reduce ourability to make best and most effective use of ourprecious land resource, with negative consequencesfor the countryside, but also urban areas in terms ofreducing investment in urban regeneration.Chair: Thank you. Mr Nixon.Peter Nixon: Peter Nixon, National Trust, and ourprincipal concern is the lack of clarity aboutsustainable development and the interpretation in thedocument, the presumption that flows from that andthe very worrying impact that that will have,particularly on the two-thirds of England that is notdesignated.Chair: Thank you.Dr Ellis: I am Hugh Ellis, Chief Planner at TCPA,and the TCPA has a 110-year history of trying to buildhigh-quality sustainable places in England. Ourconcerns I think I share with the previous twospeakers. There is a lack of vision for England, whichis critical, a lack of a clear definition of sustainable

Caroline LucasSheryll MurrayCaroline NokesMr Mark SpencerDr Alan WhiteheadSimon Wright

development and a lack of proper planning principlesthat are workable and deliverable.Chair: Thank you, and Ms Luhde-Thompson.Naomi Luhde-Thompson: Hello. My name is NaomiLuhde-Thompson. I am a planning and policy advisorat Friends of the Earth. Friends of the Earth hasalways supported the planning system in the UK andwe work with a lot of community groups on planningissues. Our big concerns about the National PlanningPolicy Framework are that it fails to recogniseenvironmental limits as a key principle of sustainabledevelopment, that the document itself is veryconfusing, that it contradicts itself and it does not, asa whole, set out a clear path for development in orderfor it to be sustainable.

Q2 Chair: Thank you very much for that. I think thattakes us straight on to our first question, which is howwell you think the draft planning framework doesmeasure up in delivering sustainable development.Peter Nixon: Not very well at all, because sustainabledevelopment within the document throughout is so ill-defined and confused and conflated, confused witheconomic development and growth, and given that thedocument describes it as the golden thread that runsthroughout, that leaves us in a very, very seriousposition, that lack of clarity. It does not relate to theneed to look at the five principles of sustainabledevelopment that are embodied in the sustainabledevelopment strategy of 2005. It quotes Brundtland,but then goes on to deny the spirit and principles ofBrundtland throughout the document, using the greenwash of sustainable development frequently, but thenmaking it quite clear that the dice are extremelyheavily loaded with regard to economic development.It doesn’t cover spatial land use and recognise theenvironmental limits position, one of the keyprinciples of sustainable development, that land in thiscountry, where we have the densest population inEurope by a long way, has been managed through theplanning system to both protect the quality of landand provide for economic growth and social needs. Inthe future, if we have this proposed system, what will

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [17-11-2011 09:48] Job: 016527 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/016527/016527_o001_th_HC 1480-i.xml

Ev 2 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence

12 October 2011 Neil Sinden, Peter Nixon, Dr Hugh Ellis and Naomi Luhde-Thompson

the country look like? Either it could look like Greece,the West Coast of Ireland, Spain or Portugal, and wecould debate how their economy is doing, if you aresaying it is an impediment to economic growth, orthere could be stasis because it is so complicated, fullof so much legal uncertainty that we end up withplanning by appeal and by court rather than anydelegation to a local level, which is what is intended.Neil Sinden: Could I just say, I agree with all of that,and the only thing I would add is that it takes usbackwards. We have had sustainable developmentwithin the planning system for almost 20 years now.The way in which it has been interpreted as a concept,and the way in which it has been applied on theground has evolved, as Peter has indicated. In the2004 Act, we saw statutory recognition for the role ofplanning and contributing towards sustainabledevelopment, and in the 2005 Government strategy,we saw the five principles which Peter referred to setout. Our reading of the draft NPPF is that it takes usback to a situation pre-1991 and will fail to meet thechallenges that we face in terms of delivering thedevelopment the nation needs in the best locations andin ways which deliver not just economic, but alsosocial and environmental benefit.Chair: Do you wish to add to that?Naomi Luhde-Thompson: Yes, I just wanted to makea quick point on the clarity of the definition. Thereason that this is so important is, that unless you haveclarity and consistency in the definition, there is goingto be a lot of argument about how to interpret it. Oneof the things that the National Planning PolicyFramework does is it talks about a sustainableeconomy, sustainable growth as if this is sustainabledevelopment and it is just incredibly confusing. Whatthis will result in is in every local plan, in policydevelopment and in the approval of developmentapplications, people will take different interpretationsof sustainable development, and this is just going tolead to delay and confusion. So what you want is avery, very clear legal definition that does two things,it recognises environmental limits—

Q3 Chair: Sorry, can I just interrupt? You think thatclear definition should be on the face of legislation?Naomi Luhde-Thompson: Yes. This afternoon I thinkit is in front of the Lords and a clear definition inlegislation has the advantage that it is a very clearposition and it is not one that can be changed byanother document that comes out or, for instance, asis happening at the moment, some applications arereferring to the Plan for Growth. So if you had a clearlegal definition, I think that would give the clarity thateverybody needs in order to move forward and toapprove sustainable development.Dr Ellis: Could I just add quickly, I fully support theneed for a legal definition on the face of the Bill. Infact, planning legislation when it began did have sucha legal duty and purpose and New Zealand legislationfor planning has a similar purpose. But I did want tosay something very positive about sustainabledevelopment. If this nation goes forward in a positiveway, in a low-carbon way, it needs a profoundlypowerful definition of sustainable development toshape that, and we can deliver it on the ground, we

are delivering it on the ground and planning is movingin that direction. But if we weaken that definition, allsorts of industries related to low carbon, the need tobuild housing at very high environmental standardsfor those in social housing need will be lost, becausethe principle is not clearly reflected in the policy.

Q4 Chair: What would you say to those people whowould say if you have a definition on the face of theBill, it is not the right thing to do because thingschange, times change and it will be out of date veryquickly. Seeking the clarity that you say is needed,how would you perhaps make the case that you canhave clarity in that way?Dr Ellis: Because, like any other duty that is instatutory legislation, there is a big picture principleestablished and then plenty of operationalinterpretation through policy into how it is deliveredon the ground, and that is always the case—whetherwe like it or not actually, as practitioners—but withoutthat key loadstone at the very heart of the planningsystem, there will be a confusion about what we aretrying to achieve in spatial planning in England. Wecannot afford, particularly in relation to climatechange and demographics, confusion about what thepurpose and direction of planning is.Neil Sinden: I was going to say CPRE actuallysupports statutory recognition, but I think if theGovernment is unprepared to accept that on the faceof the Bill, it is absolutely critical that the NationalPlanning Policy Framework in its revised form setsout very clearly the five key principles that underpinthe 2005 strategy. It should at the same time allow forthe interpretation of those principles to be adapted bylocal planning authorities in the light of localcircumstances on the ground, because one thing isvery clear, one cannot point to sustainabledevelopment and say, “There it is, go and get it”, butone can actually drive towards it, taking account oflocal circumstances and ensuring that we are, as I say,getting the right development in the right places.Naomi Luhde-Thompson: Just a quick point onenvironmental limits, I don’t think it is a policyconcept that is only around for the next three years. Itis a fundamental concept to living within our limitsand accepting that the island of Great Britain is acertain size. That is a limit, and I think that we mustunderstand that, it is not a policy that is going tochange, it is a fundamental principle.

Q5 Chair: You have all stressed the importance ofhaving clarity in terms of definition. Could you justperhaps give some idea of problems which mightresult from a woolly definition in practical terms?Dr Ellis: Well, there is a range. The planning processhas been through pieces of history before where therehas been lack of definition. One clear example of thatwas in the late 1980s, where there was significantderegulation around Circular 1485 and the purpose ofplanning became less clear, the plan-led system wasdevalued and you had almost complete stasis as aresult of a lack of an idea about what the spatialplanning system was for. But the potential for legalchallenge and the potential for appeal, an appeal isreally the critical issue, about what sustainable

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [17-11-2011 09:48] Job: 016527 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/016527/016527_o001_th_HC 1480-i.xml



development might mean in any particular situation isabsolutely critical. Now, you will always get some ofthat, but the more you leave open and unclarifiedabout the purpose, the more room for challenge therewill be, and it is absolutely critical that nobodybenefits from a system which is mired in legalchallenge and appeal, least of all communities.

Q6 Chair: The policy framework says that itsguidance should be taken as a whole and I justwondered what your views are about the consistencyof the message that is there in the draft proposal andwhat the implications of that are.Neil Sinden: Can I say, absolutely we recognise thatthat is what the draft framework says from time totime throughout the document. Unfortunately, as awhole, it does not add up to a very coherent statementabout the way in which we should be prioritising theuse of land in this country. As Naomi said, land is acrucial environmental limit. Environmental qualitiesattached to land, whether it is developed orundeveloped, are crucial to our quality of life and tothe concept of sustainable development. But I wouldsay that the definition of sustainable development, andgetting that right, learning from the history of the last20 or so years of actually defining what that meansand how it should be operationalised throughdecision-making processes from national through tolocal level, is simply a starting point. It needs to bereinforced by a whole host of other amendments andchanges throughout the draft framework which pointto how local planning authorities should be puttingthat core definition, that sets of principles into practiceon the ground. At the moment, the document isunacceptably weighted towards economic growth; itseems at almost any cost.

Q7 Chair: Do you think that is because someonesomewhere in Government does not get thesustainable development agenda, or do you think it isbecause there is a genuine belief that this is the rightway of delivering sustainable development?Neil Sinden: I think it is more the former. Thisdocument bears all the hallmarks of one that wasrushed out, even though it wasn’t issued before thesummer recess. It seems not enough time was givento it in terms of the detailed wording within CLG. Iwould argue that you can read the document and youcan almost identify very starkly which departmentshave contributed which sections to which paragraphsas you read through the document. The idea ofsignificant weight being attached to economic growthis like a mantra, a neurotic mantra that appearsthroughout the document. I think it demonstrates thatthe Government as a whole has not been clear abouthow it wants the planning system to define sustainabledevelopment and how that concept should be pursuedthrough the planning system.Peter Nixon: In practice, with regard to the fiveprinciples as from 2005, or however they choose tobe determined, we shouldn’t strive for perfection interms of having something that will give completeclarity to absolutely every decision. They have to betranslated in practice on the ground and through theplanning process. That is perfectly possible, I would

argue, from our own experience in the National Trust.We are in the process of developing around 1,000houses, either in process or with planning consent,where we have applied those broad principles topractical application, gone through the differentprocesses and come up with something that we thinkis perfectly right and appropriate. So it is capable ofbeing done.

Q8 Zac Goldsmith: Just very briefly, I know that youhave been having discussions with the CLG; I knowat least the CPRE and the National Trust have. Canyou tell us whether or not, in your view, theGovernment seems to be moving towards a positionof compromising on this issue of definingsustainability? Is that an area do you think that—Peter Nixon: We have had a letter from the PrimeMinister to our Director General confirming hiscommitment to the conservation of the countryside,and beyond that, critically important, that the purposeof the planning system is to apply a balancedapproach. If that is delivered—and that is a big if—tochanges to the NPPF, then my answer to you wouldbe yes, we are being listened to, but there is still someway to go.

Q9 Zac Goldsmith: Can I follow that up briefly? Ifthat were to happen then, if sustainable developmentwere to be clearly defined, perhaps not on the face ofthe Bill, but in the planning framework, how far willthat go towards alleviating or addressing the concernsof your members? How big an issue is it?Peter Nixon: Yes, it is a very big issue. It is the startpoint, but it is not the only point. Then the way inwhich sustainable development, once defined, isapplied, is critical. There are a whole series of issuesrelating to the presumption with regard to saying yes,and in terms of economic growth being stimulatedwhich we don’t believe is right. We believe thepresumption should be to follow a plan-led processwhich gives genuine power to local people, and thereare a number of other key aspects as well. But it is avery, very important plank and the first one.Neil Sinden: Just to add to that, in terms of variousdiscussions with CLG and Ministers, we are reassuredthat there seems to be more of an appetite to listen tothe concerns that we are raising, not just in relation tothe definition of sustainability, but also in relation tothe four or five other key points that we are makingabout the way in which the framework does not giveenough of a steer towards the way in which landshould be used. But there are high stakes here. Wehave been calling for the Government to publish arevised draft for public consultation before a finalversion is issued. We have such a poor document inour estimation at the moment that it is very difficultto see how the Government is going to move fromwhere we are now to a final version that is going tobe acceptable, not just to National Trust members butto CPRE and a whole host of other organisations,without there being further scrutiny in public of theway in which the drafting is evolving.

Q10 Zac Goldsmith: I am just going to add onemore question to that. Is it your view, just speaking




very crudely, that the document as it stands can beedited to such an extent that it becomes a force forgood rather than bad, or is it fundamentally flawed, inyour view?Chair: I will ask each of you to answer that, yes orno.Neil Sinden: I think it is possible. I think it is a jobthat CPRE has started and we have been working inpartnership with the National Trust and others onredrafting sections of the document. We are alsoreaching out to other organisations, perhaps on theother side of the debate, those representing thedevelopment industry. I know you are seeingrepresentatives of the British Property Federation lateron, and we are quite encouraged at how muchcommon ground there is with some players in thedevelopment sector about how the document can beimproved. My sense is that it is a big redrafting job,and that is why I come back to my comment that weneed to see a revised draft for consultation before afinal document is issued.Peter Nixon: Yes, I do believe so, because theaspirations as expressed in terms of what it is tryingto achieve we would support. It is actually the detail,really important detail within the document that thendenies the ability to achieve this—not just denies theability, but makes matters worse.Dr Ellis: Yes, indeed we have submitted a trackedchange version to CLG which hopefully forensicallyputs a proper definition of SD, provides legal clarityand objective around the presumption. In that sense,the document can be made to be workable, but it isimportant, particularly from our point of view, thatthere is a huge missing agenda in the NPPF that can’tbe fixed, and that it offers no vision for England anddoes not recognise or have spatial awareness thatEngland is a different place with different spatialneeds and it doesn’t reflect, for example, the work oftwo Royal Commissions and the Foresight Report onthe demands of food security, energy security ordemographics or climate change. How is it possiblefor us to be considering a document for the next 40years for England that does not take on board thosecritical environmental and social challenges?Naomi Luhde-Thompson: I would agree with Dr Ellisentirely, and I think that the other issue is that you canrewrite the document, but the way the document wasdrafted, it was not just a condensation of the best partsand the most effective parts of the existing planningpolicy, it was a rewrite, so there are lots of newpolicies in here which will have to be tried and testedthrough the system. So that is an issue if you aretrying to go through tracked changes: do you put backin existing policies that worked very well, and howdo you do that? There has also been a lot of detailloss, which is really, really important detail, reallyimportant safeguards, and you would want to put thatdetail back in. You would have to probably extend itslightly; I think the 50 pages is a slightly artificialconstruct, to try and reduce it from 1,000 to 50. I thinkyou need to talk about the quality of the policy, thedetail that you need, and I think there is also a veryvalid argument for having technical advice notesspecifically for developers and local authorityplanners so that they have that extra information that

they need, and that sits alongside. At this point, Iwould probably recommend that something similar toWales, where there is a system of the Wales SpatialPlan, Planning Policy Wales and then you havetechnical advice notes, and that system might providea few pointers for something that might work better.

Q11 Chair: It occurs to me that there is something ofa precedent with the way in which the Climate ChangeCommittee provides its advice to Parliament and thenthe Government decides whether or notrecommendations should be accepted or not, and if so,then put into legislation or into regulation. Might thatbe, given the shortcomings that you talk about in theway in which the whole thing is being envisioned,designed and then produced, some parallel way ofbringing something which meets the objectives thatyou have?Neil Sinden: I think the Climate Committee has aparticularly focused job to do which isn’t quitecomparable to the job that the National PlanningPolicy Framework has to do, but I do think there ismerit in your suggestion in a couple of directions. Oneis clearly that we want Parliament, Members ofParliament to be debating and voting on a draft NPPF,and I think, beyond that, the idea of having some kindof standing committee which is monitoring andoverseeing the implementation of the framework,flagging up issues and problems that have emerged interms of local interpretation, unforeseen consequencesand so on is something worth looking at.Dr Ellis: Can I just add, I think it is absolutely criticalbecause there were two bodies that more thananything else were the intellectual head of spatialplanning. One was the Royal Commission onEnvironment Pollution that published three criticallyimportant reports on spatial planning, none of whichwere fully implemented—

Q12 Chair: Which is now no longer here?Dr Ellis: Which is abolished, and the other one is theSustainable Development Commission.Chair: Which is now no longer here.Dr Ellis: I urge everyone to consider how much easierthis debate would be if you could bring before youthe Sustainable Development Commission to give youevidence about the definition of sustainabledevelopment.Naomi Luhde-Thompson: I think the evidence pointis crucial, because you need a lot more time to gatherthe evidence of good outcomes from a planningsystem in order to inform your policy development.Chair: I am about to move on, but I know that NeilCarmichael, Peter Aldous and Sheryll Murray want tocome in with quick questions. Neil.

Q13 Neil Carmichael: Can I just direct my questionto Mr Nixon, because I read your written submissionto this Committee, and I noted that you recognisedthat things have moved on in the definition ofsustainable development and you hint that the 2005definition would be better than what is in the NPPF.So could you tell us what you think is a robustdefinition of sustainable development which would




meet the requirements of clarity and help us in termsof legality as well?Peter Nixon: Well, I think the principles expressed in2005 are absolutely right. There are five principles.The first three relate, if you like, to the what, andthose are what we all understand in terms of the threepillars, the three legs in terms of social, economic andenvironmental, and respecting those, and then thesecond two—the last two, rather—are how that shouldbe achieved in terms of social justice and means ofgovernance, and I think the key issue here is havingdefined it, and I think 2005 provides an absolutelyreasonable framework for that. It is the approach interms of saying, “When you are approaching aplanning decision, you deal with it on an even-handedbasis going into the consideration” not on the basis ofgiving any one of those three legs primacy.

Q14 Neil Carmichael: So you believe that the NPPFas it now currently stands does give one of those threelegs primacy?Peter Nixon: Absolutely; to the economic leg,absolutely unquestionably.

Q15 Peter Aldous: My question picks up from that.You say that, yet in paragraph 10 it sets out thosethree legs, and then in paragraph 11 it goes on to say,“These three component parts should be pursued in anintegrated way.”Peter Nixon: If only the rest of the documentfollowed through on that. It simply denies what it saysat the beginning. It is simply an oxymoron.

Q16 Chair: The consistency is not there?Peter Nixon: The consistency is not there, absolutely,so paragraph 14 and paragraph 19, which clearly givespreference to economic development, is a toolprincipally to stimulate economic growth and itconflates that with sustainable development.Chair: Sheryll now.Sheryll Murray: My question has been answered.

Q17 Caroline Lucas: Thank you very much. Just areflection really about one of the difficulties of whenyou define sustainable development as three pillars,there is always that risk that you are going to have atrade off between them. I would much prefer adefinition that had ecology as the complete circle andthen the economy as a subset, because we are talkingabout something that is finite, land, and so I justwanted to register—Peter Nixon: I would be very happy to give you—and we have previously submitted it—our vision forland, and I think the point that Hugh makes is soimportant, that there is a framework within which toconsider this, given that land is such a hugely valuableresource for this nation and the pressures upon itbecause of population and so on, and our vision issimply, “The UK will manage its land for the benefitof future generations, seeking to ensure that they canbuild strong, resilient communities that can make aliving, safeguard their natural resources and enhancetheir environment” and if you do not start from thatpoint and then flow from it, I think you have a real

problem, because you are dealing with segments andnot the whole.Neil Sinden: To follow on from that, where we haveseen, if you like, win/win solutions emerging from theconcept of sustainable development in relation to landuse over the past 15 or so years, is in relation to thepolicies of encouraging the reuse of previouslydeveloped land before greenfield sites are allocated.This policy was introduced in 1995 and has been, Ithink, remarkably successful in seeing increasingproportions of new housing being built on brownfieldland, and safeguarding, we estimate, something like—well, since 1995, something like 117 square miles ofcountryside from unnecessary development, and at thesame time it has actually encouraged investment inmany poor areas, urban areas which requiredreinvestment, where housing was desperately neededand where the infrastructure needed to be enhancedand increased. So one can get through the planningprocess by applying the concept of sustainability; win/win situations that are based on the idea that land is afinite resource and that we need to make best possibleuse of it.Now, CPRE would not say that there were noproblems at all with what we call the “brownfieldfirst” approach to housing. They can be addressedthrough slight revisions to policy, to recognise, forexample, that not all brownfield sites are inappropriate locations, to recognise also in somecircumstances that policy has led to inappropriatelyhigh-density development on back gardens, and torecognise that in some areas, such brownfield land hasacquired a wildlife value, a biodiversity value thatneeds to be safeguarded. But those are not problemsthat need to be dealt with by simply removing the“brownfield first” emphasis. They can be addressedby local planning authorities in the context of theirparticular local circumstances.Naomi Luhde-Thompson: On the trade-off point onthree pillars, my sense of it is that our economy andour society should operate within environmentallimits.Caroline Lucas: Exactly. I want a Venn diagram andso forth. That is not quite the right term, but anyway,I can see it graphically.

Q18 Mr Spencer: On some of those comments, itappears to me those decisions are best made at a locallevel, because the local knowledge is at that level, andthere seems to be a conflict in what you are saying, inthat you want to control things from Whitehall, butsome of these decisions seem to be better made bylocal councils.Neil Sinden: Can I come back on that? Absolutely,CPRE supports the localist agenda that theGovernment is pursuing in relation to planningreforms, but that should not mean that the nationalframework should abrogate any responsibility fordirecting local decisions in ways that safeguard one ofour most important environmental assets. That iswhere we are at at the moment. The nationalframework is far too loose in terms of ensuring thatthe decisions that need to be taken in terms of landuse on the ground are taken within the context of localcircumstances. So, you know, we are not arguing that




the national target for brownfield use for new housingshould be reinstated. We are arguing that the“brownfield first” policy emphasis and prioritisationshould be retained and that local authoritiesthemselves should be encouraged to adopt their ownlocal brownfield targets, reflecting their own localcircumstances.Chair: I think we might move on to brownfieldperhaps shortly, but can I just go back to CarolineLucas, please?

Q19 Caroline Lucas: Yes, that is on back of myreflection on the three pillars, but the question Iwanted to ask you to go back to first principles. TheGovernment appears to be saying that the reason thatwe have to have this wholesale reform of the planningsystem is because it is acting as a brake to economicgrowth. Irrespective of what one thinks about thedesirability or otherwise of economic growth, can yousay to what extent you think that analysis is right orwrong in the first place?Neil Sinden: I think the evidence that supposedlysupports that contention that planning is a barrier toeconomic growth is pretty limited and frankly quiteflaky, we would say. It doesn’t stand up to muchscrutiny. The actual evidence is plain to see, that 90%of all business and industrial applications areapproved through the planning system, that is CLGdata, and 86% of all applications of all kinds areapproved. There is already, if you like, to use a phrasethat we want to get struck out of the framework, adefault “yes” to development. So the idea thatplanning is a break on economic growth is one thatneeds to be subject to closer scrutiny.The other point I would make before handing on isthat that argument actually says nothing about theeconomic benefits that the planning system brings tothe nation in terms of promoting regeneration, the so-called agglomeration benefits of compact citizentowns, the way in which relatively dense urbandevelopment minimises demands on the public pursefor infrastructure provision and so on. All of thesebenefits, economic benefits, tend to be left out of theequation when discussion is taking place about theimpact of planning on the economy.Peter Nixon: Good planning absolutely doesn’tconstrain economic growth, to the contrary, as Neilhas said, and I don’t think any of us would be arguingthat changes are not needed to the planning system tosimplify it and make it less bureaucratic, but that isnot what is now being achieved. In term of thebenefits of good planning and good environmentalintegration and understanding the need for resilienceand to build that into the equation, all the evidence is,in the long run, good sustainable practice and goodcommercial practice coincide. If you take a very short-term view, you can of course mine or rape alandscape. You can’t harvest it. Sustainabledevelopment in very simple terms is about harvesting,and if we take a very short-term view, driven by aperceived economic imperative based on afundamentally wrong assumption about the planningsystem, we are not going to only be addressing thewrong problem, we are going to be creating otherproblems alongside it.

Dr Ellis: I must say, very quickly, that planning Ithink has made by far the biggest contribution toenvironmental sustainability in the post-war eraalmost than any other system of environmental andsocial regulation. It is an extraordinary system when itis well-used, but there is one very concrete example—because the evidence about why planning is anti-competitive comes from three sources, and is oftenpresented as being overwhelming, but in our view isextremely partial, but leaving that on one side—Iwould just ask people to consider: what happens toLiverpool if you undermine town centre first policy?Now, the critical issue about regeneration is planningis not a perfect system that can do everything, butLiverpool 1 does not happen if investors are notcertain that you believe in town centres and want tofocus development there. What is terrifying about theanalysis that planning is anti-competitive is it leads inthe NPPF to a weakening of town centre first policy,and that is only one example. There are otherexamples as well, and you end up then with theultimate nightmare. You know, we are not a nationthat can plan like the United States of America. Youcannot have a Detroit in Liverpool, and that is partlybecause we do not have the land for it, and the socialconsequences are just extraordinary.I think planning makes a very, very significantcontribution. It is on its knees though, bearing in mindplanning is 60% deregulated at development planlevel already. Regional plans were more than half ofthe framework, and although it is heresy, it has to besaid you cannot run England without strategicplanning. It has to be democratic, but it can’t be done:you cannot deliver on climate change and energywithout a level of strategic planning, so all of that willhave to be put back in place to deal with the shocksto the system resulting from climate change goingforward and other issues as well. But the planningsystem I would say had one major issue and that wascultural. That was what we should have addressed.People like me should have done better, plannersshould have been better, but the system itself is veryvalid.Naomi Luhde-Thompson: I just want to quickly addto that. There are a lot of community representativeshere listening to us today and I think a lot of themwould say that what they are experiencing is lots ofdevelopment happening but there is absolutely no waythat they feel they can influence or stop it, and it isnot necessarily doing their high streets in theircommunities any good at all in terms of jobs or placesto shop. So I think that is a really important point andI would agree with the points that were made by theothers. I think the thing about ‘economic drivers’ is itis so short term and it is so laden with risk. If youdon’t plan properly, if you don’t put your developmentin the right place, you are just storing up massive risksfor yourself—for example if you are building on aflood plain, the costs of that will grow in the future. Ithink it is astonishing that in considering economicdevelopment the inherent risks are not recognised.

Q20 Caroline Lucas: On something you said earlierabout the Welsh example, just talking about thenumbers, we have 1,000 pages or whatever the




Government says now of planning policy. They wantto make it down to 50. As I understand it, Wales andScotland have something nearer around 200. I knowwe can’t judge the quality on the basis of the quantity,but do you think there is more to be learnt about Walesand Scotland in terms of that?Naomi Luhde-Thompson: Yes, I think Wales hassome pretty good policies in there. Wales is obviouslydifferent to England and there are different needs, butI think that if you have clarity alongside brevity andif you have detail where it is required and you havesafeguards—so you need a detailed town centre firstpolicy in order for it to work, for example—it needsto be quite specific about limits and about whathappens and about tipping points. It is the same withclimate change, it is the same with affordable housing.You can’t be vague about it. You have to say, “It is aproportion”. It is the same with sustainable homes,you have to say, “There is a standard. This is whatthis standard looks like” and that is detail. So I thinkthat you can definitely make it work, and I think, yes,looking at Wales would be a good idea.

Q21 Sheryll Murray: I haven’t heard you mentionan awful lot about giving power back to the localpeople to make the decisions. You have all said youwant that to happen, but we already have the AONBs,we already have the SSSIs, and do we really need tohave a national policy that is prescriptive? Iunderstood that the reason for this framework is sothat we will see detail in the local development plansand the neighbourhood plans, and you don’t seem tohave taken account of that. Could I just have yourviews on whether you believe that it is the localpeople themselves who are best placed to make therules about their local area and, following on fromthat, whether you think therefore we don’t need to bequite as prescriptive on a one size fits all basis througha national framework?Peter Nixon: I think the local planning authority is anabsolutely essential layer, with democratically electedpeople at that level. I think the idea of a smallergeographical community-led basis of local input isright, but as any of you who have actually dealt onthe ground with these situations will know, there isno one homogenous community or one homogenousvoice. Those various voices need to be heard within aprocess to ensure that they are properly consideredin the context of whatever the national framework issetting. So I agree wholly with Neil, the principle thatyou have to have a framework to actually giveguidance about the things that need to be taken intoaccount and then at a local level, taking account oflocal circumstances, you will implement that. But Iwould say the local planning authority level isabsolutely critical in terms of the process ofdemocratic representation.Neil Sinden: I think we would be much morecomfortable with the Government’s emphasis onlocalism if the system were structurally more designedto enable the communities genuinely to have a sayover the development that takes place in their areas. Ithink we need a few years before we can see whetheror not neighbourhood planning, as it is being proposedby the Government, will help deliver that. But one of

the things we are very concerned about that we do nothave in the shape of a Localism Bill is an effectivelyrebalanced appeals process, which gives localcommunities limited rights to appeal againstdevelopment that goes against an agreed local plan.That was a commitment made pre-election by bothcoalition parties which is not in the Bill. Also wewould want to see restrictions on developers’ rights ofappeal so that local planning authorities really are, onbehalf of their communities, in the driving seat. Whenthey say no, it means no, and only in exceptionalcircumstances should it be possible for developers toappeal to a higher authority when those decisions aretaken.Naomi Luhde-Thompson: Yes, I just wanted to addquickly to that. A classic example of that, developersjust continuing appealing, is for exampleSheringham’s 10 years fighting a Tesco supermarketdevelopment that they didn’t want and then constantlygetting knocked back. Another point aboutneighbourhood planning, there is no right to be heardin person in neighbourhood planning andneighbourhood development orders, and the forumsthat are set up are not democratically accountable, andit could end up being fairly exclusive bodies if peopledon’t have the time and resources to engage in themproperly. So the Localism Bill is mooted as somethingthat provides more power to people to have aninfluence, but I think it fails to do that. I think alsoin terms of getting involved in the local developmentframework, there is a right to be heard, but it iscomplicated and there could have been other ways ofpromoting community involvement—For instance,you could have had a method whereby communitiescould bring forward supplementary planning guidancefor areas, for communities to initiate more visions fortheir area. So I think that there could have been morescope, and the National Planning Policy Frameworksays very, very little about community involvement,very little, and it does not talk at all about equalityimpact or the need to involve those who are mostvulnerable. It has got nothing on that, really. So I thinkthere is a big gap there.Dr Ellis: It is a very brief comment and it is not goingto be, again, a very popular one. First of all, planningdoes not have community participation right in thegovernance of planning, and I still don’t think it has.I cannot see the narrative about how people are meantto involve themselves in national and local. But onething really worries me. Let’s imagine that we haveplanning in England run solely at local governmentlevel. If 10 rural districts are confronted by one majorout of town retail development that comes to onedistrict that they want because of the incentivesregime, those nine districts can do nothing about thatimpact now, because there is no way that there is anymechanism for regional or sub-regional planning totake place. You can’t run England—because spaceplays out at different spatial scales. If we wantsustainable development, some decisions have to betaken at a big scale, and also, I would say there areflaws, aren’t there? There are some levels we do notwant local government to sink below, particularly onsocial provision and inclusion, social housing andparticularly on carbon.




Sheryll Murray: I should have pointed out that Ispent four years as the Vice-Chairman of a localplanning committee, so I was speaking with a little bitof experience.Chair: I think everyone has a lot of expertise aroundthe whole room. Neil Carmichael.

Q22 Neil Carmichael: I think we should be testingmore our understanding of what we think frameworkis, giving guidance to local authorities, and whatpowers we think those authorities have, because weare in danger of just talking about the NPPF and notremembering that actually the Localism Bill giveslocal authorities, for example, powers of generalcompetence, which turns us away from “There is astatutory responsibility local authorities have andtherefore you must do this, that or the other withinthat framework,” towards a local authority being ableto do virtually anything it wants to do. I think that wehave to bear that in mind when we are talking aboutthe NPPF, because that is a real injection of localismand of course what we want to see are communitiestaking responsibility for their environment, and that isreally one of the key objectives of the localismagenda. So what I would like to know is not what youthink about the NPPF in relation to local governmentas it is now but as it is going to be. I think that isan important direction of travel for this Committee togo in.Chair: If you would like to just align it to theLocalism Bill.Neil Sinden: If I could have a go at that one. I entirelyagree the localism agenda is broader than justplanning and we welcome many elements of thebroader canvas of localism but I think it has to berecognised that planning is a particularly importantmeans by which local communities ought to be ableto have a greater say over what happens in their localareas. For better or worse, it is a highly legalisedsystem and at the moment, my assessment is that localcommunities do not have the powers and the abilityto determine as much about the future of their localenvironment as they should be able to. So, I wouldsimply say, yes, localism is wider than planning butplanning is a critical element.Peter Nixon: I would not disagree with that at all. Ifyou are talking about going local and giving peoplechoice, one of the problems is, there is an element ofthe Localism Bill, I think it is clause 130, with regardto giving primacy effectively to the position wherethere is the financial payment available to localauthorities, which reinforces the economicpresumption, which, in turn, erodes the decision-making capacity of a local people because they areoperating within that very much constrainingpresumption. Then beyond that you do not just havea localism Bill but you have the actual EnvironmentWhite Paper. Going back to Caroline Lucas’ pointwith regard to wider environmental constraints, thatactually says that we should be aiming to welcomethe principles of nature net gain; that we should leavethe environment in a better state than we inherited itand if that is not taken into account in theinterpretation of the NPPF and its delivery, weobviously have a conflict.

Chair: Right, I know Dr Whitehead wants to come inbriefly and then we have some very specific questionsthat we must move on to.

Q23 Dr Whitehead: Is it possible to test out thosethoughts in the context of, perhaps, one or twoexamples, some of which the NPPF has decided, someof which it is a little unclear on: an out of townshopping centre which may be placed within one localauthority’s area and has a number of local authoritiesaround, particularly some local authorities with townand city centres that may have a view on that; and anew planned settlement that again a local authoritymay consider that they wish to pursue, perhapsbecause of the incentives, as has been mentioned, butagain other authorities may have a view on that. Ibelieve the NPPF is silent, effectively, on both ofthose issues. How do you think those sort of processeswould come out were we to have an NPPF regime inthe way that is suggested here? Would they simply nothappen, would they happen in a different way orwould they happen without the sort of safeguards andconcerns that are expressed at present?Dr Ellis: I think there are definitely two visions. Wehave voluntary strategic planning now, no more thanthat. So where several authorities wanted to plantogether to do that, then there is a possibility thosedevelopments might take place, but it is quiteextraordinary that the NPPF at no time makes anyreference to the kind of future development thatEngland might want to focus on. Should that be urbanextension, should that be urban concentration, shouldthat be rural dispersal, or should that be newsettlements? Particularly there is no recognition, forexample, of the sustainable development value of veryhigh quality new settlements that it can bring.So I think that leaves that completely open and thenthat takes us straight to the duty to co-operate andwhether that works. I think the interesting thing aboutthe duty is that it only applies to public sector bodies,so it does not apply to Railtrack or National Grid orany of the key partners you need to build anextraordinary, visionary place. They are not boundlegally by the duty to co-operate.Now whether the outcome of that is poorly co-ordinated development or whether the outcome of thatis no development, I have to say my professionaljudgement is it is much more likely to be nodevelopment in some places because the argumentsbetween authorities will result in a great deal of delay.Now that is not the outcome anybody wants becausewhat we want is very high quality development in theright place.Chair: Right, I am going to ask Mr Spencer now tomove us on to a more focused look at specific issuesarising from our inquiries.

Q24 Mr Spencer: I will try and be brief, Chairman.I know we are short of time. On key policy changes,particularly the removal of several targets, I wonder ifyou could identify which of those targets beingremoved has the biggest impact on sustainabledevelopment, and I am talking about brownfield vgreenfield, housing density, parking requirements, theout of town/town centre conflict, even affordable




housing/social housing. Which of those has thebiggest impact?Neil Sinden: I touched on that in earlier responses. Ido not think we are necessarily arguing that thereshould be targets, numerical targets, reintroduced intothe National Planning Policy Framework as they havebeen in relation to brownfield land in recent times. Or,indeed, rigid residential parking standards, forexample, or, indeed, rigid density standards for newhousing developments. What we do want is a muchclearer steer in national policy about how localauthorities, taking account of their localcircumstances, should be devising targets and gettingthe right kind of development at the right density andthe right locations on the right kind of brownfield landthrough their local planning policies. So those are theareas that we want to see addressed. We fear that theremoval of the prioritisation given to brownfield landthat we have seen over the past 15 or so years willactually lead to much more low density greenfieldurban sprawl and will deprive urban areas, that stillneed regenerating, of that desperately neededinvestment. We would like to see focus on that.

Q25 Mr Spencer: Dr Ellis specifically said there wasa threshold which he did not want to drop below andthat seems to contradict what was being said there.Dr Ellis: I think that our position certainly is thatthere are minimum standards which we should notdrop. I will give you an example of another one,although all the things that you list I think areabsolutely important and particularly the social aspect,social housing provision which is, again, an aspectthat the NPPF underplays. For example, it is curiousthere is no mention in the NPPF of the Code forSustainable Homes. Now, in the last 10 years we havedriven a revolution in sustainable constructionmaterials to the immense economic benefit of thiscountry and prices of those materials have come downas economies of scale kicked in. The experience fromEuropean nations is where you set clear standards formaterials and sustainability standards, you driveeconomies of scale and you drive economic growth.What this document does is create huge uncertaintynow around all those issues. Some of those issuesrequire there to be national standards and the clearestone is in relation to carbon and climate emissions andthe Climate Act. We have those standards. We havea committee giving advice. That has to be translatedthrough the spatial planning process. That is not amatter of choice because Government has made clearthrough Parliament that that is a national objective.That is not reflected in the NPPF.Naomi Luhde-Thompson: I would agree with Dr Ellisentirely. We are very worried about the lack of theCode for Sustainable Homes and I think in terms oftargets, the whole point is that it puts you on atrajectory where you have a minimum level and youhopefully move on from that. That is very importantbecause you need to set out a direction of travel. Eventhough you may interpret those things differentlylocally—and I think that is obviously very important,every local authority has a different spatial expression,it might be low lying or it might be upland farming—the economy is going to be different, but you do have

to say, “Okay, we’re building these new affordablehomes. They have to be sustainable as well and thereare certain things that we’ve learned about what beingsustainable means and we need to implement thoseacross the board”.

Q26 Mr Spencer: I disagree, to be honest, and I tellyou why, I will give you two examples. If there is avillage in a rural location with local transport linksthat are frankly shockingly poor and you imposesocial housing in that development or you restrict thenumber of parking spaces, then what happens isresidents buy those properties with more cars thanthere are parking spaces and fire engines orambulances cannot reach those properties. Now alocal authority is in a position to make that decisionmuch better than someone in Whitehall who is franklyputting in targets. Another example, if you have alocation where there a number of elderly residentsliving in large properties where they want to staywithin their village but they can’t because there isn’telderly people’s accommodation within that village, adeveloper cannot put forward a development withelderly people’s accommodation without having toinclude social housing in the middle of the elderlyresident’s accommodation.Dr Ellis: I would say in response to that that all thetargets I have talked about are district-wide targets andyou would hope that planners were slightly moreintelligent in relation to individual villages than that,or you may want to argue they haven’t been and youprobably will. But the important thing is that thosebenchmarks are there as a critical kind of minimumstandard and on most of these issues I think they arejustified.But what we want to come out of this is that, if localauthorities can innovate—and they have. The MertonRule on energy was an example of local authoritiesinnovating and delivering something that then becamenationally significant. The sorts of standards that weare talking about are broad-brush key minimumstandards and particularly in relation to climatechange, I think they are logical.In relation to some of the issues you have portrayed,perhaps there can be more flexibility about them, butwithout them, and without there being any regionalplanning now, the whole weight of responsibility ofEuropean directives and national legislation falls onyour district authority. Now my district authority hasthree planners and no resources left and that is whyguidance, I think, at the national level is important.Bear in mind the NPPF is guidance, not law, so in thatsense everything we are talking about here, if youcome up with a better solution, well great.Chair: I just wanted Simon Kirby to come in on thatparticular point.

Q27 Simon Kirby: Yes, I think I was just going toagree with Mark really. I think you should have faithin local communities and local authorities and I cansay from a Brighton and Hove perspective, which hasthe sea to one side and beautiful countryside to theother side, it is a very different operating environmentto perhaps rural villages in Nottinghamshire but, atthe end of the day, the local people know best. The




targets that are appropriate in some places are fairlyinappropriate in other places and the decision, whetherit be to build on brownfield sites or greenfield sites orto have social housing or to have a minimum ormaximum number of car parking places, is surely adecision that should not be dictated from the centreand is surely a matter for the local people to decidewhat is best for them.Dr Ellis: I am going to have one more go.Chair: Time is running out, so—Dr Ellis: Okay, very quickly. It goes like this and Iam just going to share with you my own personaltheory because if you cut me in half it would saycommunity planner right through me. That is where Icome from. But the issues I have confronted inrelation to demographic change is there is a desperateneed for about 230,000 new units, demographic units.That is what the challenge is. Now, how is it that weare going to know, because I cannot work this out,how the sum total of all your local authority decisionsare going to add up to what the nation needs on carbonand housing? I am not saying it is easy, but we haveto have a mechanism where that gets put in to thelocal responsibility debate and that means thatBrighton and Hove might have to take more homesthan it wants. What do we do? Now if you displaceyour demand to another authority and we do not havestrategic planning, you cannot say, as is happening inStevenage at the moment, “We’ve got more—we wantto grow but our neighbouring authorities don’t wantus to grow”. How do you resolve that issue? That isthe problem that we have to solve, I think, forEngland.Chair: I think this is at the heart. I know that NeilCarmichael wants to come in, and I will give you thechance, and then we will go back to Mark Spencer.

Q28 Neil Carmichael: I think it is really importantto try to have it both ways. You talk about the NPPFnot being capable of proper definition and so forth buttwo of you have already said it is just guidance andI do think that is an important characteristic of thisdocument. I think the point that Mark and Simon havereally been driving at is an important point, againbecause Dr Ellis was referring to the departure ofregional and spatial planning. In my own constituencywe were told how many houses we should be buildingand off we went, basically, to find some greenfields toput them on.Now I do not really think that is sustainable but thatwas the system that we have been effectively usingfor the last few years and I do think that that issomething we should be challenging and we shouldbe looking, instead, at local authorities. So I am goingto repeat the point that I made before about the powerof general confidence because I just do not think thatwe are taking into account the new roles localauthorities are going to have and the new powers thatthey are going to be given, but something else is notbeing taken account of and that is that we are askinglocal authorities to co-operate with each other. I thinkthere is a point raised on this side about shoppingcentres and things being close to boundaries and soon. That is a really good point because what we wantto see are local communities understanding what they

want for themselves and actually using their ownpowers, their own responsibilities and their ownknowledge to bring about sustainable developmentand I am not convinced that we are giving appropriatefocus on that particular developed role of localauthority. Your point about not having enoughplanners is absolutely right but local authorities shouldmake themselves skilled up to do what needs to bedone.Chair: I do want your quick responses. I amconscious of time as well.Neil Sinden: Two quick points. One is that it isabsolutely right that the framework is guidance but itis important guidance. It will be, and already is, amaterial consideration in planning decisions and,therefore, one cannot simply disregard its relevancequite so simply. The second point I would make inrelation to localism is, that at the moment the draftNPPF actually reduces local choice. It reduces theability of local communities to get the right outcomesfor them, particularly in the way in which it attachesprimacy to economic development at almost any cost.Peter Nixon: I would make that point. Yes, it isguidance but it will be a material consideration so donot underestimate the impact that it will have inreality. It is at the heart of the debate, as the Chairmanhas said. On the one hand, I think we all want theidea of localism and can see the attraction of that andallowing creativity at a local level where people knowbest how to flourish but within a framework, and aframework is necessary in order to achieve the biggerpicture points that Hugh has articulated so clearly. Soit is at what spatial level that framework should apply.In the context of targets, I do believe there should besome targets to set that direction of travel but theyshould be capable of being implemented with realdiscretion and flexibility at a local level so that youavoid the problems that you were describing, whichwe all recognised, I think.Dr Ellis: The duty to co-operate works well wherepeople want to co-operate but there is no legal bite inthe duty to co-operate; it only applies to public sectorbodies and it is a duty to consider co-operation—consider—and the sanction is at the end of yourplanning-making process with an inspector agreeingor not agreeing to your plan. It will work inManchester because they have a body set up. It willwork where people set up cross-border planning,formal arrangements, but where people disagree theduty to co-operate is not a strong mechanism forresolution.Naomi Luhde-Thompson: Just a quick point aboutnational policy. I think it should be seen as enablingand positive and it gives local authorities support. Itgives them the safeguards, it gives them the teeth thatthey can then demand better development and I thinkthat is really key in terms of having some very clearpolicies in the NPPF because it is support for them.Caroline Nokes: I think a number of you havementioned—I was expecting a question on givinglocal people and communities the ability to identifygreen areas.Chair: I thought that we had partly covered that.Caroline Nokes: Okay.




Chair: I have one eye on time because we have otherwitnesses coming after this.

Q29 Caroline Nokes: Can I ask a quick follow-upon that then? While I can see that the NationalPlanning Policy Framework might give localcommunities the ability to identify green areas ofparticular importance, Dr Ellis made reference to foodsustainability. Do you see any mechanism via theframework without a spatial strategy, without anational strategy to ensure that there are green areasthat I might recognise as prime agricultural landpreserved?Dr Ellis: Planning needs to deal comprehensivelywith food security and the NPPF is silent on that issue.I would just very quickly say the Foresight Reportpointed out that 40% of our most productiveagricultural land is at or below sea level around theWash. We need to deal with that urgently. The NPPFis silent on that challenge.Neil Sinden: I have two points to add to that. The so-called best and most versatile land policy that hasbeen in existence almost since the beginning of thepost-war period is only tangentially referred to in thedraft NPPF in paragraph 167. Local authorities areasked merely to take account of the existence of bestand most versatile agricultural land; this is totallyhopeless in terms of ensuring that we are attachingsignificance and weight to the importance ofprotecting our capacity to produce food domesticallyin future.Secondly, the exhortation that local authorities shouldconsider, first of all, land of least or lesserenvironmental value as being land that should beallocated for development first, could actually placesome of our most precious agricultural land at evengreater risk than it currently is. This is because, asmany people say, high quality agricultural land is notof particularly high environmental value, at least inbiodiversity terms—although it may actuallycontribute to landscape quality and the sense ofopenness.So there are some real risks, I think, in the draft NPPFin terms of our ability to meet our food needs infuture.Caroline Nokes: Thank you for that.Peter Nixon: Can I just respond? Sorry if I am goingbeyond the scope of the question, but I think we alltoo easily think about land providing a service in thecontext of development or agriculture. Certainly forour own land in the National Trust, we absolutely tryto understand, and we are talking about well over aquarter of a million hectares, what its capability is. Itis important to stand back—this is the fifth principleof sustainable development, which is actually usingan evidence base—and understand what land can bestbe used for. It has a variety of functions. Of course itis production, whether it is food or whether it is fibreor whether it is energy, but it is also water recycling,it is also carbon, it is also culture, it is also landscape,it is also recreation and spiritual refreshment.It is perfectly possible. We have developed a landcapability tool which we apply, which we would bevery happy to share with you separately as a meansof making practical decisions that come from an

objective basis and then allow people to apply theirown subjective analysis to it.Chair: Thank you.

Q30 Neil Carmichael: We have heard an awful lotabout what the NPPF does not say, but it does saysome things and one thing it says quite clearly is thatour local authorities can select green areas forpreservation. It gives huge protection to green belts.It defends areas of outstanding natural beauty—and Idon’t suppose anything in a national park would beat risk either—and, of course, it does empower localauthorities, as I have repeatedly said, to make theirown plans, which would presumably include theprotection of greenfields around villages and so forth.Do you recognise what I have just said and do youaccept that at least those are some significant steps inthe right direction?Neil Sinden: Yes, can I just make a few very briefpoints on that? Absolutely we understand that theGovernment has made a commitment to a new localgreen space designation, the details of which are beingconsulted on at the moment. Our initial assessment isthat it is not going to be strong enough to ensure thatgenuinely valuable local green spaces are protectedfrom development pressures, given the wider contextof the draft NPPF.Secondly, in relation to green belts, we are veryconscious that Ministers—and, indeed, the PrimeMinister himself in his letter to the Trust—emphasisethe retention of the protection that the Governmentwants to give green belts, AONBs and national parks.Unfortunately detailed scrutiny of the draft NPPFproves that that is not the case. The absence of apresumption against inappropriate development in thegreen belt, which is a current policy tool and perhapsone of the most powerful green belt policy tools thatwe have, is not in the draft NPPF. We have a LegalOpinion that says that is likely to present hugechallenges to local authorities wanting to protect thegreen belts in the ways that they have been able to doin recent years. We also think the effect of the ratherloosely drawn presumption in favour of sustainabledevelopment, without a clear definition of sustainabledevelopment, as we were talking about earlier, willpotentially undermine the protections available toland, valuable land in AONBs and national parks.The final point is that there is an important policy inexisting planning guidance that protects the settingsof those designated areas, which is not in the draftNPPF. So the risk is that we will see increaseddevelopment pressure right up to the boundaries ofour national parks and AONBs. That, inevitably, willhave an impact on the quality of the experience andthe character of those areas.So even the safeguards that the Government has givenon special areas of countryside if you like, are notstrong enough. That leaves aside the point that Peterwas making at the beginning about the fact thatsomething like two-thirds of our countryside isunprotected by these national designations. There isvery little in the draft NPPF that will safeguard thoseareas of wider countryside from inappropriatedevelopment pressures.




Peter Nixon: I would say certainly there are goodpoints in the NPPF and we should not seek toundermine those. For example, reference to peat andpeat extraction, which is something we have beenextremely concerned about. So there is good stuff inthere and our focus has been on the things we areworried about inevitably.Specifically answering your question about designatedland, I would agree with Neil’s analysis with regardto green belt and that is our analysis too. I would alsosay if you asked people who work within AONBs andnational parks, they would regard what the NPPF saysin paragraph 163 onwards is less protective and lessgood in terms of providing their conservation ofAONBs and national parks than old PPS7 or currentPPS7, so it is a diminution.Chair: Thank you very much indeed. I am justlooking to see whether or not there are anyoutstanding points.

Q31 Caroline Nokes: Can I just ask a specificquestion on appeals and the threats to countryside,among other places, before local authorities have theirlocal plans in place and how dangerous you think thatis? I know many of us in this room have previouslyor even still currently sit on local authorities. There isevidence that already developers at appeal are usingthe emergence of the NPPF as evidence in favour ofwhatever they are seeking to achieve.Dr Ellis: I can say a quick word on it. There hasnever been a planning reform process without cleartransitional arrangements set out on the face of theBill. That happened in 2004. There are not anytransitional arrangements currently for us to look at orexamine, which means that, in theory, unless the CLGwere to move on it, when the NPPF is produced andpublished, every single existing adopted LDF, whichis about 30% to 40%, will instantly be out of date


Witnesses: John Slaughter, Director of External Affairs, Home Builders Federation, Liz Peace, CEO, BritishProperty Federation, gave evidence.

Chair: I would like to welcome Mr Slaughter and MsPeace to our session this afternoon. I know that MrSlaughter has sat in for some of the previous sessionthat we have just had.John Slaughter: Yes.Chair: I think that what we want to do in this sessionis really try and make sure that we are exploring withall the different stakeholders and all the people whohave an interest in this in order to be able to get a verywide range of views. That really is the perspective thatwe are coming from in respect to this particularinquiry. So I am going to turn straight away toSheryll Murray.

Q33 Sheryll Murray: What real practical differencedo you think that the draft NPPF will make for yourmembers?John Slaughter: Well, I think in practice, for us it isall about positive plan making. I think we have to saywe have had significant concerns over many years that

along with the London Plan, and the risk of that is ahuge amount of uncertainty and there must betransitional arrangements. It is vital, not just from theenvironmental and community point of view, it is vitalfor business because the ending of regional planning,the way that regional planning resulted in judicialchallenge, has resulted in a great deal of uncertainty.But I will just pose this question, which is that ofcourse the existing third or 40% of LDFs that arecurrently adopted, or about to be adopted, are allbased on regional strategies. When the regionalstrategies are revoked, all of that group of plans willbe subject to challenge because they are based on anevidence base at regional level and they were askedexplicitly not to repeat policy that was contained inregional plans.So when I say that more than 60% of the Englishplanning system has been deregulated becauseregional strategies disappear, that is what I mean. Youneed strong transitional arrangements and I wouldplead with CLG to put transitional arrangements inplace right now to avoid that uncertainty.Peter Nixon: I will support that—a critical situation.

Q32 Chair: It has been a very far-ranging discussion.Just one final point from me. Mr Sinden, youmentioned that you had had legal advice. I am justwondering whether or not that legal advice is or is notin the public domain and whether or not it couldperhaps be made available to this Committee and, ifso, on what basis.Neil Sinden: Certainly. It is not currently in the publicdomain, but it will be shortly and we will let you havea copy as soon as we can in the next few days.Chair: Right. My thanks to all of you as witnessesand to my colleagues as well and we shall move onto the next part of this marathon session. Thank you.

the so-called plan-led system introduced in 1991 hasnot really delivered. The statistic was already referredto in the previous session: despite the fact that theprevious Planning Act, the 2004 Act, required corestrategies to be in place by 2007, only some 30% oflocal authorities have those plans in place and thatlack of local plans is a problem for everybody. It is aproblem for the members of the local authorities, it isa problem for communities and it is certainly aproblem for us as developers. So I think the mostsingle most important thing when you boil down theNPPF for us is that it will actually create the rightfocus for positive plan making.Liz Peace: I did listen to most of the previous sessionand I think some of the comments about there beinga lack of evidence as to how planning is a barrier todevelopment, I would not necessarily hold with. Yes,in the end, planning applications that are of a decentquality do get through, but at a considerable time and,therefore, at a considerable cost. There is a huge waste



12 October 2011 John Slaughter and Liz Peace

of resource that could actually be put into morebeneficial things, community benefit for instance,rather than paying lots of lawyers, consultants and allthe rest to fight things for three or four years. So Ithink, generally speaking, the planning system doesneed a shake-up. The fundamental principles are fine.It is how it is actually executed. Dr Ellis, an oldsparring partner of mine, said, “Perhaps plannershaven’t done their job properly” and people like himhave not actually implemented it quickly enough.So I think what have now is a breath of fresh air, a,“Let’s start by looking at the sort of planningframework that you can read,” all of it in the space ofa sensible time, while you are waiting for a plane orsomething like that; members of the public canactually read it and understand it so it will give theright framework. But it does, as John said, absolutelyreinforce the primacy of having a plan and a plan-ledsystem, and in the nicest possible way I think it givesa kick up the backside to local authorities that do nothave a plan and tells them to get on with it. I thinkthat is hugely important because that is theresponsibility of a local authority: to do that for itsconstituents.John Slaughter: Just to add to that briefly, that is allthe more important now. As was said at the end of theprevious session, we are in the process of abolishingthe regional plans which previously provided astructure and a discipline. There needs to be a similarstructure and discipline under localism and I think ourview of this is that there is a genuine devolution ofpowers to local authorities and communities under theGovernment’s reforms but with that must comeresponsibility and responsibility is first and foremostto adopt a suitable local plan.

Q34 Sheryll Murray: Do you think it will changethe environmental safeguards built into developmentsor the social dimension of local developmentsthrough, for example, affordable housing, and towhat extent?Liz Peace: Well, in terms of the whole issue ofenvironmental, social, economic and the balance,which I know you spent some time discussing,unfortunately the way in which this has been drafted,it is slightly schizophrenic. This is just a fault of thespeed of the drafting process, but this is a draft andthat is why everybody is pouring over it to put forwardsensible suggestions.I do not think it is the intention of the document todiminish in any way environmental or socialprotection. I think, frankly, if I actually asked most ofmy members, they would say that matters have tiltedin favour of social and environmental over the past 10or 20 years and actually economic issues have ratherdropped by the wayside.I think what the NPPF is trying to do is to bring abalanced approach. You start with all three pillars ofsustainable development broadly equal but then youleave it to a local area to decide which needs perhapsto take precedence. If, for example, you haveunemployment of, you know, sky high proportions inyour area then you may wish to designate certain landto employment use. One would sincerely hope thatthe—well I am absolutely sure the system would not

allow you to designate for employment use somethingwhich already had a statutory or other type of policyenvironmental protection.John Slaughter: If I can pick up, I think you wereperhaps referring to some relatively specific aspectsand certainly in terms of affordable housing. There theimportant thing—there are actually some very strongprovisions in the NPPF about a proper independentevidence-based assessment of housing requirements,which would cover all forms of housing requirementsfor social rented housing, through private rented toopen market sale. It is important you have anobjective evidence base, we fully support that. Butyou cannot actually pre-empt what that will come upwith. It will not necessarily look the same in each areaand the breakdown of affordable housing might bedifferent in different areas. It is not just about socialrented.So I think it picks up on the themes of the previousevidence session. One of the important opportunitiesof the National Planning Policy Framework is actuallyto give local authorities more scope for imaginativepolicy making in these areas rather than not trustingthem by setting down more prescriptive nationalguidelines. I would like to make a point, which againarises from the previous session, and I say this withfive years of having worked on the Zero CarbonHomes Objective. There are some aspects ofenvironmental policy that really, if you wanted todeliver them efficiently nationally, are not a matter forplanning policy; they are a matter for nationalbuilding regulations and I think that point was missedin the previous evidence session because if you wantan effective national standard, it is actually notnecessarily a planning matter.Sheryll Murray: Thank you very much.

Q35 Mr Spencer: When it comes to land use, I justwonder if you could just talk us through the thinkingof your members as to whether they genuinely gavethought to what was required by local communities,to what might be easier to get through a planningapplication because of local acceptance, or, frankly,whether your members are just interested in extractingthe maximum amount of profit per acre.John Slaughter: I think that those are not unrelatedat all of course because, if you are looking to developa site and promote it through a planning system, oneof our concerns about the system has been just howlong it takes. It is not just the length of the formalapplication process, which can still be quite lengthy,but you may spend several years beforehandpromoting a site, talking to the council, talking toother groups locally in order to get it to the applicationstage and you simply would not do that with a site ifyou had no chance of getting it through the planningsystem. So I think the system largely takes care of thatitself. Companies would have no interest incommitting—if you are looking at a large strategicsite, you would be talking about millions of poundsof expenditure before you get to the application stage.Why would you waste that investment if you did notthink it was a sensible site to promote?Liz Peace: Generally speaking, I think the companiesthat I represent are going to put their efforts into trying




to build things which will make them a profit, becausethey are not going to last very long if they do not,where there is a plan that says it can go there. Theyare not trying to push water uphill, very much as Johnsaid. They are also very keen to take the communitywith them because if they do not, that just means moreangst, more trouble and more expense. So every gooddeveloper, every developer who is worth his salt, willput effort into community consultation.Now, some of them would admit that perhaps theyhave not done it as well as they might in the past.There is a difference between coming along with apre-prepared plan, putting it in front of the communityand saying, “Do you like it?” as opposed to comingalong to the community and saying, “Well, we havean idea for this, what do you want to do with thisarea?” I think some do it better than others and somewill learn and I think the strong emphasis oncommunity and neighbourhood in the Localism Billwill cause those who have not got the message to doit rather better.John Slaughter: I think, again, just very briefly, wealready know that some of our larger members areinvesting and naturally upping their game on thoseissues because they have recognised that is aconcomitant of the Government’s proposed reforms.Chair: Thank you.

Q36 Peter Aldous: I would like to explore somethingthat was previously raised about the NPPF givinglocal planning authorities a kick up the backside asfar as producing local plans. From the experience ofyour members, is this lethargy, is it down to localplanning authorities dragging their feet, or may it bethat they do not have the capacity in terms of plannersand financial resources or perhaps the system is askingthem too much?Liz Peace: I think it is a combination of a number ofthings. Bear in mind that the requirement for the suiteof development planners that is called the LocalDevelopment Framework came about through the2004 Act. I would say that that was a needlesslycomplicated piece of legislation and the complexity ofthe plans that the local authorities have to produceactually probably defies even good planners. Somehave managed it, but it is a complex process. I thinkduring the period they were meant to be doing it,frankly they had plenty of resource. Those were theyears of plenty and when there was a huge amount ofmoney in the system. But I think it is also for someareas an inherently complex process. I think a lot ofthis comes down to local authorities havingconfidence, ability, skills among both the officers andmembers to face up to taking very difficult allocationdecisions. If you have an issue about, “Are we goingto designate that area for residential and that area forindustrial or employment use?” and you have variouslocal groups who are all hopping up and down saying,“No, no, no we don’t want this, we don’t want that”,reconciling those local aspirations is very difficult. Ido not think any of us would dispute that and franklyI think a lot of these local authorities have just let thatdrag on because they have not actually wanted to faceup to some of the real inherent difficulties in thesystem. But we have local authorities to make those

difficult choices and those difficult decisions. So I donot think you can get away from the fact that it istheir responsibility to come to a conclusion that leadsto an agreed plan against which mine and John’smembers can make planning applications.

Q37 Caroline Nokes: Just a quick follow up, yousaid right at the beginning one of the frustrations youhad was the time it took to get planning permissiongranted. Would you agree that that is more of afrustration of procedure than policy?Liz Peace: Well, to some extent yes, I think it is, butif you have 1,000 pages of policy that a local authorityplanning officer feels he needs to work through andhe needs to demand every conceivable sort of studyand safeguard so that he is not subject to judicialreview, then the policy is actually lengthening theprocess unnecessarily. A number of my members and,indeed, John’s as well, will tell you they deliverplanning applications by sack barrow rather than post.Do not tell me somebody in a local authority isactually sitting there and reading all that stuff, but theyare asking for it because that is what the rules say orthat is what the policy says and they are very, verynervous that if they do not tick off every little bit ofpolicy they are subjecting themselves to judicialreview.John Slaughter: Yes, and I think there is another sortof very important philosophical point about where, aswe understand it, the National Planning PolicyFramework is trying to go because that sort of tickbox, checklist approach to policy has become verybureaucratic, as Liz said. It has become very muchabout development control rather than developmentmanagement and development enablement and theconsequence ultimately is delivering less.The opportunity of the National Planning PolicyFramework is to allow a more pragmatic discussionabout how you achieve desirable objectives. Preciselythe fact that it does not try and actually write downprescriptively how to do everything is actually anopportunity, it creates a space, and of course we haveto make sure that we define that space in the right waybut I think that is also very central to theGovernment’s thinking. We support that because ofour experience of the frustrations of the existingsystem.

Q38 Dr Whitehead: Could I explore the distinctionbetween a space and a hole?John Slaughter: A space and—Dr Whitehead: A space and hole. You mentioned, MrSlaughter, about the space that NPPF may give andyou mentioned the question of, “This is the draft andit may need rewriting” but there do appear to be, inaddition to spaces, a number of holes in the document.So, for example, the target on brownfield landbuilding has just gone. I presume a number of yourmembers will go, “Yippee, we can now build ongreenfield sites” or would you think that—Liz Peace: Well, I think you will find that mycolleague and I here have a slightly different opinionon this, so we can have an interesting debate amongourselves now. The people I represent are doingprimarily commercial development. Most of it is




urban or it is semi, what we would call, industrialnature, you know, around motorway junctions whereyou are building warehousing and that sort of thing.Generally speaking, the commercial property industryis using previously developed land and it is not thatfrequently that we are looking at greenfield.We, as a matter of policy, as a federation fully supportthe reinstatement of some form of brownfield firstconcept. I do not think brownfield first targets areparticularly useful because of the huge variation oftypes of development, types of land availability, but Ibelieve—or, we, as a federation, believe—that it isentirely morally right that you should seek to use landthat has been previously used, where it can meet yourneeds, before you start to look at a greenfield site.That is, of course, accepting that in somecircumstances a previously developed site may havebecome environmentally valuable. There are somevery interesting nature reserves on old quarries andthe like, so you have to carve out some exceptionsbut, generally speaking, the commercial propertyindustry is pretty keen to redevelop brownfield landfirst. However, I had better let my colleague give youhis opinion.John Slaughter: Well, yes, I think we differ on thesort of headline concept of brownfield first. In ourcase that is because we think it is a flawed concept.But before I go into that I should be clear that thehomebuilding industry has built a high proportion ofhomes in recent years on brownfield sites, so there isno in principle objection to doing that.The problem is there simply is not enough brownfieldland available and, from our perspective, the previousbrownfield first policy, with its sequential test, did notwork. It did not increase the volume of land comingthrough the planning system for housing developmentand as I think everyone knows, probably from theNational Trust debate, there is a massive shortage ofhousing in this country. We do need to address thatand the primary cause of it, which has built up over20 years or so: the plan-led system has not broughtenough developable land through the planning system.So the brownfield first policy did not solve thatproblem.Our concern would be if we went back to what wehad before, it would still not work. We would beentrenching the housing problem that we alreadyhave, making it worse. So we have to look at aconcept that will deliver the right sites in the rightway. Actually we think the emphasis in the NPPF onprioritising sites of least environmental and amenityvalue is probably a more sensible approach. It givesyou a more rounded opportunity to balance whatworks best in particular areas, whereas if you go downthe brownfield first route, you are not doing that. Itis about prescribing something nationally rather thanallowing local discretion even though localcircumstances vary enormously.I think we have to face the reality that there are quitelarge parts of the country that do not necessarily havea lot of brownfield land or where brownfielddevelopment in the past would have been on whatpeople commonly called back garden development,which has proved to be a problem. So that is another

reason why the previous brownfield first policy didnot work.So I think we need a more sophisticated approach butwe do not have a problem with the aspiration to sitedevelopment in the most sustainable way possible.That is not necessarily the same thing as a brownfieldfirst policy.

Q39 Dr Whitehead: If you did, on the basis of theNPPF as it stands, decide as a local authority on thebasis of localism that you wished to promotebrownfield sites first, how would you do it under theproposed arrangements?Liz Peace: I don’t see why a local authority, indrawing up its plan, would not actually put that in, ifthat was the decision it was going to come to. Whatthe NPPF does, if I have read it correctly—I was notits author, contrary to what some members of the pressthink—it appears to allow a local authority to dopretty much anything it likes as long as it has evidencefor it, which seems to me quite a sensible thing to do.I think it was you who discussed the general duty ofcompetence—sorry, Mr Carmichael. A local authoritycan decide what it wants its policy to be as long as itis in accordance with the law. The problem, of course,comes where a local authority has not got round tofinalising its plan. That is when the NPPF becomesthe default position and that is when the NPPF, asdrafted, would cause a problem in the situation thatyou have outlined. But the remedy is simple: get aplan.John Slaughter: I do not think it necessarily wouldcause a problem because it is all subject to the widerframework. The reality is, as I say, there is notnecessarily enough brownfield land.Liz Peace: Yes, and I accept that in some places.John Slaughter: The key criterion for us is that thesites have to be viable and deliverable. You cannothave a planning system that provides for notional landallocation that is not deliverable, otherwise you willnot have a solution to the housing crisis. So you startfrom that premise and that is what the NPPF does. Ithink you have to have some flexibility about how thatis actually going to fit sensibly locally.

Q40 Dr Whitehead: What I had in mind was that,bearing in mind what the guidance and presumptionsstate within the NPPF at present, how would thatrelate to the ability of local authorities, on the onehand, to do substantially what they like and perhapsput within a local plan that they wished to prioritisebrownfield land development first, and specify howthat might be done, only potentially to be trumped bythose provisions that might, therefore, not protect thegreenfield land in that area as a secondary or thirdconsideration, because there is no sequential test?Would, in your view, the provisions that are there forthe assumption of development trump thearrangements that a local authority, in the absence ofany guidance on brownfield land, might make abouttheir own considerations?John Slaughter: I do not think so because, if the localauthority—and this comes back to responsibility. If alocal authority’s responsibility is to plan positively,that includes planning for housing provision and




specifically to identify a deliverable land supply forthat housing requirement.If the local authority has done its job properly and isaware that there is a supply of brownfield land thatcan deliver that housing, all they have to do in thelocal plan is identify that as the five-year land supplyand that is what the industry will work with. It is nota problem. There is nothing in the NPPF that willprevent that outcome. The responsibility, though, is toplan positively and not to plan on a, if you like, kindof imaginary basis.Liz Peace: To pick up one point, which I think alsoemerged in your previous session, a lot of this dependson local circumstances. This is why I think putting somuch power and duty back to the local authority toplan according to local need and according to localparameters for supplying that need—so, as John hassaid rightly, there may be some areas that have verylittle brownfield land, very little previously developedland but they have an extremely large waiting list.Now it seems to me that the only function—Dr Whitehead: South of Southampton, for example.Liz Peace: Okay. The NPPF places a duty on thatlocal authority to plan to meet the housing needs ofits constituents. It will have to move—it can prioritisethe use of brownfield land where it is suitable, andthere may be some that is not suitable for a largehousing development, but then it would have toidentify sites that were not brownfield. It all soundsterrible, but it all depends on what the localcircumstances are.

Q41 Sheryll Murray: Going back to the LocalDevelopment Frameworks that some local authoritieshave not adopted or drawn up, do you think thatneighbourhood and community plans actually havingweight now, as opposed to the previous parish plansthat really meant nothing, will assist local authorities?They have perhaps had contentious areas. If the localcommunity dropped their own plans to put into thedevelopment framework, it might speed it up and theymight get them in place.Liz Peace: I think what you described is whatMinisters have described to us as their ideal; thatindeed you would have a local community or aneighbourhood that would maybe resolve some of theconflicting issues. They would decide that the housesthey have all accepted their area needs should go hererather than here, they should be a different shape, theyshould be of a different mix, whatever. Where that canhappen, that is brilliant, but it is early days yet.

Q42 Sheryll Murray: We have had a lot of parishplans, haven’t we, that are already in place but they donot carry any weight, so the job for local communitiessurely is halfway done?Liz Peace: It could be.John Slaughter: It could be. I think the concept thatthe Ministers have put forward is that neighbourhoodplans, community plans should not conflict with aproperly adopted local plan but, beyond that, it wouldgive a lot of flexibility as to exactly what took placein that particular area and I do think that is verypositive. On a sort of anecdotal basis, I have to saythat having spent time at party conferences recently, I

was quite struck by how positively a number of localcouncillors talked about the opportunities that theysaw in this new system and that was actuallygenuinely quite encouraging.Sheryll Murray: Thank you very much.

Q43 Chair: You just mentioned about the discussionsthat you have had with Ministers. Could you just giveus some kind of indication of what meetings you havehad in terms of putting forward the vision that youhave for the planning framework?Liz Peace: Yes. We start—well, we talk to Ministerson a regular basis, sometimes as part of larger groups,there are a number of planning sounding boards thatare run by CLG, and we have obviously been talkingto Ministers in the context of the Localism Bill aswell as the National Planning Policy Framework. So,difficult to describe every one but Ministers are—

Q44 Chair: I suppose the point I want to make isthat you would define what has come forward, in theway that it has with the proposals that we have, asbeing very much in line with the proposals that youhave been putting forward to Ministers?Liz Peace: No, actually not. I don’t think—it was notour idea or our pushing for a condensation of 1,000pages of planning policy into a National PlanningPolicy Framework, nor indeed had anybody in thedevelopment industry mentioned the presumption infavour of sustainable development. That came fromGovernment and from Ministers and we were notinvolved in the drafting of the National PlanningPolicy Framework at all—Chair: Okay, that is helpful.Liz Peace: And we did not really talk about theprinciples that it would enshrine. It was quite aninteresting surprise when it emerged in its first draft.John Slaughter: I would agree with that. Weobviously have regular meetings with Ministers.Sorry, I slightly misunderstood your question becauseI had not specifically referred to meetings withMinisters—rather our understanding of whatMinisters were trying to do, but we certainlyobviously do have meetings with Ministers; it is anormal part of what any trade body would do.I think it is worth remembering that if you rolled theclock back a year plus, we were extremely concernedabout the impact of localism. Our comfort zone wouldhave been to retain the old regional system becausewe got—it may have been imperfect but we got toknow it and work with it and we were prepared to dothat, so this is actually also a very big change for usin the industry to come to terms with. So it is entirelynatural that we would want to engage about that, sowe fed in our ideas, our concerns but, as Liz says, thatis a normal part of the process.Chair: Okay, thank you.

Q45 Peter Aldous: Some of the organisations thathave put in feedback to this inquiry have said that theNPPF is unclear about what it expects fromdevelopers. Would you agree with that and do youthink it might potentially reduce the amount of housebuilding?




John Slaughter: I sincerely hope not. Of course it isuntested and building on what I just said, we wouldnot necessarily have asked to be where we are in theprocess because it has—it is a process of significantchange for the industry as well as for local authoritiesand others. But I think, having got our heads aroundthis, we believe it could actually be a positive forwarddevelopment because it does provide for a properevidence-based approach to policy, including lookinginto what the housing requirements are in particularareas.It does, we think, provide a suitable balance in termsof the guiding principles of planning policy. Beyondthat, I come back to what I touched on earlier: in notbeing so prescriptive, I think it actually opens the doorto a more constructive, less adversarial type ofconversation at local level when we know—weunderstand that housing and other development can becontroversial, but I think it does enable us to have aframework and a set of principles where we can workthose issues through more effectively.Liz Peace: What the companies that I represent wantis a degree of certainty and clarity about where theyshould be able to develop. You made the point earlierthat the NPPF, in reinforcing the importance of havinga good plan at the centre and at the heart of thesystem, should give a clear indication of wheredevelopers should aim to put what they want to buildand more fool them if they come forward withsomething that is way out of kilter with what isactually set out in the plan. Then, frankly, they deserveto get dealt with in the way they will.

Q46 Peter Aldous: Do you think it gives developersa clear signal and guidance as to the way they should


Witnesses: Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government,and Richard Benyon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs, gave evidence.

Q47 Chair: Colleagues, this is the third session inour marathon session that we have had this afternoon.Just while our two witnesses are preparingthemselves, I would just like to welcome both of youto the Committee this afternoon. I think we areblessed with two Ministers, and I am very muchhoping that we are going to have an opportunity forjoined-up government across DCLG and across Defra.Just for the interest of the Committee we are verygrateful particularly to have Richard Benyon with us,who obviously sits as a member of this Committee exofficio in terms of the scope of the EnvironmentalAudit Select Committee. By way of that introduction,we are really grateful to you for coming along. Wefelt as a Committee that it was important to do a veryquick, urgent inquiry in order that we could feed intothe current inquiry that is being undertaken by theDCLG Select Committee. We are concentrating on theissues of sustainable development, and I think itwould be helpful for everybody concerned if perhapsI invited you at the outset to make a brief presentationas to where you see the consultation and the

engage in the whole development process? Perhaps inthe past, some developers have seen it as just a tickbox exercise. Does this take us a step further forward?Liz Peace: I do not think the NPPF sets that out inany detail and I would not expect it to. I think thephilosophy and the principles underpinning theLocalism Bill and the primacy that has put onneighbourhoods has made it quite clear that if you donot deal sympathetically, sensibly andcomprehensively with the feelings of communitiesand neighbourhoods in the areas where you want todevelop, then you are in for a long haul.John Slaughter: I think yes and I will add to that justbriefly. There are some provisions in there, includingthe ones on design, for example, where I think it doesspecifically encourage community engagement,community consultation but, as Liz says, there arealso key provisions in the Localism Bill which willpush in the same direction. So, it is certainly the case,as I mentioned previously, that a number of majorcompanies have already seen the fact that this is whatthey need to do based on what we have.Chair: Mr Slaughter and Ms Peace, I am afraid wehave had a fairly extensive session and we do have afurther session and our next two witnesses are here. Ithank you most sincerely for coming along thisafternoon and obviously this is a continuingdiscussion, so we shall see where we get to with it.Thank you very much indeed.

legislation, where it is at. I do have regard to the factI think one of you at least has to leave at 4.30pm.Greg Clark: Can I say, Chair, I am very grateful tothe whole Committee for taking the trouble tocontribute to this inquiry? I was very keen that theLocal Government Select Committee should conductan inquiry as part of the consultation to be able tomake some recommendations. I think it wasabsolutely right that the Chair has invited you tocontribute as well. This is an important opportunityfor us in Government, but I hope that your Committeewill consider it as an important opportunity to shapeand to influence the National Planning PolicyFramework that we hope will endure for manygenerations and will achieve better development thanwe have had in the past through that.Let me just say a couple of things by way ofbackground to the intention of the reforms. First ofall, it is about a plan. I believe in planning; I think wehave had too little planning as part of the planningsystem, paradoxically. We have had, I think, too muchdevelopment control where planning has in effect



12 October 2011 Rt Hon Greg Clark MP and Richard Benyon MP

been achieved application by application, chased upthrough the various routes to the PlanningInspectorate. What we are determined to do is to putlocal people in charge. That means that everyauthority should have an up-to-date plan forintroducing through the Localism Bill the opportunityfor neighbourhood plans at a more local level. It isvery important we do that. You also know that throughthe Localism Bill we are getting rid of the regionalstrategies and advantaging local plan making.In order to do that, it seems to me that if you wantpeople to engage locally you need to have aframework in which local plans are put together thatis comprehensible, that is something that people canengage with. It seems to me that if you have over1,000 pages of guidance, as we have had accreted overthe years—and I do not think it was anyone’s intentionthat should be the case—that literally excludes people.It is very difficult for anyone but specialists to engagewith the process. Actually, I think one of the thingswe have seen through the summer is that when youhave a distillation of planning policy that can be readand debated, you can have a pretty lively debate. Ithas been heated from time to time, but frankly I wouldrather have planning discussed than—as has beentypical with previous planning policy statements andplanning policy guidance I have noticed—debatedonly by the specialists. It is important that we shoulddo that, and that is the basis for it.From what we have heard so far, I think mostpeople—not everyone, but most people—wouldaccept that having a localist approach, putting localpeople in charge, is the right direction to go. I thinkagain most people would accept that having a simplerdistilled system is necessary to that.Where has the discussion been, therefore, around that?On this question of the presumption in favour ofsustainable development, first of all—and you willcome on, I am sure, to ask me some questions aboutthe definition of sustainability and I hope this issomething the Committee will contribute somerecommendations to—it is clear, and I want to tell theCommittee that my view is the Prime Minister’s view,that the purpose of the planning system is to bringinto balance and to decide planning applications and,indeed, the approval of plans on the basis not just ofthe economic but the social and the environmentalaspect as well. It is absolutely crucial to the conceptof sustainability. I think we should all be clear thatthis is subordinate to the presumption in favour of theplan. The main purpose of the reforms is to advantageplan making, but I think it is right to have a set ofclear policies that determine applications in theabsence of an up-to-date plan, but it is important alsoto recognise that these policies are not designed andcertainly will not be a kind of loophole to have thingsdone in communities that would be unconscionable—quite the reverse. The policies are there to, in effect,replicate the kinds of policies that a good localauthority would choose to adopt anyway.I am sure you will want to ask us both about the“brownfield first” issue and some others issues, butthat is the context, to be determined to put localpeople in the driving seat, which then solves I thinkone of the big problems of the planning system in the

past, which is that, if people think that things are beingdone to them, rather than involving them from theoutset—I think it is characteristic of the Britishpeople—they are more likely to resent and to resistthat. Whereas we know from good practice here andindeed around the world that the more involvementpeople have, the better the outcomes are.

Q48 Chair: Thank you for that introduction. I wouldlike to invite Mr Benyon to comment as well becauseI think this Committee of all the Select Committees isvery much aware of the cross-cutting nature of policy.I think that our concern—it has been mentioned in acouple of the previous comments that we have had inour inquiry—in the event of the SustainableDevelopment Commission and the Royal Commissionon Environmental Pollution having been abolished, isthe role that Defra has alongside the CabinetCommittee to make sure that sustainable developmentis integrated. We would very much welcome a similarintroductory statement from Mr Benyon as well.Richard Benyon: Thank you, Chair. It is a greatpleasure to see this Committee at last, which I sit on,as you say, in an ex officio role.

Q49 Chair: Sorry, what I did not say is we have justbeen looking at our pre-meeting at our attendance andwe did have a good reason that yours was as it was.Richard Benyon: Well, I apologise if it appeared topeople that I have been spurning you, but I think youknow the arrangement.Chair: Of course.Richard Benyon: It is really important that Defra’srole as the guardians of sustainability acrossGovernment is clearly understood. As you say, Chair,the changes that have been debated—and you havehad the Secretary of State in front of you—I believeyou understand, even if not every member of theCommittee agrees with how it was done, and they dealwith what the Government is trying to achievethrough mainstreaming sustainability acrossGovernment. It means that people like Greg and Iworked very closely on this policy, but also a rangeof other ones. The Secretary of State sits on theeconomic affairs committee, the home affairscommittee, and bangs the drum for sustainabilitythrough that mechanism. At official level keysustainability matters are looked at with the CabinetOffice, with Ministers such as the Minister for Policy,who checks where business plans are on a quarterlybasis and how they are matching up to thesustainability role that we see key as part of that.In the context of this document, Greg and I met at anearly stage for a discussion about this and our officialshave worked closely to ensure that, firstly, weunderstand where we are coming from on thedefinition of sustainability. It is defined very clearlybased on the Brundtland Commission definition, butalso working off documents that the last Governmentproduced in 2005, their Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy. That underpinned various other pieces oflegislation recently, including the Flood and WaterManagement Act, which in its guidance gave a veryclear definition as to what sustainability meant andput flesh on the bones, if you like, on the Brundtland




Commission’s definition. It is really important that wefeed this through so actually local authorities in thiscase can see what Government is trying to achieve,recognise their duties and implement it through theirlocal plans. It is a big shift in power down to localauthorities, but we want to provide them with whatwe believe is clear guidance, and that is what I feelthat this document achieves.

Q50 Chair: Thank you. I think one of the first thingswe wanted to try and get to the heart of, which youhave just mentioned yourself, is that you used the later2005 Sustainable Development Strategy definition. Ithink that, in the session that we have just had,everybody has stressed the importance of there beinga clear definition and great clarity. It seems to us thatthe definition that you have used has almost gone backand you have reverted to the Brundtland definition.I just feel that what the Committee really needs tounderstand is what definition are you looking to?What scope is there for further clarification of thatdefinition and should or should it not be on the faceof the Bill? If there were a disagreement, given all thedifferent public responses that are coming in, wouldthat be something that would then be thrashed out atthe Cabinet Committee? Because obviously the clarityabout the definition is fundamental to the planningregime that we will have for the next 20 to 30 years.Greg Clark: Let me address that, Chair, and alsoperhaps put into context the constraints that I amunder here. We have a consultation that is open for afew more days and then we are under an obligationobviously to consider all of the responses to theconsultation. What I cannot say in front of theCommittee, if one of you has a brilliant idea, I cannotsay, “That has hit the nail on the head. We will putthat in” because that would be to pre-empt theconsultation.

Q51 Chair: No, but we are part of the process.Greg Clark: Indeed, precisely, so everything that yousay will be considered as part of the process. Let megive you the background. We have followed theBrundtland definition, which as you know since thelate 1980s has been the consistent definition that hasbeen used internationally. It is a matter of primarylegislation now through the 2004 Act that planningshould help achieve sustainable development definedin Brundtland terms. That seems to us to have stoodthe test of time. As the years have passed, that notionof making sure that development is not at the expenseof future generations I think is a fairly clear andresonant principle.Now, I have heard through your previous evidence thesuggestion as to whether you include, for example, the2005 Sustainable Development Strategy. As part ofthe consultation people will make submissions. Thenotion there, the thought in our minds, was: does thathave the enduring quality that the classic Brundtlanddefinition has had, given that we want this frameworkto endure over time? You may advise me that youthink it has reached that stage, but what we do knowis that the original strategy was in 1999 and then wasupdated in 2005. In fact, in previous planningguidance, in PPS1, there is a reference to the 1999

strategy that was then very shortly out of date and wasreferenced as such that it was under review. That isthe question: whether it is best to have on the face ofthe guidance the core definition or whether to refer toone of the more recent expansions of it, which exactlyas Richard said has not been repealed. It continues tobe there and available to us.

Q52 Chair: We really wondered why you did not usethe text that was used in Planning Policy Statement 1.I think the other aspect of it is with the Localism Bill.The clause that was inserted, which basically has apresumption in favour of finance to make clear todecision makers that local finance considerations arematerial considerations, I think all of these things, ifyou like, lead to lack of confidence that sustainabledevelopment is really going to be at the heart ofplanning.Greg Clark: Let me deal with that again, that 2005definition. I have already seen some of thesubmissions and they have suggested that we do makereference to it. I think in PPS1 it is a fairly simplematter. Those who are familiar with PPS1, it has aparagraph, paragraph 3, that is an encapsulation ofBrundtland and a single paragraph that summarisesthe Sustainable Development Strategy. It is a simplematter to include it.Let me say why I think it is possible that thinking mayhave evolved. I think you have had some reference toit already, the idea of there being separate pillars thatneed to be balanced against each other. Some peoplethink that actually it is more concentric circles, thatthe environment is something in which all activitytakes place within and it is not a question of, as itwere, balancing harm to the environment againstbenefit to the economy. They have to be integratedmore than that. I think some of the recent thinking inthe Natural Environment White Paper, which Richardmight want to have a say about, goes beyond some ofthe thinking in 2005 to talk not just about a sort ofdefensive not breaching limits, but being moreambitious than that, saying we should have net gain,that development and other activities should result innet gain to the environment. We have many habitatsin our country that have been despoiled over the years.My view is that we should take the opportunity torestore them. I would not want to set down a definitionthat was less ambitious than, for example, would havebeen in the Natural Environment White Paper.

Q53 Mr Spencer: I just wondered what confidencethe Minister had in a local authority’s ability to defendtheir local plan if that local plan varied enormously interms of numbers that were forced upon it under theRegional Spatial Strategy or they changed some of thetargets like the brownfield/greenfield targets orparking limits or things like that.Greg Clark: On the point of the targets, one of thethings that I think has brought the planning systeminto such controversy and contention is the impositionof top-down targets that have not had the confidenceand the endorsement, indeed the provenance, of localcommunities. They have been resented because theyhave been seen to have sort of descended from a clearblue sky. An essential part of the new reforms is to




say we are getting rid of those targets. You will notbe handed down a national target, and the ability ofthe inspectorate to simply write that into your localplan, as they can at the moment, will be taken away.But there will be a responsibility for you to have agenuine plan, for you to think about the future of yourcommunity, not just in terms of housing but in termsof employment need as well, knowing that your planwill be the central part of the system. That is whatwill determine applications. If you can give to localpeople the power to set their plans without them beingrewritten from above, often in ways that are seen asarbitrary, I think people will rise to the challenge ofdoing it properly and having a plan that is evidencebased and is non-fiction.Richard Benyon: Can I just come back to your keypoint, Chair? There is a simple way of looking atsustainable development; I always think JohnGummer got it right when he said it is, “Don’t cheaton your children”. That may be much too simplisticfor the kind of level of conversation you are having,but it is a very good guiding principle and really iswhat the Brundtland definition says. I think that wedo have to recognise, though, that it is an evolvingconcept. I think the guidance to the Flood and WaterManagement Act very clearly stated, “Sustainabledevelopment is an evolving concept that seeks torespond to these concerns—the concerns that it listshigher up—in the way we manage our society,economy and the environment. We cannot and shouldnot try to pin it down too narrowly.” That is in thecontext of flooding and I think we have to perhapsbe more specific in terms of planning. What we arewrestling with in Defra at the moment, for example,is water. We are producing a Water White Paper. Ithink what local authorities want to know is, if theyare going to allow houses to be built in awater-stressed area, what does it actually meanwhether that development is sustainable, i.e. can waterbe provided to those houses without it causing damageto that catchment or not? That is why I think this is abold step forward and one that actually sets veryclearly an environmental standard that people shouldwelcome.

Q54 Chair: We are going to have to move on fromthis issue about definition, but just before we do, Iagree wholeheartedly about the definition that JohnGummer used. I have seen him use it many times inthis place as, indeed, many members here have. Justusing that analogy, “Don’t cheat on your children”, Ithink the concern is that if somebody can be trumpedby a clause in the Localism Bill that says that thefinance considerations are greater and have greaterweight, where does that leave the principle ofsustainable development? I think that it is that thatneeds to be resolved at some deep place withinGovernment before the consultation is completed andbefore it is given for people to use this in order tobe able to safeguard planning for the future and ourcommunities for our future.Greg Clark: I think you are absolutely right. Ofcourse, if it were the case that financial considerationscould be used to subvert the planning system thatwould be a huge change to the system and that is

absolutely not our intention. I think you will find,when this is debated in the House of Lords, that it willbe made absolutely clear that there is no change at allto the law on this. Only those matters that have alwaysbeen considered material can be considered materialand only the weight that was always given can begiven in weight. There is absolutely no change to thelaw on that.

Q55 Chair: You feel that clause 130 of the LocalismBill does not sit contrary to that?Greg Clark: No, absolutely not. There is no changeto what can be taken into account in a planningapplication. It has always been the case that you canonly legitimately take into account those aspects suchas section 106 payments that are related to theapplication in question. Things that go beyond thatyou should not be able to change and we would makeit absolutely clear that that is not going to change.

Q56 Dr Whitehead: I think the problem, looking atthe text of the NPPF as it stands at the moment, is itdoes seem to fairly clearly state that development thatgives a greater weighting to the economic benefits isto be put above considerations of environmental andsocial impact. Certainly, there has been already quitea lot of commentary on the apparent thread that runsthrough the NPPF to that effect. Was that a consciouspolicy decision writing the document or is that anappearance that is given by its writing but somethingthat perhaps is not the case?Greg Clark: I know it is an appearance that somepeople have detected, but it is not intentional. ThePrime Minister made clear in his letter to a lot of theenvironmental organisations there is no changewhatever in the purpose of the planning system. It hasalways been to consider, with no particular hierarchyattached, the environment, the social and theeconomic aspects of development. I know that somepeople have gained the impression that there has beensome change and that was the reason why I think theNational Trust and others wrote to the Prime Ministerand asked for the reassurance that he has given and Ithink has been accepted, and no doubt theseorganisations and perhaps this Committee may wantto point to the particular aspects of the drafting thathave given that cause for concern. But there isabsolutely no intention to change that. It is worthsaying that, of course, the economy has always beenpart of the definition of sustainability and we do needhomes and jobs, but they need to be in the right placesand not at the detriment of future generations.

Q57 Dr Whitehead: Would you go a little furtherthan that and confirm an understanding thatdevelopers and local authorities should put equalweight on economic, social and environmentalimpacts?Greg Clark: Well, the framework needs to beconsidered as a whole and this was the point aboutthe notion that it is not three pillars that need to bebalanced against each other. I would say that, inactually having an economic development, one oughtto take the opportunities to improve the environment,not simply not do any damage but positively improve.




We have green spaces, for example, in this countrythat are ecologically degraded. Part of the positiveaspect of planning is to think that if there is going tobe some development, not only should it not do harmto the environment, it should take the opportunitiespositively to restore, whether it is for a particularplace or to make connections or to establish corridorsfor wildlife to pass and to use. I think it should bemore ambitious than that.

Q58 Dr Whitehead: That being the case, I imaginethat you would want to ensure that there would bechanges in the draft version, subject to consultation,which would underscore that intention and that,therefore, we would be able to expect some changesin the wording of the NPPF that would ensure thatwas the case.Greg Clark: Dr Whitehead, the intention in the draftwas to be clear about that and obviously I feel that itis clear. The policies are there that do that. Of course,we will listen to representations. I cannot pre-empt it,but if there are particular suggestions as to whetherthat message has not been as clearly received as wasintended to have been transmitted, then this might besomething that this Committee and other groups willwant to make specific suggestions about.Richard Benyon: It has to be seen in the thread thatruns through the Natural Environment White Paperinto this document, where we sought to emphasise theneed for a net gain for biodiversity through ourbiodiversity offsetting scheme, and through the greenareas policy that we have taken forward this weekwith the announcement of the green infrastructurepartnerships. There is a very solid theme that I thinkgives very important weight to the environmentalalong with the economic and the social aspects ofthe definition.Chair: Mr Benyon, I am very conscious that you needto leave at 4.30pm so I think we will understand ifyou have to leave before we get perhaps to the end ofthe session.Richard Benyon: I will give it five more minutes andthen I might sprint.

Q59 Peter Aldous: Can I ask a specific question ofMr Benyon? Before I ask it, I will just say that I ama farmer myself. Do you feel that sufficientconsideration in the NPPF has had regard to foodproduction and the issues of food security? I also sayas a surveyor, many, many years ago the productivityof land was an important consideration on whetherland came forward for planning. In particular, if landwas grade 1 or grade 2 that was very much a negativeagainst land being developed. I just wonder whatconsideration and input you had had on that point.Richard Benyon: We take our food securityresponsibilities very seriously and they definitely werepart of our consultation with Greg and his officials interms of clause 167, where it sets out very clearly thatwhere significant development of agricultural land isdemonstrated to be necessary, local planningauthorities should seek to use areas of poorer qualityland in preference to that of higher quality land,except where this would be inconsistent with othersustainability considerations. I think that gives a very

clear emphasis of the importance of quality land. Ialso think that the rather binary approach tobrownfield/greenfield land has been rather moreimaginatively set out in terms of the environmentalquality of land. I think we have addressed that andthat would mean that there would be a presumptionthat what we currently consider to be brownfield landshould be developed first rather than qualityagricultural land. I can assure you that this is a veryimportant priority for us and that we have workedvery hard, with very good relations with Greg’sofficials, to make sure that we got this in thisdocument.

Q60 Sheryll Murray: Just very quickly, could we goback to the three pillars: social, economic andenvironmental? If the national framework had a veryprescriptive equal weight clause in it, would that nottake away the flexibility of local authorities to perhapsput different weights on different sections throughoutthe country where there is perhaps a greater need forthe social emphasis in one area or the environmentalin another? It is probably more flexible and better forthe environment to actually leave it as it is now.Greg Clark: I think it is worth bearing in mind thatthis is guidance, this is to help principally localcouncils produce their plans, and part of the point ofa localist approach is that I have always believed thatthe people who know their area best and knowintimately their local environment in all its differentaspects are local people. I think they need to haveclear principles set out that the environmental, thesocial and the economic are important, that it shouldbe positive and, as I was saying to Dr Whitehead,there should not just be a “miserablist” view as towhat is the least damage that could be done. It shouldbe positively seeking to enhance all of those things.Let me give you an example on design. We havestrengthened the design requirements because I thinkagain one of the things that got development a badname in this country is people’s perception that theyhave had imposed on them buildings of a poor qualitythat do not reflect local input. We are very clear thatdesign developments that do not take advantage of theopportunity to improve the character of an area shouldbe refused. There are some, I think correctly, strongsteers to plan makers in this direction of it being aboutsmart growth, about being improvement, but how it isexpressed locally, that is why you have a local plan.That is why we want to advantage it.

Q61 Chair: Just before you leave, Mr Benyon, couldI just go back to what you were saying earlier onabout the Natural Environment White Paper and theFlood and Waste Management Act guidance? One ofthe other aspects is we have all these differentGovernment statements and frameworks. How do yousee them actually coming together within the NationalPlanning Policy Framework in order that there is aco-ordinated way of being able to balance differentaspects of decision making?Greg Clark: That is the reason that Richard is heretoday, why we have worked together on both theNatural Environment White Paper and, indeed, theNPPF. Because obviously it would be ridiculous to




employ different definitions of sustainability acrossdifferent Government Departments, so it is essentialthat we worked closely on this. As I say, it is one ofthe reasons why we have not put too much of recentbut not, as it were, timeless policy documents in theframework, lest they become quickly out of date andsuperseded by different documents, but that is alwaysa judgement as to how many documents you referenceversus how permanent it is.Richard Benyon: I cannot add to that. That is exactlymy feeling as well.

Q62 Caroline Nokes: I just wanted to ask abouttransition arrangements. Richard, you described it asa big shift, and you are probably going to run out thedoor by the time I am finished asking the question. Ithink a lot of us are concerned about the transitionperiod for those local authorities that do not yet havetheir local plans in place or for those that have plansthat were put in place under regional spatial strategiesand as a result might find them no longer up to date.Are you planning to give any specific powers to localauthorities to reject development that is considered tobe unsustainable?Greg Clark: If I could take that, again I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, to which peoplehave made a number of different suggestions on thispoint. Let me say this. If you consider everything thatI have said, that our reforms are about putting localcommunities in charge to have their plans locallydeveloped, being the basis on which planningapplications are determined, you could see that itwould be completely against our purposes and ourintention to step backwards from that and to putauthorities in a position that they had less influence,even in the interim, over applications beingdetermined, to have more things going to the PlanningInspectorate. It has always been our intention that wewill make an announcement about transitionalarrangements. Our target, our deadline, for publishingthe final version is not until April next year. Wellbefore then we will, reflecting on the suggestions thathave been made in the consultation, set out ourtransition arrangements, but you can be sure that theywill not be to the detriment of any authority that isdoing the right thing in putting its plan together.Richard Benyon: I am afraid this will have to be mylast contribution, but can I say that as well as ourcommitment on sustainability we are also therural-proofing conscience of Government, if you like.As Minister for Rural Affairs, I am also responsiblefor making sure that we are doing what we can inGovernment to make sure rural communities areviable, that there are houses for young people to livein that are affordable to young families, that there arebusinesses that are thriving in rural communities, thatwe are getting digital access that is providing the basisfor growth in rural communities. That is a veryimportant driver as well. Everything is a balance, andI just hope that through the fog of rhetoric that hasbeen flying around this document we can keep ourminds both on the need for people to understand, andlocal authorities through their plans to understand,what we mean by sustainable development. A key partof that is not only protecting the landscapes we all

love but also providing jobs, homes and sustainablebusinesses so that the countryside does not justbecome some sort of chocolate box image, as if wekeep it in aspic, rather than what we know it needs tobe to survive in the future.

Q63 Caroline Nokes: Just to follow up on what Gregsaid, I am certainly conscious and I know othermembers of the Committee are, of incidents alreadywhere developers are citing the NPPF in their appealsprocess, seeking to use that to achieve development.What support are you planning to give to localauthorities who do not have a plan in place to makesure that, in good time, after the end of theconsultation and this being implemented, they do that?Greg Clark: That will be part of the transitionarrangements, but obviously again it goes withoutsaying that if you are inviting authorities to have aplan that is going to be sovereign, then part of thebargain is that you are available to make sure it canbe examined and they can have assistance inproducing those plans, so that will be there.When it comes to the NPPF being cited in particularcases at the moment, you will know that in anylitigation, any area where something is fordetermination, people will always cite particulardocuments, a particular piece of evidence, but wehave been very clear and the Planning Inspectoratehas been very clear that this is a document forconsultation. It is not Government policy. It is aconsultation document.

Q64 Neil Carmichael: Greg, my constituency isobsessed with the thought that we are going to have60% of rural England vulnerable to buildingdevelopers and all the rest. We had a descriptionbefore in this session of a situation where houses wereliterally built around the edge of a national park. Whatassurance can you give us that that is not going to bepart of the outcome of the NPPF?Greg Clark: It will not be the outcome because, firstof all, you have strong national protections for wherethere are landscapes of national importance, butbeyond that it is putting power into the hands of localpeople. I cannot imagine a council anywhere in thecountry, where you have people elected to be stewardsof their precious countryside, that they would regardit as any part of their purpose to damage that. Part ofthe problem at the moment and one of the reasons forrepealing the regional strategies is that in over 30areas of the country there were required reviews ofgreenbelt boundaries. It was taking power out of thehands of local people. You had housing targets thatoften bore no relation to the assessments that peoplehad made locally. By taking power out of the handsof people I think there was a sense of vulnerability,but people will see that by having a plan, having aplan that says where development should take placeand where it should not take place, with new abilitiesto designate areas of green space to enjoy similarprotection as if they were in the greenbelt or wereareas of outstanding natural beauty, to have thatavailable even if they do not have nationalimportance, these are very powerful new tools that




will be available to people, but the key thing is thatthe local plan will be what determines applications.

Q65 Neil Carmichael: Is the local plan going to haveenough authority to stand up to pressures fromdevelopers in terms of any appeal processes or JRprocesses they might want to go through?Greg Clark: Again, I did not mention this at thebeginning but this is another aspect of the reason toget rid of the regional strategies and to simplify policy.Frankly, the more pages of policy you have and themore volumes of regional strategy you have, thegreater the opportunity is to say, “The local plan isinconsistent with this particular line”. One of thereasons why local plans I think have taken a long timeto be adopted is just the sheer complexity of therequirement to demonstrate conformity with all ofthese different aspects. Having a simpler, moreprinciple-based approach reduces the scope, in myview, for local plans to be set aside and decisionstaken outside local communities by the PlanningInspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate does aprofessional job; its job is to be independentscrutineers, but I would much rather decisions weretaken in communities by communities.

Q66 Neil Carmichael: Are you satisfied with thescope that the Localism Bill and subsequently Act willprovide for authorities to co-operate with each otherwhen it comes to planning and the location of newhousing?Greg Clark: Yes, this has been an important aspectand, as I have said to this Committee, my view of theLocalism Bill when we introduced it and took itthrough the House of Commons—it is now with theHouse of Lords—is that I think it is always reasonableto listen to reasonable suggestions. I think the duty toco-operate has been a particular beneficiary of this andnot just from our colleagues in Parliament. Forexample, Royal Town Planning Institute played animportant role in making sure that the duty toco-operate between authorities and between publicbodies is stronger than it was initially proposed to be.Now, I think that that is the right way to determinethese, as it were, larger than local matters. There doesneed to be a means for addressing them. I think tohave everything in a regional plan is one way ofdetermining them. To take it out of the hands ofauthorities and say, “This has to be the solution. Youhave just got to get on with it”, almost like a sort ofbenevolent dictator, I think that does not go with thegrain of human nature. Actually, I think there has beena consensus established across parties that a moreco-operative organic system, if you like, whereby youco-operate on joint issues is the best way to proceed.It will be a test of the soundness of any plan whetherthe duty to co-operate has been properly and fullydischarged.

Q67 Neil Carmichael: Earlier in this session weheard from at least one witness that there might be aproblem of capacity in planning departments for localauthorities; two or three planners sitting therestruggling with the need to produce a plan, wondering

exactly how many houses are needed and so forth.What would be your answer to that criticism?Greg Clark: I think I said right at the beginning thatwe want to advantage plan making. I am a great fanof the planning profession. I think that often they havebeen caught in the crossfire recently. They have beensometimes resented by communities because theyhave been thought to be imposing development inwhich local people have had no say, and from theother end they have been thought of as people holdingup the process by applicants. I think it has been veryunfair because actually people go into planning, in myexperience with the planning profession, because theywant to plan, they want to shape the places in whichthey live. By returning planning to planning for thefuture rather than simply development control, first ofall it should be easier to determine applications if youhave a clear plan in place, and you have a muchreduced scope for legal challenge. That is the rightway to do it.Bear in mind also that some of the other reformsoutside the planning process, the consultation that weare introducing on the reform of business rates, forexample, means that local councils will be able toretain increases in their business rate uptake. Now,one of the things that we know, we have been told, isthat a clear plan and an efficient planning departmentis very attractive for businesses seeking to locateperhaps from overseas. Councils will know that theyhave the benefit from businesses locating there, and itcould be that some of them may want to invest intheir planning department knowing that actually thebenefits of that will be available to them rather thansimply being sucked away to the Treasury. That maybe a useful investment. We know that some localenterprise partnerships are placing a particularimportance on plan making and being clear therebecause they know that this is going to be attractiveto people considering whether to locate in an area.

Q68 Dr Whitehead: Just briefly on the question ofno local authority would put the—and I amparaphrasing your comment a moment ago followingCaroline’s question—environment at risk in terms oftheir local planning policy. It is the case, however, thata lot of local authorities do not have a congruence,say, between population and land, that you will haveperhaps some of that local authority particularly keento develop in certain areas and other parts of the localauthority not keen to have a part of that local authoritydeveloped. That particular dispute would not actuallyspill outside the local authority boundary in terms ofa duty to co-operate. How would the absence of anysort of proper constraint on that ambition play as faras that particular local authority might be concerned?Greg Clark: First of all, bear in mind the nationalpolicy that guides plan making. For example, bringingforward land of the lowest environmental value first,is a requirement as part of plan making. To decide thatwe have a piece of environmentally valuable land hereand less so here, it is not simply about, as it were,who shouts the loudest. There is a requirement todemonstrate that you are bringing forward land of thelowest environmental value first. That is an importantaspect. Of course, there are lots of other tests there as




well; some of the transport tests, the accessibility ofdevelopments in terms of public transport. Thenational safeguards that are there, in which planmaking should take place, will guard against anyconsequences that would be damaging to the localenvironment.Beyond that, when it comes to a choice of two places,if there is an allocation made, you have to decidewhere you are going to provide your new industrialzone, for example, if it is determined that you needsome employment land. Providing you have satisfiedthose environmental and social tests, I would ratherthat decision was taken, however controversial it is,locally by locally elected people, who can be removedat the ballot box, rather than it simply being pushedon for determination by the Planning Inspectorate andeveryone perhaps breathing a sigh of relief that theydo not need to get to grips with the issue and they canall blame the inspector. I think that corrodes faith inthe democratic process.One of the reasons that I have been so passionateabout this role is that I had a Private Member’s Bill—I think, Dr Whitehead, you might even have been asupporter of it—to allow councils not to build on backgardens if they wanted to. Now, it is a classic case inpoint. It was not to say that every garden should beunder a preservation order and never built on, but itallows local councils to make that decision and toconsider whether gardens make an importantcontribution to the sense of place of an area or not orwhether they would be better used for housing. Now,in some cases that can lead to some quite controversialdebates as to what the policy should be, but I wouldrather that was the case than that they were simplytold that every back garden that comes up fordevelopment will be approved on appeal. You arenever going to get away from that, but localisminvolves local debate and I would rather that happenedthan it was simply shoved away to somewhere outsidethe locality.

Q69 Zac Goldsmith: Planning is not a precisescience, as we know, which is why the context is soimportant here, which is why the Prime Minister’sletter was, I think, widely appreciated by people whoare concerned about what this framework stands for.The outcome that you think will result from thisframework is diametrically opposed to the outcomethat some of the campaign groups think will resultfrom this very same document, despite the fact youare looking at the same document. How much testinghave you done to ensure that this document will workin law in the way that you believe it will work in law?Greg Clark: Partly the purpose of the consultation isto invite views from all groups, individuals, to makesure that the words that are used are watertight anddo not have any unintended consequences and chinksthere. I think we have had and are having a prettyexhaustive consideration of those matters. As I said,there is simply no point in having a consultation ifyou are not prepared to listen to reasonable points thatare made, and that will be part of it.Again, I cannot pre-empt the consultation, but whenwe have come to it, when we have had discussionswith some of the groups, there are particular aspects

where they have suggested phrases that could putbeyond doubt the intended purpose. Again, withoutpre-empting brownfield sites, for example, one of theconcerns that has been expressed is that there is nolonger an intention by the Government to developbrownfield sites before greenfield sites. The oppositeis the truth. It is clearly obviously desirable that youbring forward derelict land before you bring forwardgreen space. Conditioned by my experience of thegarden grabbing issue where gardens were consideredto be brownfield land, we have felt in drafting theframework that brownfield, while it is a word that hasbecome part of common currency, actually can berather blunt. To say that you should bring forward landof the lowest environmental value first would haveaddressed the gardens, which we dealt with anyway,but would also address other aspects of valued greenspace that otherwise would have to have aclarification.Now, some people I think in a perfectlywell-intentioned way have read more into the absenceof the word “brownfield” than has been intended. Wehave listened to all responses but there have beensome suggestions that one could reference that in thedocument. I think as we go through it—and I lookforward to the Committee’s response—I want this tobe the kind of planning framework that achieves ourobjectives and does not have the unintendedconsequences. We have put a lot of time and effortinto this and we will continue to do so.

Q70 Zac Goldsmith: Can I follow up if I could? Ithas also been said by a number of commentators thatone of the effects of the framework is to shift theburden of proof on to the shoulders of the localauthorities in relation to whether or not the upside isgoing to be significantly greater than the downside. Isit the case that there has been a shift in the burden ofproof and is that something that you are—it would beinteresting to hear you comment on that now.Greg Clark: It is not so much the burden of proof.The key thing to bear in mind is that we are seekingto move to a situation in which you have plans thatdetermine what will be approved or not. Too much atthe moment, I think, you have had planningcommittees effectively determining application byapplication, then on appeal the inspectorate weighingup the pros and cons of particular applications. WhatI want to get to is a situation in which it is clear fromthe plan—because the plan has a sovereignty that itdoes not have at the moment or often is absent—it isclear to everyone where you can build, where youcannot build, what standards you have to build to,what aspects of design are going to be adhered to, soit is less of that. One of the things that we arechanging—by getting rid of the regional strategies,which, for example, imposed a housing number foreach authority, we are giving a responsibility to thelocal council to make a fair-minded assessment, arigorous assessment, of their housing need and then tosay where it should take place. That is a shift in powerbut also a shift in responsibility, but I think it is rightto do that.




Q71 Zac Goldsmith: If there is a sort of defaultposition that says that a local authority has to provethat an application is unreasonable for whateverreason, how would you avoid a situation where thatpressure, that bombardment, will effectively requirelocal authorities to develop such prescriptive plans todeal with any possible eventuality, that actually wemight end up with a more, not less, bureaucraticsystem at the end of it?Greg Clark: You answered the first part of yourquestion in the second part, that section 38(6) of the2004 Act suggests that the local plan is the keydocument in this. It is up to local councils to thinkabout the foreseeable circumstances and to plan forthat. More than that, through neighbourhood plans, weare saying, if you do want to go into greater detailbecause you know more intimately even than the localcouncil can reasonably deal with, you do have theopportunity to do that. But I would rather that wasclear on paper in advance, and more than on paperhad been forged by the local community. I wouldrather that you had that there than have an applicationby application determination, without the degree ofsteer from the local community, so I can live with that.

Q72 Zac Goldsmith: I think a lot of people reallyare investing a lot of hope in the neighbourhood planconcept. Most people recognise there is real potentialthere, but equally it is lacking in real definition ofwhat is a neighbourhood, how these things areformed, what powers will they have. Is it the case,and it seems to be the case from what you have justsaid, that a neighbourhood plan could go further thanthe local authority plan? It could be moreprescriptive?Greg Clark: Yes.

Q73 Zac Goldsmith: It can include ingredients thatare not mentioned or referenced?Greg Clark: Correct.

Q74 Zac Goldsmith: That would be sovereign?Greg Clark: Yes, formally it would become part ofthe local plan once it had been adopted. It has to gothrough, as I think you know, a referendum to adoptit, but then it would become part of the local plan,also following an examination to make sure it is notinconsistent with the strategic aspect. For example, ifa local authority is planning a road that crosses anumber of different parishes or neighbourhoods, for aneighbourhood plan to say, “Well, actually, we havedecided we are going to have three houses right in themiddle of the path of this road” clearly would not beconsistent with that. So that is part of the examination,but it may be examined and adopted as part of thelocal plan.

Q75 Zac Goldsmith: I know you cannot pre-emptthe consultation and you cannot even hint as to whatthe likely impact is going to be, but the impressionthat I have both from talking to you now and alsofrom some of the discussions with the organisations isthat it will change, that the next document will haveadapted quite considerably in terms of shifting thebalance. If that is the case and given how defining

this document is, you will be asked by some of theorganisations whether or not you are willing to bringback that document for a second, shorter consultationso that people can fully take into account the changesthat you have introduced on the back of the firstconsultation. Is that something that you haveconsidered and are you likely to agree?Greg Clark: On the first point, we are clear that weneed to have a system. What we have set out in thedocument I think is a huge step forward. Thepresumption in favour of sustainable development hasto be there, advantaging local plans has to be there. Ifthere are particular points of expression such as havebeen raised today and have been raised byorganisations, of course we will consider them andconsider them in good faith with a positive volition,but I think we need to accept some of the evidencehas been almost kind of nostalgic for the regionalapproach, and I heard that from some of the evidencethat you took earlier today. We should be clear thatwe are not going back to that. We are going to havean approach that advantages local communities andwe are going to do that. Of course, when we considerall of the responses to the consultation we will puttogether a proposed final version and publish thatbefore it is adopted.Chair: We must move to impact assessment.

Q76 Simon Wright: A number or organisations havequestioned the evidence base that the Government hasused in developing the NPPF. Friends of the Earth, forexample, have highlighted that the NPPF has not beensubject to strategic environmental assessments. Canyou explain why that decision was taken?Greg Clark: We have been consistent in this withprevious policy. Do not forget this is guidance. Thisis our guidance to local authorities. It is a materialconsideration rather than anything more than that. Ithink some of the debate during the summer hasimplied that this is statute law. It is not. We have madea decision not to change the law in this respect. It isconsolidation and really principally a distillation ofexisting policy.

Q77 Simon Wright: You do not see a contradictionthen in the fact that national policy statements aresubjected to that assessment?Greg Clark: No, because the difference is that theymake decisions directly or they require decisions tobe taken in a particular way. For example, I think youprobably scrutinise the energy segments. This isguidance to authorities. They make the decisions onthe basis of the local plan and this is a materialconsideration.

Q78 Simon Wright: Do you have an idea of thecosts and benefits of the environmental impacts of theproposed changes?Greg Clark: Well, it is always very difficult inadvance to be able to quantify it. The impactassessment gives our fairest assessment of the costand benefits in different areas, but it depends on theresponse to the opportunities that are there.




Q79 Simon Wright: Has the Defra methodology forvaluing ecosystem services been used in any way todevelop the draft NPPF?Greg Clark: As I think Richard made clear,throughout the preparation of the NPPF we haveworked very closely together. The development of theNatural Environment White Paper was taking placesimultaneously with this and our officials worked veryclosely to make sure—I think the Chair made thepoint that there should not be different approaches anddifferent definitions taken across different parts ofGovernment.

Q80 Simon Wright: The methodology has beenapplied in this?Greg Clark: That is my understanding.

Q81 Chair: Sorry, you say it is your understanding.Could you provide the basis on which that has beendone to the Committee?Greg Clark: Of course, yes.Chair: That would be helpful.

Q82 Simon Wright: Shouldn’t the NPPF requiredevelopment proposals to be explicitly tested in termsof a quantified valuation of the environmental andecosystem impacts?

Greg Clark: Well, actually, one of the parts of thedrafting is that the benefits and the disbenefits shouldbe demonstrable, and throughout the document youwill see that there is a requirement to be evidencebased in all of the various aspects. I think planningand the development of plans locally should not justbe on the basis of assertion; it should be evidenced.That is a particular aspect of that, but I think it isconsistent with the approach that we have taken tosuggest that things should be evidence based.

Q83 Chair: I think that just about brings us to theend of a very long session with a series of three setsof witnesses. Can I thank you, Minister, for yourpatience and for making time available to come alongtoday. I think there is a lot of interest, a lot of concern,a lot of controversy, a lot of issues that need to beaddressed. We very much hope that the report that wewill produce and that we will give to the DCLG SelectCommittee will actually contribute to sustainabledevelopment. I think you would recognise theconcerns that there are about the definition so, onceagain, we hope this will have a constructive input atsome stage.Greg Clark: Thank you. May I say to the Committeehow grateful I am that you are taking the trouble tolook into this.Chair: Thank you.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SO] Processed: [29-11-2011 08:30] Job: 015368 Unit: PG01


Written evidence

Written evidence submitted by Community and Regional Planning Services

Introduction

1. Community and Regional Planning Services is pleased to submit this evidence. Our evidence is notconfidential.

2. Community and Regional Planning Services is an independent planning consultancy operating throughoutEngland and offering a full range of planning advice and resources to both public and private clients at national,sub-national and local levels. We specialise in “third party” work for small businesses, parish, town andcommunity councils, amenity groups and private individuals. We have experience in using planning policyboth in connection with development plans and in development management, including appeals and inquiries.We also undertake studies, research and policy advice for NGOs and statutory agencies. We provide trainingin the planning system through seminars and workshops. Through all our work runs the thread of a high levelof environmental awareness and commitment together with community sensitivity.

3. We do not purport to represent any particular clients or other interests in responding to the Committee’sCall for Evidence, but do so from the perspective of our lengthy experience across a wide range of land-useplanning issues.

4. We are not specifically requesting to give oral evidence.

Summary

This Evidence discusses the definition of sustainable development as used in the draft National PlanningPolicy Framework (July 2011) and the “Presumption in favour of sustainable development”.

Evidence

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumptionin favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach?

1. “Sustainable development” is not actually defined in the draft NPPF except by a footnote reference to the1987 Brundtland report, and it does not appear in the Glossary.

2. An attempt to explain the use of the term is made in draft NPPF paras 10–12, with an emphasis onpursuing the “three components in an integrated way” ie the economic, social and environmental roles. Planningis in a unique position to do this. Unfortunately, the draft NPPF, despite its “core planning principles”—whichin some cases are undermined by the detail which follows them—is too orientated towards economic growth,favouring business above all else. Of course all want to see a favourable economic climate and the planningsystem can contribute to this, but the popular image that planning stands in the way of businesses is, in general,a myth.

3. Other examples of the NPPF’s not following through the principles of sustainability include a weakeningof policies on developer obligations, the location of office development, the re-use of previously developedland, and transport.

4. The planning system has since its inception in 1947 stuck to the principle of balancing competing interestsand in modern thinking this means integrating the demands of the economy with those of social needs,protection of the environment and the prudent use of natural resources. The NPPF is in danger of upsettingthis careful balance.

5. The “presumption in favour of sustainable development” as it stands is dangerous. It is understandablethat pressure needs to be put upon some local authorities to accelerate their plan-making in order to ensurethat their local plans are up-to-date, although time should be allowed for this before any “presumption” isinvoked. Para 15 of the draft NPPF states that LPAs should produce “clear policies that will guide how thepresumption will be applied locally”. If this means that the “presumption” could not be invoked until the localplanning authority had devised, consulted on and adopted such policies, then that would work.

6. Otherwise, unless the “presumption” is qualified to a much greater extent than at present, some undesirableconsequences could arise. The only example given in the draft NPPF of where a proposed development wouldnot be permitted under the “presumption” is in relation to a site protected under the Birds or Habitats Directives(para 16)—the possible inference being that no other policy constraints would stand in the way of invokingthe “presumption”, especially at appeal.

7. Policy constraints such as National Parks, AONBs, heritage coasts, conservation areas, World HeritageSites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Green Belt, local strategic gaps, SSSIs and other recognised wildlifesites, ancient woodland, locally valued landscapes and open public amenity areas should be accepted aslocations where the “presumption” would not apply. Even if these policy constraints were listed, the implication

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [29-11-2011 08:30] Job: 015368 Unit: PG01


that such a list were exhaustive might mean that the “presumption” could lead to unacceptable development inother areas of open countryside.

2 September 2011

Written evidence submitted by the National Trust

Introduction

1. The National Trust welcomes the Committee’s inquiry and we are pleased to offer this response toyour consultation.

2. The National Trust is a leading conservation charity that has since our creation in 1895 been involved indebates about the checks and balances on development and specifically on the land use planning system. Weprotect and manage, on behalf of the nation, over 270,000 ha of countryside and over 700 miles of unspoiltcoastline and estuary. Our coast and countryside sites attract more than 100 million visits per year. We are alsoresponsible for many hundreds of buildings and gardens of historic or cultural significance.

3. The Trust is also a major business, with a turnover close to £500 million and some 5,500 employees.Over 3.8 million people are now members of the National Trust which is over 5% of the UK population.

4. Not only are we a major provider of tourist facilities and owners of Europe’s largest network of holidaycottages and gift shops but we also develop commercial housing to support our conservation work. Over thelast ten years we have built or have consent for over 900 homes to be sold on a commercial basis. As such weare both an applicant and objector in the planning system.

The National Trust’s Broad Position

5. The National Trust supports the principle that sustainable development should be at the heart of theplanning system and a fundamental guiding principle within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

6. However, we have grave concerns that the current draft NPPF and the Government’s wider planningreforms are being viewed as a mechanism for driving short term economic recovery rather than its properfunction which is to integrate economic growth, social impacts and environmental protection or gain.

7. Planning reforms of this scale are rare. The National Trust believes it is vital that the NPPF is fit forpurpose over the long term. We also believe it remains very unclear that the NPPF will operate in practice asthe Government intends and this could fundamentally undermine the delivery of sustainable development.

The Direction Given by the NPPF and Wider Reforms

8. One of our major concerns is that the Government appears to be fundamentally changing the purpose ofthe planning system. We are particularly concerned that in doing this the fundamental principle of maintaininga balanced planning system whereby no public benefit is given weight over another is under threat.

9. The Treasury’s Plan for Growth set the context for this clearly stating at section 1.34 that:

(i) The Government will reform the planning system radically and fundamentally and the Governmentwill introduce “a powerful new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that thedefault answer to development is yes”.

(ii) The Government will “produce a shorter, more focused and inherently pro-growth (our emphasis)National Planning Policy Framework to deliver more development in suitable and viablelocations”.

(iii) “set clear expectations that with immediate effect local planning authorities and other bodiesinvolved in granting development consents should prioritise growth and jobs (ouremphasis) …”

(iv) “introduce new powers so that businesses are able to bring forward neighbourhood plans andneighbourhood development orders”.

10. We deal with the definition of sustainable development below. However, we are also concerned that nomatter what definition is ultimately applied the NPPF document is likely to become the driving force in bothplan making and decision taking. As drafted the strong presumption and weighting towards economic factorswithin the NPPF will combine with clause 130 of the Localism Bill, the lack of planning resources in localauthorities and the operation of the Community Infrastructure Levy to mean that development will be almostimpossible to resist and impossible to defend on appeal.

A Balanced System

11. The National Trust supports the Brundtland definition of sustainable development in paragraph 9 of theNPPF. However, we would observe that the thinking on sustainable development has moved on. The UK nowhas a very sophisticated understanding of sustainable development which has been set out in detail within the

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [29-11-2011 08:30] Job: 015368 Unit: PG01


UK Sustainable Development Strategy 2005 (UKSDS). It would be more useful for the NPPF to refer to thisrather than the much older Brundtland definition.

12. Whilst the National Trust is calling for environmental, social and economic factors to be carry equalweight in planning, the UKSDS makes it clear that in fact Living Within Environmental Limits and Ensuringa Strong, Healthy and Just Society are the overarching, first order, principles of sustainable development.

13. This derives from an understanding that without respecting environmental limits we undermine the veryresources upon which any economy is based.

14. Perhaps the most obvious example of where the NPPF and the Government’s wider reforms fail to adoptthis approach is in the removal of brownfield targets and the lack of protection within the NPPF of grade 1and 2 agricultural land. Given that we are likely to be faced in the future with food security issues itdemonstrates just one clear example of how you might expect to see sustainable development being reflectedin planning policy.

15. Economic factors within the UKSDS are dealt with as a second order principle. These are never the lessimportant and we would draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that within the principle of Achieving aSustainable Economy it again makes clear that this means prosperity and opportunities for all but whereenvironmental and social costs fall on those who impose them.

16. It seems clear to the National Trust that statements throughout the NPPF are inconsistent with theapplication of Brundtland or the more detailed understanding within the UKSDS.

17. This is particularly the case in relation to the presumption in favour of sustainable development and isseen most acutely in paragraph 13 which states “Therefore, significant weight should be placed on the need tosupport economic growth through the planning system”.

18. There are also clear statements throughout the document that the role of planning should be to drive theeconomy. For example under the core planning principles section 19 bullet point 2. There are further examplessuch as such as 84 which makes a clear statement that “the objectives of transport policy are to facilitateeconomic growth by taking a positive approach to planning for development”. In addition to this in section54 bullet two local authorities are told to attach significant weight to the benefits of economic factors andhousing growth.

Valuing People

19. The National Trust believes that the unbalanced system described above will lead to unplanned sprawland inappropriate development in both urban and rural areas, the costs of which are not only environmental.

20. The National Trust was established in 1895 because our founders recognised the social harm that wasbeing done to individuals and communities from the effects of the industrial revolution.

21. Likewise, early planning law stemmed not from environmental legislation but from the Public HealthAct of 1875. The planning system itself has never been mandated to promote growth. Its distinctive role hasalways been to support the delivery of these wider public benefits through integrating social, economic andenvironmental goals.

22. Helping to deliver really high quality places for people to live and work has never been more important.They are fundamental to our individual wellbeing. As drafted the NPPF will undermine this aspiration.

How It will Work in Practice

23. A further key concern for the National Trust is how the NPPF will operate in practice. We believe thatwhere no plan is in place or a plan is silent or indeterminate it will prove almost impossible to stop anydevelopment. This is because the NPPF will become the sole guiding document in any planning decision.Should a local authority refuse consent we believe that the weighting of the presumption in favour ofsustainable development and the weight given to economic factors throughout the document will make itimpossible to defend a refusal at appeal.

24. This is particularly concerning because we believe all local plans will be rendered out of date when theNPPF is published and with diminishing resources local authorities will struggle to bring existing plans up todate and fill the gaps where there are no plans or where plans are silent or indeterminate. It also remains veryunclear how long it will take for the country to have complete coverage with the new NeighbourhoodDevelopment Plans, which are themselves potentially flawed (see below).

25. The Government’s argument to this point appears to be that any decision must take into account thebalance of the whole document. However, if the document is by its very nature unbalanced it is likely tobecome impossible to defend a refusal, especially with the limited resources available to local authorities.

26. If the Government maintains this position it becomes even more imperative that the document has aneutral voice in respect of economic, social and environmental factors. It is only through a neutral documentthat people, whether a parish council, planning committee or inspector can adequately weigh up the publicbenefit, assuming that all public benefits are equally important.



Democratic Accountability

27. A further second order principle of the UKSDS is Promoting Good Governance and this should beapplied at all levels of society. The National Trust does not believe that the NPPF or the wider planning reformssupport this principle.

28. For example, we do not support the Government’s intention to allow businesses to bring forwardNeighbourhood Development Plans (NDPs) and to make Neighbourhood Development Orders (NDOs). Whilstwe fully recognise that business has a legitimate and potentially very useful role to play in supportingcommunities in the development of NDPs and NDOs we think the ability of businesses to lead the process isfundamentally wrong.

29. In order to fulfil a truly localist philosophy which supports good governance, NDPs and NDOs and theprocesses by which they are derived should be owned by communities and decisions should be taken only bydemocratically elected representatives. We can see no reason why this should not be the case since it appearsto be entirely consistent with the Government’s stated aims of devolving power and delivering a Big Society.

30. In addition to this we believe there may be many occasions where the following situation will arise. TheNPPF will render local plans out of date (or an existing plan may be silent or indeterminate) and where thereis no Neighbourhood Development Plan the NPPF will become the key planning document. If as drafted theNPPF makes appeals almost impossible and if there continues to be no third party right of appeal localcommunities will in effect have their plan and decisions imposed on them.

Key Asks

31. The Planning system is not a tool to promote the economy. Its guiding principle since 1947 has beenthat planning acts in the public interest. It exists to protect important public goods (landscape, natural andhistoric environment), not to “proactively drive” development (para 19). The NPPF should be rewrittenthroughout so that it is neutral in tone balancing economic, environmental and social concerns.

32. Clause 130 of the Localism Bill should be removed. By privileging financial inducements within thedecision making process Clause 130 upsets the careful balance within the planning system and may bias localauthorities inappropriately. This would not prevent developers from funding local mitigation of developmentimpact such as a Community Infrastructure Levy, which is perfectly appropriate.

33. The “presumption in favour of sustainable development” is poorly defined and serves to unbalance theplanning system The core principle of sustainable development in planning is that decisions are made in anintegrated way, with no single objective being given undue weight. When this is done, good development willbe directed to the right place. When it is not, bad development will result. The document needs redraftingto reflect this principle throughout.

34. The default “YES” will lead to bad development and must be removed. The NPPF tells us thatdecision- takers should assume that the “answer to development proposals is ‘yes’” (para 19) and that localauthorities should “grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policiesare out of date” (para 14). At present 47% of the country has no core strategy. This will result either ininappropriate development being given consent, or more decisions being overturned on appeal, leading to baddevelopments and the disenfranchisement of local communities and their democratically elected representatives.

35. The NPPF should adopt an explicit “brownfield first” approach, which makes clear that newdevelopment is to be preferred on previously developed land before green field sites are considered. TheGovernment has dropped the brownfield targets, but has not replaced them with a clear enough statement ofthe importance of using previously developed sites first.

36. The requirement on local authorities to identify an additional 20% of land over and above a fiveyear housing land supply should be removed. We do not need to do more than meet a five year demand,and this will result in greater pressure on green field land, whether protected (eg by green belt status) or not.

37. Neighbourhoods should not be told they must support local development or encouraged to promotemore development than is in the local plan—this should be removed. The planning system at all levelsmust remain democratically robust, and must give genuine power to local people.

38. It is fundamentally wrong that neighbourhood plans should be led and funded by business. It should bea core principle of the reforms that any plans whether at neighbourhood or local authority level should bedeveloped and signed off by democratically elected and accountable representatives.

39. The NPPF should ensure that there is no reduction in protection for the historic and naturalenvironment. These are commitments that Ministers have previously made but the NPPF as drafted willdiminish protection for these aspects of the landscape by overturning a long held convention in favour of theirconservation and increasing the degree of harm that must be shown in order to outweigh any developmentproposal.



40. There should be a limited third party right of appeal, in circumstances where consent is grantedfor development that is inconsistent with the plan. This should be guaranteed through the Localism Bill.

13 September 2011

Written evidence submitted by Neil Blackshaw, Epplanning

Summary— The NPPF’s definition and supporting description of sustainable development is inadequate as a

basis for making planning decisions. This inadequacy is illustrated in extracts from the Framework.

— Progress in delivering sustainable development in England has been made but is patchy andinconsistent and the opportunity exists to take a step change.

— The “presumption in favour” that relies on this inadequate specification is likely to produce theopposite effect and to undermine sustainable development.

— Planning decisions in large areas of the country will be subject only to the NPPF in the absenceof up to date plans.

— Decisions will inevitably be weighted towards considerations of growth and economic developmentwith inadequate weight given to adverse impacts and there will be no incentive to improve on thedelivery of sustainable development.

— Changes can be made to the NPPF that will enable it to meet the aim of encouraging sustainabledevelopment to better fulfill the function of providing a framework for plans and for makingdecisions on development proposals under the presumption, Examples are offered.

Submission

1. The statutory objective of planning under the 2004 Act is to contribute to the achievement of sustainabledevelopment and this purpose is restated in the NPPF.

2. The NPPF adopts the Brundtland definition, which, as a very high level aspiration has gained wide andjustified currency. It is however important to acknowledge that the “headline” was supported by a detailed textthat comprised Our Common Future. The complexity that it addresses is not reflected in the NPPF. On thecontrary the paper goes on to offer a gratuitous summary of the concept, which to any reasonable person isvirtually meaningless and adds nothing to the Brundtland formulation.

3. The government places sustainable development as the aim of planning carrying forward the abovestatutory duty and reflecting the rather more comprehensive description that can currently be found in PPS 1.However the government’s position is undermined by a failure to amplify in terms that are practically applicableby all stakeholders to the law and practice of spatial planning. It has not carried forward the 2005 Strategy andthe statement issued earlier this year by DEFRA embedding sustainable development was by common consentweak and inadequate. Furthermore it abolished the Sustainable development Commission.

4. It must be acknowledged that sustainable development is a contested phrase even now and its applicationthrough the planning system up to now, since 2004, must be judged to be patchy and inconsistent. The intentionwas that the efficacy of plans in this area would be tested by the sustainability appraisal (SA) that wasintroduced to deliver the requirements of the European Directive or SEA. In practice SA has not turned out tobe an objective and effective tool. It is typically self-referential rather than objectively evidence based. Thetest is normally applied to the policy intention rather than using and objective assessment of the forecastoutcome of the particular policy. SA has had minimal effect on the content of plans which are driven largelyby planning policy guidance, which of course gives effect to the spatial implications of related policy areassuch as transport and climate change. In this way and despite the lack of significant contribution from the SAprocess significant progress has surely been made. Intuitively it can be said that in many areas and in particularin relation to town centres and retailing, transport, urban design and energy efficiency significant steps havebeen taken. It is not possible to qualify this change, as there is no metric and framework within which tomeasure “the achievement of sustainable development”. Indicators such as CO2 emissions are obviouslyavailable but no attempt has been made to connect these with the impact of spatial planning. Indeed somecounter work has been done by Marcial Echenique at Cambridge that throws doubt on the contributionalternative spatial strategies can make to CO2 reduction. Neither this government nor its predecessor haspursued a research effort to gain some insights and clarity into this dilemma.

5. What this is pointing out is that the platform or foundation of “sustainable development” is already weakand lacks rigour in this field. It opens up the prospect that it can be applied willy-nilly simply as a slogan. TheNPPF comes dangerously close to this position. It defines sustainable development as that which it says it is—a circular argument. If the rhetoric and the procedural guidance is stripped out what remains is highly genericand lacking in content. The appendix 1 is one genuine attempt to distill what this amounts to.

6. In one sense this does not change anything. It is unfair to blame this administration for a failure todeliver sustainable development under a previous one. Nevertheless the NPPF offers a massive opportunity, toreinvigorate the pursuit of sustainable development and give a greater sense of purpose to the spatial planning



system. However it is the adoption of a “presumption in favour of sustainable development” that threatens toactually undermine the stated purpose of planning.

7. The preceding discussion has argued that the definition of sustainable development that can be distilledor inferred from the NPPF is weak and an inadequate basis for planning decision-making. That being the caseto impose a presumption in favour of development that ostensibly meets these inadequate criteria will have theconsequence of permitting development that performs weakly at best and may be unsustainable at worst.

8. The presumption is described as a “golden thread” running through all of planning. This may be valid asa signal to the attitude that councils should adopt but it is its requirement that permission should be grantedwhere the plan (the local plan, Core strategy or LDF) is silent, indeterminate or out of date that will be mostdamaging. That many plans are out of date is without question and it is a regrettable state of affairs for whichcouncils, politicians and planners bear a heavy responsibility. But the fact remains that, using the criterion ofan adopted plan set out in the NPPF (although the definition is ambiguous overall), 50% of the country, evenallowing for some progress in the next few months, will be immediately subject to the presumption from early2012. What is more the publication of the NPPF it could be argued will render all plans out of date for thesimple reason that they do not and cannot apply the changes it brings forward including the presumption itself.That outcome may appear ludicrous and may be untenable but the possibility remains. In that case the wholecountry would be subject to the presumption until such time a previously up to date plans can acquire a“certificate of conformity” the process for obtaining which is not explained but which is unlikely to be shortor simple.

9. Whatever the precise spatial outcome those areas without a plan will have to rely on the NPPF, whichhas been argued above to be inadequate. Councils in this situation will thus either attempt to fashion anacceptable decision from the scant guidelines in the NPPF or will refuse the application, equally relying on theNPPF. In the latter circumstances the inspector will then be called on to adjudicate as to whether the proposalrepresents sustainable development within the terms of the NPPF. This paper argues that such a judgment isimpossible for a reasonably diligent person to make with any certainty and that either the decision will befaulty (in the sustainability sense) or will draw on other factors.

10. In coming to such a decision the council or Inspector will in some if not in all cases be confronted withwhat the NPPF calls “trade-offs”. This is taken to mean that the interests of one strand of sustainabledevelopment, typically characterized, as the environmental, social and economic issues will need to beprioritised above the others. In coming to that position they will have to rely on the weight given to each ofthese in the NPPF. It is quite explicit that the weight to be given to growth per se and to economic developmentis, outwith the protected areas, significantly higher than other aspects. Furthermore the presumption is to applywhere the adverse effects significantly outweigh the benefits. The cumulative effect of these mandated weightsand some of the more specific new policy guidance in the body of the NPPF, such as brownfield land and nonresidential parking, will lead to developments where the objectives of sustainable development are undermined.This is an inevitable consequence of the plain fact that the NPPF does not provide a means of assessingwhether a proposal is sustainable. There is no template, there are no standards and there are no performancecriteria, all of which it is commonplace in local development frameworks. In cybernetics jargon the NPPF lacksrequisite variety. The ideological drive to simplify has, in practice, virtually emptied it of meaningful content.

What is To be Done?

11. The above discussion focuses narrowly on the concept and delivery of sustainable development.However, There are other fundamental weaknesses in the NPPF as published that impinge on sustainabledevelopment .The prime example is the fact that it is not a spatial document. It says nothing about the national,sub-national (formerly known as regional) pattern of, for instance, economic development, and land use andresource consumption. The duty to cooperate is an attempt to fill the vacuum left by the abolition of RSS butit has no substance as yet and will not be comprehensive. However there is not space to develop this importantpoint here.

12. The NPPF is not fit for purpose if that purpose is to deliver sustainable development. To make it so thedefinition of sustainable development needs to be elaborated in significant and practical ways and the NPPFneeds to set performance criteria by which the sustainability (used in the sense of to what extent it contributesto sustainable development) of a proposal can be judged. If this were done then it would be transparently clearin so far as it could be what would need to be done to secure permission, from the perspective of allstakeholders, community, developer, council and inspector. Given the state of knowledge these criteria couldnot be definitive or absolute but developing a practical and defensible “checklist” is well within our capabilities.An example is included in the appendix 2. Such a step would also have the beneficial effect of forcing thegovernment to be explicit about what its priorities are and what, in the current circumstances, it envisages asthe desirable rate of progress towards more sustainable development. This would not undermine localism orlocal discretion, far from it. The government’s role is to set strategic goals in the national interest. They thenensure progress and consistency but without uniformity and would set localities free to pursue good andhopefully cutting edge practice.



APPENDIX 1

Policy criteria extracted from the NPPF relation to sustainable development, housing economic development,environment and transport

Criteria checklistDoes the proposal…Provide for sustainable economic growth?Meet the relevant objectively assessed development needs?Provide benefits that demonstrably outweigh the adverse impacts?Respond to the needs of the community, expressed through engagement?Take account of environmental quality or potential quality?Protect and enhance environmental and heritage assets based on up to date information?Provide for environmental enhancement?Demonstrate the need and provide for necessary infrastructure?Demonstrate the need and provide for necessary local infrastructure?(Residential) Provide the necessary mix, scale, type and tenures of housing taking account of marketassessment, needs and demographic trends?(Non residential)Provide for necessary floor space for meeting business needs?Secure or support the improvement of health and wellbeing of the population?Take account of unmet needs in adjacent areas?Lead to lower carbon consumption?Promote the town centre?Raise the quality of life and improve the environment (in a rural area)?Support the expansion of existing business sectors?Provide for the development of clusters?Provide for innovative means of working?Take place in the town centre or justify a different location based on the sequential test?Secure a balance in favour or travel to and from the site by sustainable means?Reduce greenhouse gas emissions?Reduce congestion?Provide a transport assessment and demonstrate how opportunities for sustainable, safe travel have been taken?Locate in an accessible location with access to public transport and providing access for pedestrians cyclistsand all the community?Reduce the use of high emission vehicles?(Large scale residential) provide for local facilities such as primary school in walking distance?Provide for an increased supply of housing?Provide a wide choice that people want and need in the place they want?Widen opportunities for home ownership?Create or support sustainable neighbourhoods and encourage social interaction?Bring empty housing back into use?Adopt an appropriate density to make efficient use of land?Provide for mixed and multiple use of the land?Function well, make the best use of land, and provide a safe accessible and visually attractive environment?Provide for adequate amount of open space of the appropriate quality in accessible locations?Protect existing open space and recreational land?Provide for a radical reduction in greenhouse gas emissions?Provide for the use of renewablesAvoid flooding risk?Protect valued landscapes?Minimize impacts on biodiversity by avoidance, mitigation or compensation?Secure green infrastructure networks?Avoid designated landscape areas unless no alternative?Avoid creating or exposing people to unacceptable pollution, water, land or noise?



APPENDIX 2

An alternative approach to developing policy criteria that would enable the operation of the presumption toencourage sustainable development

Justification for Policy or Policy prescriptions or ProposalSustainable development topic Proposal parameters

An adequate supply of high Evidence of need Sufficient land with 20% margin overquality housing Evidence of effective demand 5 years in accessible locations

Evidence of housing supply by Target for housing provision andmarket area by time improvement by market by timeEvidence of land supply Quality, size criteriaEvidence of condition

Access for all to housing Evidence of need Target for affordable supply by time bysuitable and affordable Evidence of affordability area

Evidence of price structure and Affordability requirements ratioaffordable supply need

A range of facilities social Evidence of distribution, quality, Targets for provision by time by localitycommercial that meet the needs capacity and ownership Funding arrangementsof the whole community in an Evidence of demand Integration criteriaintegrated manner Evidence of accessibility*

Evidence of site supplyThe timely provision of Evidence of capacity Targets for provision by locality/site byresilient and adaptable Evidence of planned provision timeinfrastructure and minerals Evidence of demand and marketsupplies to support all areascommunitiesA high quality of urban design Evidence of recent quality Design criteriaand the provision of convivial Evidence of vitality and viability Design guidelines/codesurban environments that are of neighbourhoods and localitiesadaptable inclusive and support Evidence of charactersocial and economic diversityA range of economic Evidence of economic structure Targets for land and site supply by timeopportunities that are resilient and performance by localityand flexible and enable a good Evidence of need evidence of Priorities for structural and locationalquality of life supply of sites and premises change

Evidence of labour market areas Training and capacity arrangementsemployment rates andoccupational structure (laboursupply)Evidence of skills and workforcecapacityCoproduced assessment of needIdentification of components ofand opportunities for change(SWOT)

Minimise the use, conserve or Evidence of extent and capacity Targets for reduction in use of nonenhancement of non-renewable of non-renewable capital renewable resourcesresources including the built Evidence of demand Requirements/criteria for enhancement ofheritage Evidence of consumption of non non renewable capital

renewable capital (resources)The efficient and optimum use Evidence of use of renewable Requirements for the utilisation ofof renewable resources resources renewable resources

Capacity and potential ofrenewable resources

The protection and Evidence of biodiversity health Requirements for biodiversity and assetenhancement of biodiversity Mapping of natural assets protectionand natural assets Quantification of asset value Requirements for biodiversity and asset

Characterisation of assets enhancementA secure and healthy food Evidence of food production, Requirement for the protection of foodsupply markets and distribution supply

Evidence of land quality and Provision for change and adaptation tocapacity meet food needsEvidence of poor food Requirement for distribution of fooddistribution areas outlets



Justification for Policy or Policy prescriptions or ProposalSustainable development topic Proposal parameters

The avoidance of significant Evidence of pollution levels by Requirements for mitigation by sourcepollution of the air water and medium by locality and receptorminimise noise Evidence of human impactAvoid development in areas Evidence of risk attached to Requirements for avoiding riskunsuitable due to flooding or areas and sites Criteria for mitigation in exceptionalinstability risks Evidence of impacts of circumstances

foreseeable eventsThe optimum level of Comprehensive accessibility Locational requirements by activity, byaccessibility between analysis and mapping by intensity, by modeenterprises, people and destination, by origin byfacilities. community group

Potential surface mappingThe maximisation of Evidence of health by groups by Requirements for provision ofopportunities for healthy and neighbourhood (LSOA) opportunities for healthy modes of livingsafe modes of living and Evidence of distribution of Requirements for provision of greenmovement and access to green social groups spacespaces Evidence of adoption of healthy

lifestyles by group, locality andcomponents (physical exercise,diet etc)Evidence of quality, scale andlocation of green space

8 September 2011

Written evidence submitted by Anglian Water Services Limited

We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Environmental Audit Committee inquiry into sustainabledevelopment in the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Anglian region is one of the fastest growing in the UK, with a population forecast to grow by around0.75% per annum—the equivalent of a town the size of Peterborough every five years. Our long term strategy1

recognises that this level of growth and the associated impacts of climate change are two of the most importantchallenges that we face in our region.

Through our Love Every Drop campaign, launched last year, we are working with our customers,communities and stakeholders to address these issues and ensure a sustainable future for our region. We thinkthere are a number of ways that the NPPF could help achieve this and I enclose a note to explain these in moredetail. In summary:

— We welcome the inclusion of a clear definition of sustainable development within the NPPFbut would like to see it aligned with the principles set out in the UK Sustainable developmentstrategy to avoid confusion.

— A clear definition of sustainable development in the NPPF, which has cross-departmentalsupport throughout Government, is particularly important for meeting the no deteriorationrequirement of the Water Framework Directive sustainably.

— We support the core principle underpinning the NPPF that planning should be genuinely plan-led, and we believe that the presumption in favour of sustainable development contradicts thisprinciple. Therefore, we feel that the presumption should be removed.

— The core principles set out within the NPPF already set a clear expectation on planningauthorities to plan positively to promote development. However, we feel that these principlesshould be further strengthened by establishing a statutory basis for the NPPF within theLocalism Bill.

— Should the presumption remain we feel that it would become imperative that water andsewerage companies be granted a statutory right to be consulted over planning applications.

— We would like to see sustainable drainage and water efficiency measures covered in theguidance to support the preparation of local plans and development management.

I hope that our comments are useful in your inquiry. We would be very happy to give oral evidence orprovide any further information if this would be helpful.1 Anglian Water (2008) Strategic Direction Statement.

http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/about-us/statutory-reports/strategic-direction/



Anglian Water and the National Planning Policy Framework

Cross-Government support for a clear definition of sustainable development

We welcome the inclusion of a clear definition of sustainable development within the framework. However,we note the differences between the principles set out in the NPPF, and the five principles set out within theUK sustainable development strategy. We recognise the importance of having a definition of sustainabledevelopment within the NPPF that has cross-departmental support throughout Government, and we like to seethese two definitions aligned.

The need for a plan-led system

We support the core principles that underpin the NPPF, in particular that planning should be genuinely plan-led, and that plans should be kept up to date. These principles are vital for effective planning and the timelyprovision of the water and wastewater infrastructure.

We also agree that there is a need for succinct local plans that set out a long term vision for an area.Complexity within the current system has delayed the preparation of strategic planning documents resulting inuncertainty for infrastructure providers. However, we would like to acknowledge that steady progress is nowbeing made on these plans by many Local Authorities in our region.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development

We have significant concerns regarding the emphasis placed on the presumption as a “golden thread” runningthrough both plan making and decision taking. We think that the potential to circumvent local plans contradictsthe core principal of a plan-led system, may be a disincentive to the development of local plans, and coulddivert planning away from many of the principles of empowerment that define Localism. Therefore, we feelthat the presumption should be removed from the NPPF.

We support the principle behind the presumption for planning positively to promote development, and asinfrastructure providers we will continue to work with planners to ensure this. We believe that the coreprinciples set out within the NPPF already set a clear expectation for this. In particular, the principle that “localplanning authorities should be proactive in driving and supporting the development that this country needs” isvery clear. However, we do feel that these principles should be further strengthened by giving the NPPF astatutory basis within the Localism Bill.

In support of this, as with local development frameworks, we would wish to continue to be a statutoryconsultee for local plans. In addition, we also support the view that water and sewerage companies shouldhave a statutory right to be consulted over planning applications, which was recently recommended by theEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee after their inquiry into Future Flood and WaterManagement Legislation.2

Should the presumption remain, due to the “right to connect” (established in the Water Industry Act) wehave significant concerns for the potential impact on sewerage systems. Therefore, if the presumption were toremain within the NPPF it would become imperative to us that this statutory right for water and seweragecompanies to be consulted is granted.

A statutory basis for the NPPF

We note the recommendation of the NPPF Practitioners Advisory Group that the NPPF should be rigorouslyenforced by Government. However, we would seek to go further by establishing a statutory basis for it withinthe Localism Bill. We consider this to be important given the fundamental nature of the policy contained withinthe NPPF. In particular, the need for a plan led system and the definition of sustainable development.

Water Planning and the National Planning Policy Framework

The Water Framework Directive

A clear definition of sustainable development, which has cross-departmental support throughout Government,is particularly important for meeting the no deterioration requirement of the Water Framework Directive(WFD) sustainably.

Investment to ensure “no deterioration” will primarily be triggered by growth, and resulting obligations tocomply with the Directive are not subject to cost benefit assessment. Therefore, this requirement of theDirective has the potential to drive a need for energy intensive wastewater treatment, which is normallyreserved for the purification of drinking water.

“No deterioration” results in a dichotomy between environmental limits set to maintain local river waterquality, and the global impact of greenhouse gas emissions from the treatment processes required to meet them.This presents a significant challenge to sustainable development.2 EFRA (2010) Future Flood and Water Management Legislation; First Report of Session 2010–11.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenvfru/522/52206.htm#a23



There is very little flexibility for application of the ‘no deterioration’ principle, but Article 4.7 of theDirective may permit some deterioration from ‘high’ to ‘good’ status (the latter being the target) where certainconditions are met. One of these is for “sustainable new human development activities.”

Article 4.7 recognises that where conditions are met, some deterioration will enable more sustainable growth.However, the Directive does not define what is sustainable. Therefore, without a clear requirement forsustainable development in the planning context, which meets the requirement for sustainable development inthe WFD, an opportunity to enable more sustainable growth will be missed.

We strongly believe that the definition of sustainable development contained within the NPPF must apply tothe context of the WFD. This consideration is supported by our view that the NPPF should contain a definitionof sustainable that is aligned with the UK sustainable development strategy, which has cross departmentalsupport throughout Government.

Currently there is no established process for enabling derogation under Article 4.7 of the Directive. However,we consider the above measures to be vital if this process is to support planning decisions quickly andeffectively once it is in place.

Climate change, flooding and the carbon reduction challenge

We welcome the aim within the NPPF to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gasses. We have publishedsimilar aims for reducing our embodied and operational carbon.3 We also welcome NPPF guidance for localplanning authorities to adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change. We consider itimportant to the future sustainability of our region that these strategies promote water efficiency, which isinextricably linked with carbon mitigation. They should also promote sustainable drainage, which will be vitalfor adaptation to climate change if we are to manage flooding effectively.

We note the recommendations of the NPPF Practitioners Advisory Group on the provision of guidance tosupport the preparation of local plans and for development management. We recommend that this guidancecovers sustainable drainage and water efficiency measures.

9 September 2011

Written evidence submitted by CHILDREN with CANCER UK

Introduction

CHILDREN with CANCER UK is the leading national charity dedicated to the fight against childhoodleukaemia and other childhood cancers. We fund life-saving research into the causes, prevention and treatmentof childhood cancer and we work to protect young lives through essential welfare and campaigningprogrammes.

Leukaemia is the most common childhood cancer and accounts for one third of all cases. Around 500children are diagnosed every year in the UK and, although treatments have improved dramatically in recentyears, tragically 100 children will not survive and the remainder go through several years of gruelling treatment.

We campaign to protect children at risk of developing leukaemia and other cancers and seek to raiseawareness of the association between leukaemia and high voltage overhead power lines. Electric and MagneticFields (EMFs) are produced by electrical power wherever electricity is generated, distributed or used. Highvoltage overhead power lines produce elevated levels of EMFs.

We ask Government to protect children and young people by preventing them from being exposed to thepotentially harmful EMFs associated with high voltage overhead power lines.

Summary

— CHILDREN with CANCER UK broadly supports Government’s vision of sustainabledevelopment.

— Further clarification is sought regarding the guidance to be made available for the NationalPlanning Policy Framework (the Framework), Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans to includereferences to the health of communities.

— A negative impact upon the health of a community should be considered as an adverse impact andtherefore, where it exists, should reverse the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

— The wording of the core principles in the Framework should be altered to state that planningpolicies must take account of and support local strategies to improve health and well-being. Thisalso applies to the wording where it states that Local Authorities should work with public healthleads and health organisations.

3 http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/_assets/media/greenhouse-gas-emissions-annual-report2011.pdf



— Extension of the requirement for evidence-gathering and consultation for applications to installcommunications infrastructure should be extended to include the installation of energyinfrastructure including high voltage overhead power lines.

Response

1. CHILDREN with CANCER UK broadly supports Government’s vision of sustainable development.Within the definition of delivering sustainable development, recognition of the role of the planning system topromote strong, vibrant and healthy communities is particularly encouraging. Further, it determines thatdevelopment should reflect the community’s needs and supports its health and well-being.

2. The link between an increased incidence of childhood leukaemia and living near high voltage overheadpower lines from birth is well documented; it is critical that such health issues are considered within theplanning system in order to ensure that development not only meets the needs of the present but also does notimpact negatively on the health of future generations.

3. While the Framework outlines the meaning of sustainable development and includes a social role under“planning for people”, it fails to clarify how the promotion of a healthy community will manifest itself beyondthe need for Local Authorities to work with public health leads and health organisations. We seek furtherclarification from Government as to what guidance will be made available to ensure that the Framework, LocalPlans or Neighbourhood Plans will include references to the health of communities.

4. We would like to register our concern at the lack of a reference to health concerns as an adverse impact.Specifically, and with reference to paragraph 14 of the Framework, we believe that, where a development couldhave an adverse impact on the health and well-being of a community, this should be expressly noted withinthe Framework as an adverse impact which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. As aresult, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply.

5. We acknowledge that the Framework states within its core planning principles that planning policies anddecisions should take account of, and support, local strategies to improve health and well-being. We believe,however, that the wording should be strengthened to state that they must take account of and support localstrategies to improve health and well-being.

6. We seek further clarification from Government as to what constitutes a local strategy to improve healthand well-being. CHILDREN with CANCER UK campaigns for the implementation of precautionary measures,including a moratorium on the construction of new homes and schools within 200m of existing high voltageoverhead power lines, and vice versa, whilst further research is undertaken in order to protect children fromthe potential of developing leukaemia. It is important that all relevant organisations are properly consultedwithin the planning process and that the evidence they provide is incorporated into local planning documentsand strategies.

7. We believe that public health issues should be given full consideration in all planning applications andwe call for public health impact assessments to be undertaken alongside all planning applications. We ask thatsuch assessments take into account the proximity of high voltage overhead power lines to homes and schools.

8. CHILDREN with CANCER UK believes that all development should be sustainable. It is important that,with the expansion of energy production required for the UK to meet its growing energy demands, newdevelopment is carried out in a manner that acknowledges and mitigates the potentially hazardous healthimpacts of exposure to EMFs from high voltage overhead power lines.

9. In particular, we would like to highlight the fact that the Framework specifically mentions communicationsinfrastructure, but does not mention energy infrastructure. While we do not wish to comment on the inclusionof communications infrastructure within the Framework, we do call on Government to extend the samerequirements for consultation and evidence-gathering to energy infrastructure.

9 September 2011

Written evidence submitted by the RSPB

Sustainable Development in the National Planning Policy Framework

The RSPB welcomes the opportunity to provide evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee inquiryinto sustainable development in the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This written evidencecomplements our parallel submission on the NPPF to the Communities and Local Government SelectCommittee.

Summary

— The draft NPPF in its present form is not fit for purpose. Although it contains a number ofpositive environmental policies, these are fatally undermined by the presumption in favour ofsustainable development and an overriding emphasis on economic growth.



— The definition of sustainable development should be based on the guiding principles of the UKSustainable Development Strategy (Securing the Future, 2005), in particular the need to live withinenvironmental limits.

— As it stands, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is little more than apresumption in favour of development. This emphasis is continued through the rest of thedocument. Instead, the presumption should link back to a robust definition as above.

— The draft NPPF may make it harder to refuse environmentally-damaging development,including those that threaten nationally-important wildlife sites.

— The NPPF fails to embed a spatial planning approach, which is essential for delivering sustainabledevelopment. This is dealt with in more detail in our submission to the Communities and LocalGovernment Committee.

Sustainable Development and the Planning System

1. The RSPB believes that the need for genuine sustainable development is unequivocal. This requiresintegrating, rather than trading-off, environmental, social and economic objectives. Particularly now, at a timeof economic difficulty, the planning system must be used to help deliver economic development that does notcome at the expense of long-term environmental, social and economic goals.

2. The consequences of pursuing development that is driven by one particular need, without fully consideringwider or future impacts, are becoming all too apparent; the global climate is changing as a result of ourdependence on fossil fuels, whilst in England 45% of priority habitats are declining, alongside 29% of priorityspecies.4 The natural world, its biodiversity and its constituent ecosystems are critically important to bothour well-being and economic prosperity. As the UK National Ecosystems Assessment (UK NEA) found, thenatural environment is critically important to both our well-being and economic prosperity, and must thereforebe given requisite value in decision-making. The longer we pursue unsustainable development, the morefrequent, severe and irreparable its consequences are likely to become.

3. The planning system is the foremost mechanism for ensuring that development is sustainable. As nationalpolicy, the content of the NPPF will set the tone for planning policy at the local level, meaning its content willheavily influence decision making “on the ground”.

4. The Making Space for Nature report (the “Lawton review”) and the UK NEA found that much of thedecline in England’s biodiversity and the UK’s ecosystem services can be attributed to the fragmentation andloss of habitats, often caused by inappropriately located, poor quality development. Strategic spatial planning,however, can ensure that the right type of development is located in the right place, avoiding this kind ofunnecessary damage.

Is the Draft NPPF Fit for Purpose?

5. The draft NPPF in its present form is not fit for purpose. Although it contains a number of positiveenvironmental policies, these are fatally undermined by the presumption in favour of sustainable developmentand an overriding emphasis on economic growth.

Definition of Sustainable Development

6. The definition of sustainable development in paragraphs 9–11 of the NPPF should be based on the guidingprinciples of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy (Securing the Future, 2005). These five widely-accepted principles provide a common framework for sustainable development, and establish the twin goals ofliving within environmental limits and providing a just society by means of good governance, sound scienceand a sustainable economy. The RSPB believes that this definition should also have a legal underpinningthrough the Localism Bill.

7. These five principles should be at the heart of the planning system and be seen as a golden thread runningthrough both plan- and decision-making, but at present, that is far from being the case. For example, the NPPFlacks any explicit reference to living within environmental limits. Although there is implicit reference throughpolicies such as on carbon, the fundamental importance of environmental limits, including those for biodiversity(as discussed further below) needs highlighting in the opening sections of the NPPF.

8. Beyond the definition of sustainable development, the NPPF as a whole does not consistently set out aclear vision for planning that has the delivery of sustainable development as its primary purpose. Throughoutthe draft NPPF, the language used in relation to the environment is either timid in comparison to that used forthe economy and housing, or in many cases, reference to the environment is simply absent. For example,although the Development Management section requires local authorities to attach significant weight to thebenefits of economic and housing growth, it fails to mention explicitly environmental or social considerations.A more even-handed expression of environmental, social and economic needs would be more effective inencouraging the planning system to deliver the integration it is capable of.4 JNCC (2008) The UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Highlights from the 2008 reporting round.



9. We welcome the reference to the needs of future generations, the importance of the environmental role ofplanning, and especially the recognition that the components of the sustainable development should be “pursuedin an integrated way, looking for solutions which deliver multiple goals” (paragraph 11).

10. Paragraphs 9–11 define sustainable development (inadequately), but the statement in paragraph 12implies that sustainable development is defined by all the policies in the NPPF, when taken as a whole. Thisis ambiguous and is likely to give rise to legal confusion in the light of the contradiction between the definitionin paragraphs 9–11 and the content of the presumption section, as explained below.

11. Paragraph 8 helpfully states that “The Framework should be read an interpreted as a whole.” The RSPBtherefore recommends that paragraph 12 is deleted.

Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

12. In a radical departure from existing definitions, such as in Planning Policy Statement 1 (DeliveringSustainable Development, 2005), the Brundtland Report (Our Common Future (1987), Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press) and the UK Sustainable Development Strategy (Securing the Future, 2005), the presumptionin favour of sustainable development gives the need to support economic growth clear primacy over social andeconomic objectives.

13. The only reference to environmental considerations in the section on the presumption (paragraphs 13–18)refers to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives (paragraph 16), which is of course a legalobligation under European law. This welcome reference aside, there is not a single mention in this section ofthe need to integrate economic and housing growth with environmental and social considerations, or the needto plan positively for the environment.

14. The text that accompanies the presumption, amounts to an alternative interpretation of sustainabledevelopment, and is contrary even to the inadequate earlier definition of sustainable development set out inparagraphs 9–11. Furthermore, it is the text of the presumption and its emphasis on development that are givenprominence throughout the rest of the document.

15. It is vitally important that the NPPF does not conflate, nor substitute, sustainable development witheconomic growth. The RSPB does not object to increased levels of development, such as the housing andenergy infrastructure that the country needs, but development is not, however, inherently sustainable. It onlybecomes sustainable if it incorporates environmental and social considerations. Likewise, economic growthalone does not constitute sustainable development. There is a clear distinction between economic growth andeconomic growth that is compatible with social and environmental objectives.

16. To effectively safeguard environmental limits, the planning system should deliver as much developmentas possible through development plans. Through Strategic Environment Assessment and a robust evidencebase, a development plan can set out the amount of development that is needed, whilst also ensuring that thislevel of development does not exceed environmental limits.

17. An effective plan-led system is predicated on the fact that planning authorities can, where necessary,refuse development that sits outside that which is planned for, where it would not constitute sustainabledevelopment (as defined by an appropriate definition). An intelligent, plan-led system can deliver the necessarylevels of development that the country needs, in a sustainable way. A planning system where the default answeris “yes”, will soon lead to an unnecessary breaching of environmental limits, as the burden of ad hocdevelopment becomes too great for the environment to bear.

18. Paragraph 14 states that local authorities would be required to “grant permission for an applicationwhere the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date.” At a time whenlocal planning authorities are being forced to operate at reduced capacity, such a policy could perversely punishlocal communities with unsustainable development, simply because their planning authority is under-resourcedand is unable to progress its plan.

19. The RSPB recommends that the 3rd bullet of paragraph 14 should state: “Not refuse permission simplybecause the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out-of-date.”

20. As it stands, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is little more than a presumption infavour of development. Given that many development proposals result from economic drivers, under thepresumption almost all proposals could be considered sustainable, regardless of their wider impact. We arevery concerned that if the presumption, as currently drafted, is allowed to run as a “golden thread” through theplanning system, it will become more difficult to refuse planning applications for development on wildlife sitesthat do not benefit from the highest level of protection.

21. Together with the proposed Clause 130 in the Localism Bill, the presumption threatens to undermine thevery integrity of the planning system as something that operates in the interests of the public and of futuregenerations, rather than simply in the short-term interests of business. The presumption in favour of sustainabledevelopment must therefore be significantly amended and linked back to an appropriate definition of sustainabledevelopment, as articulated in the 2005 sustainable development strategy.



The Presumption and the Natural Environment

22. Text from the presumption is unnecessarily repeated in other sections of the document, includingparagraphs 165 and 169 in the Natural Environment chapter. The RSPB believes that these repetitions shouldall be deleted. For example, paragraph 169 states that, “When determining planning applications in accordancewith the Local Plan and the presumption in favour of sustainable development [emphasis added], localplanning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles...”This reference to the presumption is unnecessary and introduces circularity back to the presumption that whollyundermines the subsequent policies. Furthermore, this circularity also undermines the caveat included with thepresumption, to the point where it becomes almost meaningless.

23. Although wildlife sites protected by European law will be unaffected, the presumption could make itmore difficult for local authorities to refuse an application that would damage other wildlife sites, includingSites of Special Scientific Interest, unless it could be proved that the “adverse impacts of allowing developmentwould significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in theFramework taken as a whole” (paragraph 14). This requirement “lowers the bar” to damaging development,especially when compared to the wording of the Practitioners Advisory Group text, which simply stated “Thispresumption should apply unless to do so would cause significant harm to the objectives, principles and policiesset out in this NPPF.” With such an emphasis placed on the benefits of economic growth, it will be harder fora local authority to prove adverse impacts within such a context and to subsequently refuse an application.

24. Broadly speaking, with a few exceptions, although the policies for the natural environment contained inthe NPPF are much more concise, they are similar in intent to existing Government policy. The overridingissue is the extent to which they are undermined by the presumption in favour of sustainable development, asdiscussed above.

Wider Issues that Influence the Delivery of Sustainable Development

25. Our response to the Communities and Local Government Committee deals in more detail with a numberof issues which could potentially influence the delivery of sustainable development, such as the need foreffective spatial and strategic planning.

12 September 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Royal Town Planning Institute

Introduction and Summary

1. The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) has over 23,000 members who work in the public, private,voluntary and education sectors. It is a charity whose purpose is to develop the art and science of town planningfor the benefit of the public. The RTPI develops and shapes policy affecting the built environment, works toraise professional standards and supports members through continuous education, practice advice, trainingand development.

2. We run Planning Aid for England—supporting communities and individuals through a locally-basednetwork of 1,200 RTPI members who give their time and expertise free of charge—a service at the heartof localism.

3. The following evidence is condensed from our submission to the concurrent Communities and LocalGovernment Select Committee inquiry, focussing on issues most relevant to sustainable development.

4. We support many of the objectives underlying proposals for planning reform, including the principle of asingle National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that helps to reduce conflict and duplication, separate thepresentation of policy from evidence and practice advice, and renew the drive to ensure that objectivelyassessed development needs are provided for in a sustainable manner through the planning system.

5. We welcome proposals that reaffirm the importance of planning in enabling communities to develop theirown vision for the future of their area, provide the means to decide on priorities for investment, and tackle thechallenges of climate change, sustainable economic growth and social inequity. The role of planning is tosuccessfully balance these factors: this is the key delivery mechanism for sustainable development.

6. Within this overall position, we have five main areas of concern with the NPPF:

(i) Status: The status of and procedures for producing and reviewing the NPPF need to be embodiedin statute to ensure proper public debate of issues and restore democratic accountability, as is thecase for National Policy Statements (NPSs) for infrastructure.

(ii) Language: Large parts of the NPPF policies are ambiguous, as is evidenced by the differentinterpretations put on policies by government, conservation bodies and others.

(iii) Change management: The changes proposed in the NPPF are significant and cannot practicably beassimilated by councils, developers or communities in the intended timetable without unintendedconsequences—as with the implementation of the proposals of the Localism Bill, there is a needfor careful change management including a transitionary phase.



(iv) Spatial content: The NPPF misses an opportunity to express a vision for the development of thecountry as a whole, recognising the different impacts policies will have in different parts of thecountry, which runs counter to government commitments, such as that “prosperity must be sharedacross all parts of the UK” (Plan for Growth, p 3).

(v) Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development: In principle, this is an evolution of theexisting presumption in favour of development that accords with a development plan, but containsweaknesses that may result in unintended consequences.

7. These points and other key areas of concern are covered in more detail in our submission to the CLGSelect Committee, and more so in our final response to the NPPF consultation.

8. It should be noted that the procedures proposed to approve the NPPF do not require a sustainabilityappraisal or similar, although this was required for other national policy documents, such as the National PolicyStatements for Energy Infrastructure.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumptionin favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach?

Definition

9. The RTPI is pleased to see the retention of the Bruntland definition of sustainable development, and thethree pillars of sustainability. Their translation into economic, social and environmental “roles” thatsubsequently structure the framework helps to make the document accessible.

10. The conflation of “sustainable development” with “sustainable economic growth” is unfortunate:“sustainable economic growth” relates to growth than can be maintained from an economic perspective, but itdoes not have the same values attached to it as “sustainable development”. Problems with this are emphasisedby the assertion in the foreword that “development means growth”. The two words are not synonymous: achange of use is development and can have impacts both positive and negative, but does not necessarily leadto any growth; conversely, economic growth can result from using property more effectively even withoutphysical development or a change of use.

11. The clarity of the Bruntland definition is, however, not assisted by reinterpretations such as that “Simplystated” at the end of paragraph 9 (especially with the use of the nebulous concept of “quality of life”) and inthe “Easier to Read Summary”.

Presumption

12. “The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development” is an evolution of the existing presumptionin favour of development that accords with a development plan. Along with aspects of the Localism Bill, thisretains the general primacy of development plans in decision-making, which is welcomed.

13. However, the application of the presumption is not fully thought through, and its implications—particularly in terms of the impact on the validity of local plans—will have unintended consequences withouteither a thorough re-think or careful transitional arrangements.

14. We will in our main consultation response examine:

— how local plans can meet development needs when there is not the physical capacity to do so(recognising the “duty to cooperate”);

— the need for policies to provide “sufficient flexibility”, when section 38(6) of the 2004 Actprovides for this by default; and

— the meaning of “rapid shifts in demand or other economic changes”, and whether it issustainable for evidence-based, community-supported, long-term plans to be set aside to meetshort-term demands the consequences of which may be irreversible.

15. The key concerns with the presumption relate to the third bullet point and concluding sub-paragraph.

16. In particular the terms “absent”, “silent”, “indeterminate” and “out-of-date” require definition, as doesthe application of “plan” and “relevant policies” to these qualifications. The risk of a plan being set asidebecause it is “silent” may lead to unintended consequences:

— The revocation of regional strategies and the slimming down of national policy could putthose councils who have diligently avoided repeating national/regional policy in their localplans in a more difficult situation than those who have either not produced modern-style plansor disregarded advice and produced lengthy, cumbersome and repetitive plans.

— Councils may choose to revert to the practice of trying to address every eventuality throughtheir development plans, thereby undoing a decade of work, slowing down plan productionand increasing their volume.



17. We recognise that paragraph 26 of the Framework is intended to be helpful with regard to plans being“up-to-date” with its reference to councils seeking a “certificate of conformity” with the Framework. Thisconcept, however, requires considerable clarification, not least with regard to its resourcing, but also whethersuch certificates will:

— apply to whole plans or individual policies;

— be required to prove validity, and will necessarily prove validity beyond doubt; and

— need to be regularly reviewed.

18. The critical weakness with the presumption is the unintended consequences associated with the amountof change being proposed to national policy, and the likelihood that any local plans will be able to be definedas being in accordance with it upon its approval. A policy change that will have a particular impact in thisregard is the requirement for plans to identify 20% more housing land than is indicated by their assessmentsof need. As few plans currently do this, and it will take time for plans currently going through the system torespond, a very high proportion of plans will not conform with the NPPF. It has been long established that oneof the principles of the presumption was to encourage councils to produce plans to avoid the loss of localdiscretion over planning decisions. However, if the introduction of the NPPF itself immediately renders evenrecently approved plans out-of-date, then there is no incentive for councils to complete plans until the NPPFis in place, and those councils that have produced plans may not be in a better position than those that havenot. This emphasises the case for a transitional period.

19. Where there is not an up-to-date plan, this could mean that the policies of the NPPF cannot apply. Forexample, government statements have been very clear that the NPPF retains control of development in theGreen Belt. However, there cannot be any defined Green Belt in an area without an up-to-date plan, since theboundaries of Green Belt are defined in local plans, and the general extent and location of Green Belt will nolonger be defined in PPG2 (superseded by the NPPF) or the regional strategies (revoked).

20. The usefulness of the presumption is weakened by its failure to recognise that the approval of proposalsthat do not accord with statutory plans could undermine the delivery of those that do, thereby prejudicing well-intentioned investments. It is not sufficient for presumption only to be positive about development that accordswith plans: it needs to support such development by clearly giving councils the authority to block proposalsthat could prejudice the delivery of their strategies.

21. Not only is support for unplanned development disadvantageous from the point of view of investmentand community aspiration, but also from the point of view of sustainability. Proposals made in a developmentplan will have been subject to sustainability appraisal, including an assessment of alternatives. As such,development plan proposals will usually be demonstrably the most sustainable option.

Summary of Other Key Issues Relevant to Sustainability

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?

22. The draft NPPF does not give sufficient guidance as the language used is ambiguous and there areinternal inconsistencies. This is highlighted by the public debate between conservation/environment groups andgovernment in the national press. If intelligent and informed actors in the system, advised by planning andlegal experts, can arrive at such wildly differing interpretations of policy, then there is clearly something wrong,and this will hardly result in the clearer and more effective planning that all parties seek. Particular effort mustbe given to ensuring that the wording of policies is technically precise to avoid misinterpretation, which couldlead to less sustainable development.

23. One example of inconsistent and unclear language in the NPPF relates to the weight to be accorded todifferent factors in planning decisions, as follows:

— “significant weight” applied to supporting economic growth;

— “great weight” to be given to protecting landscape and scenic quality;

— “substantial weight” to apply to green belt harm; and

— “considerable importance and weight” to apply to conserving heritage assets.

24. The NPPF gives no indication as to how different investors or decision makers will be expected tobalance these different weights in individual cases. However, the rhetoric surrounding the NPPF (eg that thealleged default “no” response to applications should become “yes”) is interpreted by some to imply that the“significant weight” to be applied to supporting economic growth is expected to outweigh the weights to beapplied the other factors.

25. The government asserts that this is not intended to be the case, but the policy does not give a cleardirection in favour of conservation should the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” apply as aresult of the lack of an up-to-date policy, even if there are alternative sites that could deliver the same benefitswith less or no harm. Such circumstances are the root of the environment/conservation lobby’s concerns.



26. Another example relates to the sections in the foreword which talks about improvements to natural andhistoric aspects of the environment, but does not mention their conservation at all. This creates a context withinwhich development of part of an asset is considered desirable—and even preferable to conservation—in orderto allow the “improvement” of another part. While “enabling development” can be desirable to secureconservation objectives, improvements are not always either necessary or wanted.

27. The popular concern that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is all about pushingunwanted schemes through the system is not helped by the government’s stated expectation of “a system wherethe default answer to development is ‘yes’.” However, as the government has stated publicly that while good,sustainable development should be approved and harmful, unsustainable development should not, this sentimentshould be clearly reflected in the NPPF, and with reference to local policy as well as to the national policiesof the Framework.

Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed?

28. In general the core planning principles in paragraph 19 are expressed well, and these are supported bygeneral statements of the purpose and function of planning elsewhere in the framework. The positiverepresentation of the role of planning is particularly welcome.

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?

29. The relationship is clear: that the NPPF is just one of many national policy documents, produced by avariety of departments, with no obvious coordination. The National Policy Statements for infrastructure wouldseem to carry more weight because of their statutory basis, and the fact that they have been subject to a definedconsultation and parliamentary debate procedure, and to appraisals of their sustainability.

30. Because the NPPF does not have a geographic basis, it does not provide a context within which tointegrate other national policies, particularly with regard to locating new infrastructure development in relationto new areas of growth. This also weakens the NPPF’s ability to respond to and coordinate with the plans ofthe other UK nations and with the marine spatial planning programme.

Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger-than-localstrategic planning?

31. It can reasonably be argued that the duty to cooperate, which the RTPI has supported in principle as ameans to enable cross-boundary planning in the absence of nationally imposed sub-national planning structures,will not operate effectively without a geographical element to the NPPF.

32. There are aspects of both economic and housing development that require a nationally defined and agreedvision, and which cannot be fully achieved by the voluntary actions of individual authorities or tinkering withuncoordinated enterprise zones.

33. In particular, this relates to the interventions necessary to address disparities between different parts ofthe UK, including the planning of infrastructure to support this.

34. As currently drafted, the NPPF relies on councils responding to demand in their areas, with nointerventions to influence that demand where meeting it would be unsustainable or impossible due to physicalconstraints or environmental capacity. In many cases, this may be achieved by authorities working together toenable needs arising in one area to be met in another, but it will be a challenge for cities as large as Londonor Birmingham to secure the cooperation of those outside their boundaries necessary to sustainably addressneed or demand without some form of higher-level incentives or interventions.

Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based?

35. It is difficult to assess fully the extent to which it is evidence-based because the evidence cited, such asit is, is often not entirely accessible. However, the Impact Assessment would seem to indicate that a lot ofpolicy is based on what the government believes, rather than what evidence necessarily shows to be the case.

Further Commentary

The NPPF: what should it contain?

36. The RTPI believes that the NPPF needs to have five characteristics in addition to simply introducing thepresumption in favour of sustainable development and condensing existing policy documents in order to ensurepositive and sustainable development. These are:

— bringing together all existing designations that inform decisions on major planning issues,including national designations such as National Parks and Areas of Outstanding NaturalBeauty, international designations such as Ramsar Sites, and national and internationalinfrastructure networks;



— enabling more informed decisions by Ministers and Parliament by expressing specific nationalproposals such as HS2 and the locations of new nuclear power stations within a widerpolicy context;

— enabling more informed policy and decision making by setting out recognised geographicconstraints on development, such as flood plains and areas of water stress;

— addressing those Government policies that are focused on different parts of the country, suchas those on re-balancing the economy and the development of economic clusters; and

— importantly, recognising that nearly all national policy decisions (such as investment in majorresearch centres) have different impacts in different parts of the country and spelling theseimpacts out.

Final Comments

37. Where in this submission we have identified an issue of concern, we are currently working on suggestionsfor ways in which the issue can be addressed.

22 September 2011

Written evidence submitted by RenewableUK

1. Introduction

1.1 RenewableUK welcomes the reference to sustainable development in the NPPF, as well as the positiveprovisions which provide some support for renewable energy included in the draft NPPF. However, in our viewboth the definition of sustainable development and the renewable energy provisions need to be strengthened.It is important to find the right balance in the NPPF in order to ensure that the provision of clear and necessarydirection on national policy priorities, including sustainable development, and appropriate planning proceduresare not lost in the pursuit of a single, streamlined document.

Context: The Role of Renewables in Sustainable Development

1.2 Renewable energy is a vital planning matter and has a crucial role to play in achieving sustainabledevelopment. This should be clearly recognised in the NPPF. Through providing clean, green energy, it willhelp the UK develop a new, sustainable energy infrastructure in order to reduce carbon emissions from theenergy sector; maintain security of energy supplies and contribute to carbon reduction obligations.

1.3 We believe that the UK’s renewable energy targets will be best met through a diverse mix of developmentwhere well designed projects, that are in general conformity with requirements stated in the NPPF, NationalPolicy Statements(NPSs) for Energy, Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) and where appropriate theMarine Policy Statement (MPS) should be accepted. Failure to deliver the renewable energy investment neededcould leave the UK exposed to infraction proceedings from the European Commission and therefore all areasof England will need to significantly increase their levels of renewable energy generation.

1.4 RenewableUK wishes to emphasise the important role that renewable energy technologies play incontributing to the sustainable development of communities, in reducing the country’s carbon emissions andin mitigating the impacts of climate change. Renewable electricity is planned to contribute at least 30% of theUK’s final electricity consumption by 2020 to enable the UK to deliver its statutory target of achieving 15%of all energy consumption from renewable energy sources, including heat and transport, by 2020.

2. Sustainable Development in the NPPF

2.1 The key purpose of the NPPF should be to define the means to deliver sustainable development throughthe planning system. The NPPF refers to sustainable development as defined in the Brundtland Report—OurCommon Future. RenewableUK agrees that sustainable development is about the interaction of theenvironment, society and the economy. However, the basis of true sustainable development, which is not wellarticulated in the NPPF, is that both the economy and society operate within the limits of the environment. Thedeployment of renewable energy has a pivotal role in ensuring that true sustainable development is achieved.

2.2 Strong sustainability, with renewable energy being one of its main principles, should be the overarchingconcept of the NPPF, and this should be stated very clearly in the document. Only then would the statementin paragraph 11 that “there is not necessarily contradiction between increased levels of development andprotecting and enhancing the environment” be put into true context. Sustainable development is only possibleif development respects the limits of the environment as a finite resource.

2.3 The NPPF refers to sustainable economic growth, however it fails to define it. There is a currentlyrecognised definition in PP4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, which states that it is growth whichis sustained and within environmental limits. Thus sustainable economic growth as used in the NPPF must beconsistent with this existing definition. This would ensure that the full definition of sustainable development is



used in the document. If this is not put into place, it will be impossible to provide for the basic needs of currentand future generations, as expressed in Paragraph 9 of the draft NPPF.

2.4 As currently drafted, the NPPF can be misinterpreted to read that any growth should be encouraged—asstated in paragraph 13 for example. The NPPF needs to clearly state that truly sustainable (in an environmentalas well as an economic sense of the word) growth is to be encouraged, as opposed to any growth. This,according to the Brundtland report means less resource-intensive growth. There are a number of otherreferences to encouraging growth throughout the NPPF, such as in Paragraphs 10, 14 and 17, which need tobe clarified in the same way.

3. Larger-than-local Strategic Planning

3.1 As outlined in RenewableUK’s comments to the DCLG committee on the NPPF inquiry, it is our viewthat provisions on joint planning between local authorities need to be strengthened, together with the Duty toCo-operate under the Localism Bill. Apart from leading to better energy infrastructure planning, such anapproach would also ensure that sustainable development considerations, including climate change issues andenvironmental limits can also be viewed in a global sense, ensuring that impacts that occur beyond the locallevel are taken into account in planning and decision making.

4. Summary

4.1 RenewableUK’s view on the way sustainable development is addressed in the NPPF can be summarisedas follows:

— The full definition of sustainable development needs to be used, including a recognition thatthe economy and society operate within environmental limits.

— The vital role of renewable energy in sustainable development needs to be clearly stated inthe NPPF.

— The recognised definition of sustainable economic growth needs to be used, which alsorecognises environmental limits.

— The Duty to Co-operate and joint planning between local authorities needs to be strengthenedin the NPPF and Localism Bill.

22 September 2011

Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Rt Hon Greg Clark MP,Department for Communities and Local Government

During my evidence session, you asked for further information on how Government assessed the likelyimpacts of the draft National Planning Policy Framework, and in particular whether the valuing ecosystemservices methodology was taken into account.

The consultation stage impact assessment was, as I had understood, carried out in consultation with DEFRA,and drew on evidence from the UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2011, the independent review of England’swildlife sites and ecological network chaired by Professor Sir John Lawton in 2010, and recent academicevidence on the amenity value of English nature.

The next stage is the final assessment which develops the analysis further, monetising where possible theenvironmental, social and economic aspects of the proposals. Again this will be conducted in close consultationwith DEFRA, including taking the valuing eco-systems methodology into account.

The consultation stage assessment was completed in accordance with the cross-Government guidance issuedby the Better Regulation Executive and in consultation with DEFRA and other departments. It was submittedto the Regulatory Policy Committee for independent scrutiny, who concluded it was fit for purpose.

19 October 2011

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited11/2011 016527 19585

PEFC/16-33-622

Sustainable Development in the National Planning Policy ... › pa › cm201012 › cmselect ›...

Documents

Transcript of Sustainable Development in the National Planning Policy ... › pa › cm201012 › cmselect ›...